Supremes rule against Union unauthorized use of fees

Washington Times:

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously that states may require public-sector labor unions to get permission from workers before using their union fees for political activities.
The 9-0 decision applies to government workers who have chosen not to be members of the union. About 21 states, including Washington, allow unions and government employers to enter into "agency-shop" agreements under which the union can collect fees from the nonmember workers whom it represents in labor negotiations.
At the time the case was brought, however, Washington also required the union to get explicit prior consent from those nonmembers before using their fees for lobbying or other political purposes. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that this requirement violated the First Amendment and infringed on the union's "expressive associational rights," but the Supreme Court disagreed.
"The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Because it even would be constitutional for Washington state "to eliminate agency fees entirely," this "far less-restrictive limitation" is acceptable, he wrote.
At issue was whether it is adequate for unions to simply give nonmembers the chance to opt out of their fees being used for political purposes -- as the Washington Education Association had done in this case. Under this standard, the burden is on the nonmember to object, and if no objection is heard, the union can assume consent.
The high court yesterday reaffirmed that standard, saying that it's permissible for a state to put the onus on the nonmember. But the court also said that standard is a "floor," not a "ceiling" -- meaning that states may impose further restrictions on unions, as Washington did.
The man who brought the case said the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the idea that unions have a constitutional right to spend nonmember dues on politics.
...

This is a very important decision that will effect the Democrats ability to extort money from non Democrats who are coerced into paying union fees. In a way it partially defunds the Democrats use of money collected by unions. Scalia's understated objection to the plan is right own. At a time when Democrats have an advantage in collecting campaign funds, this may help even teh playing field some.