In a major blow to labor union's ability to finance their political agendas, the US Supreme Court upheld an Idaho law (popularly known as the Paycheck Protection Act), restricts payroll deductions from state employees going to labor union Political Action Committees (PACs).
In writing for the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:
speech”; it does not confer an affirmative right to use government
payroll mechanisms for the purpose of obtaining funds for expression.
Idaho’s law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to
promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoffs for political
This ruling clears the way for other states to pass similar legislation that keeps government out of being a conduit for political speech. If government employees wish to voluntarily contribute to a union PAC, they can do so, but we, the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.
SEANC raised over $400,000 from individuals this election cycle to give to candidates, most (if not all) through payroll deductions from state employees.
What would happen if the NRA wanted access to state employees for payroll deductions for its PAC, do you think that would be allowed? Probably not, and rightly so. Our private political speech (money) should be kept separate from our employment status.
Now that the US Supremes have upheld Idaho's law, it is time for North Carolina to pass a paycheck protection act here. So our state employees can be kept free from union bosses intimidating them from sacrificing part of their pay for political causes.