Union Dues for Politics? Ask Members First

What would happen if every year, the chairmen of America’s Fortune 500 companies were forced to turn over a portion of their paychecks to politicians to pay for their election campaigns, whether they supported those campaigns or not?

A wave of outrage would wash over the nation, and Congress would quickly step in to ban a practice that resulted in political contributions taken from America’s elite without their consent.

But this type of extortion happens every year to millions of Californians. Unlike the scenario described above, however, it’s not the rich and powerful who are being forced to fund political campaigns, but California’s working men and women.

Under current law, labor unions may use the dues collected from their members for political campaigns as well as collective bargaining. Unions are not required to obtain the permission of the members to do this, nor are they required to consider the political leanings of the members when doing so.

All of this happens year after year as millions of dollars earned by union members are spent on politics. What, no national outrage? No protests? It seems that when it’s the middle class or the working poor who have their pockets picked instead of those who rely on investments or elected office to provide their income, the silence is deafening.

While there seems to be no end in sight for the rest of America, Californians soon will have the opportunity to end the practice of forcing working people to turn a portion of their paychecks over to the politicians. Last month, activists from Orange County concerned about this problem turned in signatures of more than 740,000 California voters who signed petitions to put the Campaign Reform Initiative on next June’s ballot.

The Campaign Reform Initiative would codify a simple philosophy: If you want people to give you money for your political campaign, you’re going to have to get their permission first. The initiative would amend California’s Political Reform Act of 1974 to require labor unions and employers to obtain the annual, written consent of workers before withholding any portion of their pay for political purposes. Instead of automatically taking money out of workers’ paychecks without accountability, labor leaders would be held accountable for their political expenditures. If the union spent member dues in a way the members did not support, they would risk losing the dues money that goes to politics the following year.

This will no doubt come as good news to many members of the Teamsters, which gave $195,000 to last year’s campaign to legalize marijuana in California. The Teamsters’ funds reportedly went to the marijuana legalization campaign as part of a contribution-swap scheme, in exchange for which wealthy donors who support drug legalization gave money to Teamsters President Ron Carey’s reelection campaign. How many Teamsters members do you suppose would support handing over their own money to support such a cause?

“There’s little doubt the initiative would make labor leaders more accountable to their members,” says David Almasi of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan Washington think tank that’s studying campaign finance reform. “Under the current system, labor leaders do not need to account for the wishes of their members when channeling funds to political campaigns. This initiative would put workers back in charge of their own money.”

The public seems to agree. An ABC News/Washington Post poll recently discovered that 82% of Americans believe unions should get a worker’s permission before using a portion of his or her dues on politics. A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believe unions should get written permission.

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. For California’s working men and women, that is a principle we’ve lost sight of. In June, we can get it back.