Forum

No Soliciting
A New Sign From the Schoolhouse to the White House

In June of this year the Florida Elections Commission (FEC) made a ruling which could have far reaching ramifications in the way labor unions collect political contributions. The FEC ruled that union officials could not solicit and their members could not make campaign contributions within government buildings through the use of payroll deduction forms. This ruling may lead to a yearly reduction of union political money across the country by an estimated 100 to 500 million dollars. Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson hailed the finding as "a victory for democracy and genuine campaign finance reform."

In October of 1996, I filed a complaint against the Marion Education Association (MEA) which is an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). The complaint charged the union with violation of Section 106.15(4), Florida Statutes, which reads in part, "No person shall make and no person shall solicit or knowingly accept any campaign contribution in a building owned by a government entity."

In Florida, as in most states, teachers are approached by union officials to join the union. These union officials are told to "solicit every member of the Association-no exceptions" and to "use payroll deduction system whenever possible, and ask for a continuing deduction authorization from the donor." The teachers are given payroll deduction forms in schools. Listed on the forms are solicitations for contributions to local, state and national PACs.

Many teachers feel coerced and intimidated by the union officials into signing payroll deduction forms. This is probably due to the efforts of the union officials guided by publications such as the Rules of Successful Fundraising, an NEA Practical Politics manual. One rule says "Build in accountability. When donors wear a distinguishing sticker or pin, they stand out- and so do the non-givers." Another rule says "Ask and ask again. Say thanks to the givers- and keep asking the holdouts." This is the type of political intimidation going on in a schoolhouse near you, and it's taking place in a government building.

The Florida Elections Commission ruled that, "labor unions are permitted by (law) to solicit contributions for committees of continuous existence, political committees, and candidates from public employees, but are prohibited by (law) from doing so in a building owned by a government entity." The Commission went on to make this a ruling of national significance. "The Respondent (union) is also notified that its conduct may be placing its members in violation of (law). When a teacher signs and delivers a payroll deduction authorization form which specifies payment to a political committee or committee of continuous existence, he or she is making a political contribution. Making this contribution in a government building, if willful, is a violation of (law)."

Along with union PAC money, dues are also being collected through the payroll deduction method. In recent years there has been mounting evidence of union dues being spent for political purposes. In Florida, last year, the Florida Teaching Profession-NEA assessed their teachers an additional $10.00 in dues which they passed through to a PAC Coalition to Reclaim Education's Share. This appears to be a violation of the law; it was political money collected in government buildings and handled under the guise of dues. Union officials should open their books to members who do not want to violate state and Federal election laws. Union members who want to know just how much of their dues are political contributions often find themselves having to sue the union to get it back.

In 1988 the Supreme Court issued the Beck decision which said workers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to subsidize union activity unrelated to collective bargaining. Harry Beck won the right to keep 79% of his dues money. Last year the National Right to Work Foundation won a case in California in which union officials were forced to return $200.00 to each teacher who did not want their dues used for political purposes. It has been estimated that if every unionized teacher in California asks for their political money back, it would cost the union 50 million dollars. It is easy to see that if political contributions in government buildings were halted, it could reduce unions political revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars across the country each and every year.

The Florida ruling could affect many unions that collect political contributions in government buildings. Along with teacher unions, there are unions for police, fire, state, county, municipal and federal employees. Approximately 40% of all labor unions include government employees and it is reasonable to assume that many of them solicit in government buildings. Elected officials and union members in every state should contact in writing their union leaders, attorney generals and election officers to see if this law is being violated in their state.

Many states have laws similar to Florida's that prohibit the solicitation of political contributions in government buildings. Some states prohibit the act in all government buildings and some only cover state buildings. There is also Federal law which basically makes it a criminal offense to solicit or receive a contribution in a room or building where a Federal employee works. A good example would be the solicitations by President Clinton and Vice-President Gore from the White House.

The Florida law prohibiting the handling of political money in government buildings was an effort to stop "corruption or the appearance of corruption." Other states have laws to "protect public employees from being coerced into paying political contributions." So why are these laws being violated?

According to Dr. Myron Lieberman of the Education Policy Institute the answer is simple. "No one has ever challenged the unions with violating this law." Dr. Lieberman, who has written numerous books on labor unions, said in 1996 that "this case (Florida) would be of national significance." The unions have an army of attorneys who have been fighting to keep the union officials in control. They are well organized and well funded. The union dues collected from teachers in government buildings in California clearly made a difference with Proposition 226.

The Marion Education Association FTP-NEA is appealing the Florida decision and will fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They know the consequences of the alternative to handling political contributions in a government building. A few years ago, Washington state prohibited payroll deduction of political contributions collected with dues. In one union alone, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees saw a drop in members contributing to AFSCME's PAC from over 40,000 to 82 statewide. This proves that when people are not coerced into contributing, they won't.

In regards to the Florida ruling, the union attorney has stated, "We are looking at both an administrative challenge and possibly a court challenge under the first amendment. ...We feel that the statute is unconstitutional as it applies to us, in that it attempts only to control political speech and association rights." Talk about arrogance. Why do they have the right to collect political contributions in government buildings to the exclusion of everyone else? What would the union officials say if the Republican Party went door to door in a schoolhouse on a daily basis hounding teachers to sign a form to give political contributions, and then had a school employee facilitate the collection of that money and send it to the Republican PAC?

When I first filed this complaint the local union official referred to me as "rubbish in the middle of the road." Since I won this ruling I have been elevated to the status of "part of a national right-wing, anti-worker movement." I have finally arrived! The union leadership should stop the creative name calling and concentrate on being honest with their members. They should open their books to members and show them just how they are spending dues. They should disclose how much money is used for political purposes and; They should stop using the taxpayers buildings for soliciting political contributions and placing their members at risk of violating the law.

In this age of campaign finance reform, or lack thereof, the American people want to know that their government buildings are safe from the political solicitation that breeds coercion, intimidation and corruption. If the citizens of this country contact their leaders and demand action, you will soon see a new sign going up on government buildings from the schoolhouse to the White House-- NO SOLICITING.

Chuck Pardee is a real-estate broker in Ocala, Florida and the complainant in the Florida case. He accepts calls at 352/622-1992.