On Forced Union Dues and Political Speech

I attended this year's annual Dorchester convention and on Sunday I spoke on this resolution:

RESOLVED: Oregon law should prohibit persons or entities from using money for political purposes if collected with government resources.

This was generally taken to mean that union members could not be forced to pay dues for political activity with which they disagreed.

Looking now at my notes, I believe I said:

We must be cautious when adopting any measure under the guise of freedom, when the undeniable effect of that measure is to provide us [Republicans] with a political advantage.

If we were proposing here that union members be muzzled - be prevented from participating in politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

If we were proposing here that union members be prohibited from spending their own money on politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

If we were proposing here that union members be prevented from associating freely with each other for political purposes - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

This resolution does none of these things.

We must remember the plight of the union member today who is forced against her will to subsidize public political speech with which she disagrees. Her right of dissent - the sacred right of every minority, to be free from the tyranny of the majority - her right to be free is currently crushed by the self interest of the union bosses. Every worker has both the right of free speech and the right to refrain from paying for speech with which she disagrees.

This measure may benefit Republicans incidentally. It benefits union members profoundly. This measure advances the cause of freedom. I urge you to vote "yes" on this measure.

The measure passed by a 20-to-1 ratio.