Last week, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, CO upheld a ruling overturning a 2001 law passed by the Utah State Legislature that barred state and local public employers from withholding voluntary political contributions from its employees’ paychecks.

The 2001 “Paycheck Protection” legislation, passed by a Republican-controlled legislature, and signed into law by a Republican governor, was designed to prevent government employee unions from allowing their members to make additional contributions to the unions’ Political Action Committees via payroll deductions.  The legislation held that only membership dues could be deducted from paychecks and paid to those unions. Union leaders filed the suit against the state claiming the law violated the protection of political speech extended by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A U.S. District court sided with the unions in 2006 and the 10th Circuit upheld that ruling last week.

But let’s look at this a little deeper.

  • According to Opensecrets.org, two of the top 5 largest contributors in American politics since 1989 are government employee unions: The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and The National Education Association (NEA). 
  • Those unions have combined to give $66.5 million to political campaigns since then. $63.7 million (96%) went to Democratic candidates
  • $45 million (68%) of the contributions were made through the PACs of the unions.  The rest came from soft money and individual donations.   

However in the 2004 Presidential election:

While the numbers above may not reflect the exact breakdown of how AFSCME and NEA members voted, no demographic bloc of voters in 2004 went 96% in favor of one candidate.

So, there appears to be a very large disparity in how the unions monetarily represent their member’s political preferences, regardless if the money is gathered through voluntary payroll deductions from their members.  If the unions’ PACs overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, and I am a Republican union member, why would I choose to give to the PAC?  I wouldn’t.  I would make donations to the candidates and causes I support on my own accord.

And that’s why the 10th Circuit’s ruling seems to be flawed. If union members want to donate to their union’s PACs, the Utah law passed in 2001 does not prevent them from doing so at all. They may have to do a little more work, but their right to express their political beliefs via monetary contributions is not infringed upon at all. As a matter of fact, it makes them equal to their peers who support different causes and candidates. What’s unfair about that?