Should union members have the ability to stop their dues from being used for political causes?

That’s at the center of what’s widely expected to be one of the most heated and costly battles in the Nov. 8 statewide special election called by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. An initiative on that ballot requires public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from their members to use dues for political purposes.

The campaigns on both sides are expected to raise tens of millions of dollars. At stake, they say, is the balance of power in Sacramento. If the initiative passes, it could restrict the ability of public employee unions to raise funds to contribute to political campaigns and weaken their influence as the traditional support base for Democrat lawmakers.

“This is the big enchilada in this special election. It’s where the Democrats and their union allies and Schwarzenegger are really in conflict,” said Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book and a former Republican strategist.

The initiative is also expected to draw national attention from labor unions and conservative groups as California becomes center stage in the battle over union power. Only a handful of states have adopted similar measures, none of them as strict as what is now on the table here.

A Field Poll released last week shows that 57 percent of likely voters are inclined to support the initiative, while 34 percent oppose it.

A loose coalition of businesses, anti-tax groups and conservatives say that this “paycheck protection” measure is aimed at granting public employees the right to choose whether their money should fund certain political candidates or views. In so doing, proponents argue that officials of public employee unions will become more responsive to their members.

Opponents say the initiative represents a power grab by businesses interests aimed at shutting down public employee unions as a political force. They say it will force them to divert millions of dollars from their political advocacy efforts to a costly annual canvas of their members.

Opponents also are trying to tie the measure to Schwarzenegger, whose popularity has been sinking in recent polls, with some speculating that his advisors are behind the effort as a way to remove union opposition to his agenda. Schwarzenegger has said he is looking closely at the initiative, but has not officially endorsed it.

Raising funds


Union opponents of the initiative, meanwhile, have done the very thing that proponents have decried: they have raised dues. On June 12, the California Teachers Association announced it was raising dues $60 a year for three years to generate $50 million to fight this measure and the three Schwarzenegger-backed initiatives. The state prison guards union has announced it intends to raise dues to generate $18 million.

This is not the first time unions and corporations have squared off over dues. In 1998, unions raised $30 million to defeat a similar initiative, Proposition 226, which targeted all unions, not just those representing public sector workers.

This time, initiative drafter Lewis Uhler, who heads the California chapter of the National Tax Limitation Committee, said his focus was on protecting employees on public payrolls from having money taken from their salaries to be used for political purposes. “This money is taken and used without the consent of the members,” Uhler said.

In last week’s Field Poll, 45 percent of respondents with union members in their households said they favored this initiative.

Also playing a key role is Joel Fox, a Schwarzenegger adviser and co-chair of the committee the governor established to raise funds for his special election ballot measures. Fox also is founder and chair of the Small Business Action Committee, which has contributed $555,000 of the $890,000 raised by the Coalition for Employee Rights, the campaign committee behind the union dues initiative.

Among the corporations funding the Small Business Action Committee are Ameriquest Capital Corp., parent of Ameriquest Mortgage Co., Philip Morris USA; the Irvine Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Under the initiative, each public employee union must ask its members every year in writing whether they want their dues to be used for political contributions and if so, how much of their dues can be deducted. The union must keep the forms on file and copies must be sent to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission upon request.

The initiative also bars unions from raising dues for members who decline to have their dues used for political contributions.

Uhler, who expects proponents to raise at least $15 million between now and November, said his intent was not to reduce the influence of public employee unions in Sacramento, though he added, “if that happens, so be it.”

But unions and public interest groups fighting the measure maintain that diluting labor’s voice is the primary objective behind the initiative. “The governor has been unable to win on the issues, so he’s attacking the voice of the working people,” said Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for a Better California.

Little effect


Both sides say the initiative will have substantial consequences if it passes. But the record of similar measures in other states is less dramatic.

In Washington state, where restrictions on union political contributions were enacted 12 years ago, unions used a loophole in the law to continue making contributions.

“We are just as effective in advocating our positions today as we were before the measure passed,” said Rich Wood, spokesman for the Washington Education Association. He pointed to union support providing the crucial margin for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire, who squeaked out a win last fall that was upheld after a lengthy court battle.

The conservative think tank that crafted the Washington measure has gone to court to try to close the loophole. “The unions have simply found a way around the law,” said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

Unions in Washington also lobbied and won a break from the state legislature in 2002, changing the annual written consent requirement in the initiative to a one-time written consent followed by annual “opt-out” notices.

Only Utah has passed a law requiring consent for union dues to be spent on political contributions; that law has been the subject of court battles since it passed in 2001 and has not gone into effect.

But if the union dues measure passes in California, copycat measures are likely to be introduced in other states. “It’s going to be an all-out war,” said Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at California State University Sacramento.