‘Paycheck Protection’: Lenkowsky Replies

Editor’s Note: In its July 16 issue, The Chronicle ran several letters to the editor about Leslie Lenkowsky’s June 18 column on the role of charities in the defeat of the California ballot measure Proposition 226 (“California Vote: Losing Proposition for Charities?,” Opinion). Mr. Lenkowsky replies:

Those who responded to my June 18 column continue to obfuscate the real issues at stake in the fight over Proposition 226 and similar “paycheck-protection” measures in other states.

Yes, these measures would prevent unions from using member dues for political activities without their members’ consent. According to Justice William Brennan’s opinion for the Supreme Court in the Communications Workers of America v. Beck case, that is what protecting the First Amendment rights of union members requires. This rationale was clearly stated by the supporters of Proposition 226 (whose Web site contained a link to the full text of the Beck decision). Furthermore, the actual text of the initiative — which appeared on the ballot and in information distributed to the public — followed the heading “Limitations on Employers and Labor Organizations,” suggesting that the measure was meant to have a very specific application.

To be sure, the California Legislative Counsel and other organizations concluded that the proposition’s wording was broad enough that it might apply to workplace giving as well. The non-profit community should have urged rejection of that interpretation. That would have given them the opportunity to distinguish between compulsory and voluntary withholdings, as well as between the kind of “public-interest” politics they pursue and the “special-interest” politics of the unions. Instead, they chose to accept it, align themselves with the unions, and thereby put themselves at risk for restrictions on their activities that were not originally intended.

In any case, even if they did apply to workplace giving, “paycheck-protection” measures would still permit charities to become involved in public-policy advocacy, although they would have to incur the additional burdens of obtaining agreement from their donors to do so. It’s not easy to see how some groups that have long been associated with the idea of giving more control to workers over the use of their workplace contributions could conscientiously oppose this. But, as the old saying goes, politics does make for strange bedfellows.