Editorials

The idea of local school boards collecting political contributions for teachers' unions doesn't look like something most taxpayers would applaud, so a state law forbidding such an arrangement would seem reasonable.

Thus, it was not surprising that the Idaho Legislature in 2003 passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which banned the collection of political contributions through government payroll systems throughout the state.

Nothing in the law prohibits union members from contributing to candidates by choice and nothing in it prohibits unions from engaging in politics, so it looked like a reasonable action.

What is surprising is that the United States Supreme Court soon is expected to review the constitutionality of such matters in a case from Idaho.

Policy experts view the law favorably, said Michael Reitz, general counsel of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

"Governments should be focused on performing vital services for taxpayers, not on acting as a bill collector for private groups -- especially groups lobbying officials and funding political candidates," noted Ben DeGrow, an education analyst with the Independence Institute.

That view seems likely to have widespread public support.

After the Idaho Legislature adopted the law, however, several unions sued, claiming the measure violated their free speech.

To the surprise of many, in November 2005, a federal district judge ruled for the unions, saying the payroll ban unconstitutionally impeded union speech. The judge said a state could ban the practice for its own employees but could not mandate labor policies at the local level.

That decision rendered the law unconstitutional when applied to municipal governments, school districts and other local government bodies.

The judge also said payroll deductions are a preferred fundraising method because without automatic deductions employees could be subjected to union strong-arming. Unions would have to "engage in face-to-face solicitation, a technique fraught with the potential for coercion," he said.

Automatic deductions without "face-to-face solicitation" might seem even more like "union strong-arming" to those whose paycheck is tapped, not to mention coercion.

The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which in October 2007 affirmed the lower court decision.

"The unique nature of the state's intervention therefore strongly suggests that the state's purpose here is exactly that against which the First Amendment protects -- the denial of payroll deductions for the purpose of stifling political speech," concluded the Ninth Circuit.

Identifying payroll deductions as a form of political speech looks like a stretch.

At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court now has the case.

Unions claim the law burdens their free speech rights by forcing them to divert money toward fundraising and administration. The burden of collecting money, they say, reduces the funds available for political contributions.

Saddling taxpayers with that burden should not be an option.

Legal analysts familiar with First Amendment issues disagree with the unions' claim, Reitz said.

"The unions' so-called 'burden' of political fundraising is shared by all political entities and candidates," candidates," said Jonathan Bechtle, legal counsel for Evergreen. "Nothing in the First Amendment forces local governments to act as a union's political fundraiser."

Evergreen, joined by the Independence Institute and American Legislative Exchange Council, filed an

amicus



curiae

brief with the Supreme Court in support of the Idaho law.

Numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have held unions have no constitutional right to government payroll deductions, as states owe unions no special obligation to collect their income.

State laws prohibiting local school boards from making such payroll deductions should help deflate union pressure for such unjustifiable favors.

()