It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum

Topics => General Board => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on February 23, 2011, 11:03:22 AM

Title: Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Democrats
Post by: IronDioPriest on February 23, 2011, 11:03:22 AM

Guests, browse around a bit! If you like what you see, we'd love to have you register and comment in our community!

Leave it to Michael Barone to nail it.

From WashingtonExaminer...

Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Democrats (http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/public-unions-force-taxpayers-fund-democrats)

...Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party....

The whole thing is a good read.

Title: Re: Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Democrats
Post by: Libertas on February 23, 2011, 11:21:00 AM

Yup.  Good article.  The anti-looters are going after the looters and the looters are reacting very badly.  Keep up the pressure.  Insanity must end.  Bonus points for using an FDR quote against the looters!

Title: Re: Public Unions Force Taxpayers to Fund Democrats
Post by: BMG on June 22, 2012, 10:27:18 PM

LINK (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/06/21/pivot-supreme-court-ruling-will-be-a-big-headache-for-public-sector-unions/)

Quote

Justice Alito, writing for the majority:

    Unless it is possible to determine in advance with some degree of accuracy the percentage of union funds that will be used during an upcoming year for chargeable purposes—and the SEIU argues that this is not possible—there is at least a risk that, at the end of the year, unconsenting nonmembers will have paid either too much or too little. Which side should bear this risk?

    The answer is obvious: the side whose constitutional rights are not at stake.

Alito, in his conclusion:

    The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their political goals. “First Amendment values [would be] at serious risk if the government [could] compel a particular citizen, or a discrete group of citizens, to pay special subsidies for speech on the side that [the government] favors.” United Foods, 533 U. S., at 411. Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.

::beertoast:: ::whoohoo:: ::newyear::  ::bows::  ::beertoast::