Jibe* - personal pet peeve of mine!
I don't really think that's an apples to apples comparison, but I'll answer the best I can. Unions, provide a collective service to their party members by fighting to make sure they're paid commiserate with what they perceive to be their market value. I don't agree that they should be allowed to donate large swaths of money to any party or candidate, but I believe that about any collective unit - churches, corporations, etc. These two gentlemen are trying to fundamentally change a key tenet of the US - the separation of church and state. I vehemently oppose any attempts at trying to blur those lines and incorporate religious doctrine/beliefs/dogma into the state apparatus.
If the Union leaders came out saying they want to do the exact thing that Wilks/Dunn are doing, then yeah i'd be right there with you. I mainly want to illustrate that my main issue with this whole fiasco - beyond the undeniable fact that money/wealth has way too much influence in politics - is the casual erosion of the separation of church and state.