Evergreen Freedom Foundation attorney Rob McKenna made a splash in the other Washington last week arguing before the US Supreme Court against the rights of unions. (McKenna also apparently freelances as our State Attorney General.)
Why would such an ambitious politician (he wants to be President) calling from one of the most pro-union states in the nation risk political capital defending the union-busting EFF? University of Washington Political Science Professor David Olson has a theory:
Olson described the case as one that will “nail the base” of state GOP voters because it gets “the red-meat juices flowing.” And although it’s likely to anger the trade-union base of Washington Democrats, Olson believes the case is likely to “fly below the radar screen” of most of the state’s independent voters whom McKenna courts.
“McKenna has calculated that the net gain to his base from supporting this case is greater than his net loss of pro-union support,” said Olson, who has been tracking McKenna’s political career for the past 20 years since his days as student council president at the University of Washington.
Yup, that’s McKenna for you, a shrewd political operator willing to play to his conservative base when he can get away with it, while masquerading as a centrist when it suits his purposes. McKenna’s also done an incredible job courting the press, who have largely rewarded him with uncynical and uncritical coverage. As such, he has become the most dangerous Republican in the state.
The state Dems need to hire somebody full time just to track McKenna and stick a few wrenches in his slick, professional PR machine. It’ll be an investment well worth the time, effort and money.
The race is on and who will get the grand prize? Yep. Bill Clinton will be the next President because the wife lacks the ability to run a Nation.
Sen. Hillary Clinton leads fellow Democratic Party Sen. Barack Obama by 19 points in a Time magazine poll of likely presidential candidates in the 2008 race.
The same poll shows Sen. John McCain edging former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by a four-point margin among GOP hopefuls.
Clinton, New York’s junior senator, was the choice among 40 percent of the random sampling of 1,064 registered voters who responded to the telephone poll. Obama, in his first term as Illinois junior senator, polled 19 percent for second place, with former North Carolina senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards placing third with 11 percent.
Among Republicans, Arizona Sen. McCain holds a narrow 30 percent to 26 percent lead over Giuliani for the GOP nomination. Both men have formed exploratory committees, but neither has officially entered the 2008 race for the White House.
Getting back on the subject…isn’t McKenna up to his ass in a clear-cut conflict of interest here?
Say it isn’t so. If you check McKenna’s endorsements from his last campaign you will find Engineers (IUOE) Local 302 endorsed him. They must be proud of themselves.
The state Dems need to hire somebody full time just to track McKenna and stick a few wrenches in his slick, professional PR machine. It’ll be an investment well worth the time, effort and money.
Do you have anyone in mind? ;-)
McKenna is simply performing his constitutional duty as State Attorney General. A state law was declared unconstitutional. He is appealing the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The appeal presents debatable issues and is not frivolous. Obviously, the appeal has arguable merit, since the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear it (they reject about 98% of all appeals filed with them).
McKenna’s personal opinions or political philosophy are simply irrelevant. He would be required to do the same thing if he didn’t like the law in question. The State Attorney General must defend state laws against being declared unconstitutional.
Christine Gregoire would have done the same thing. In fact, she did exactly that in a number of cases involving laws and initiatives that she politically disagreed with. For example, Gregoire defended every single one of Tim Eyman’s initiatives against constitutional attack. And when she lost in the superior court, she appealed to the state Supreme Court every time. (Federal law issues were not involved in the Eyman initiatives, so an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would not have been available.)
I took a look at the brief that McKenna’s office filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is available at:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced.....tioner.pdf
As far as I can tell, all four of the attorneys who signed the brief for McKenna’s office were also assistant attorneys general when Christine Gregoire held the position prior to 1985.
This is a professional brief, written by professional attorneys. These same people did their job in a professional and non-partisan manner for Gregoire, and they are doing the same thing for McKenna.
Goldy — your attack on McKenna for performing his professional duties is as “fair and balanced” as attacking Barack Obama for allegedly attending a madrassa.
Whoops, meant to say that the four attorneys in McKenna’s office who wrote the brief for the U.S. Supreme Court were also working for Gregoire prior to 2005. (Not 1985, of course.)
Although I think some of them were even working there back in 1985 even!
6. Richard, I understand…I realize I’m getting to the age where the last few decades are starting to sort of run together in my memory.
I stand corrected, regarding the explanation that McKenna was indeed doing his job taking the case to the Supremes. I think I can recall instances in which Gregoire and other Attorneys General had to defend what their states’ laws said, regardless of what their own opionions may have been.
On the other hand, assuming we’re not looking at an awesome demonstration of Goldy’s Photoshop skills, it would seem that for McKenna to make a public appearance in connection with this, standing behind a podium emplazoned with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s logo and surrounded by a group of their banner-carrying members (or recruited stand-ins for same), is at the very least in hellaciously poor taste, and might be seen by some as suggestive that he was motivated by more than the requirements of his job.
I have to admit not having previously heard anything of McKenna’s presidential ambitions. Nonetheless i’m willing to be he’d be more than delighted to follow the previous AG’s career path into the governor’s mansion.
We will remember Mc Kenna during the next election for all his shameless posing before the camera and crush the nuts of the GOP he belongs to, we cannot fail…
Re: 7. Goldy misled you in his post leading you to believe that McKenna was in DC for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. He was in DC representing the state of Washington.
Liberals do that alot.
As for someone watching McKenna, it shouldn’t be to hard to do if you can find a liberal that can read the newspaper.
Union fight reaches high court
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....ob+mckenna
For dissident teachers, the right to limit dues
http://archives.seattletimes.n.....ob+mckenna
THis is another blog entry where you’ll die before the ASSHead will admit he’s wrong again.
Richard Pope is an asset to smart thinking people. What say you Goldy?
ArtFart, Eugene Debbs, and ATJ, that leaves you out too!
McKenna is pretty slick. Like RM Nixon. The media ignores the AG except when the AG can think up something to make a headline. And McKenna is no stranger to the lure of media coverage.
It would be fun to watch McKenna run again against someone people actually like. The GOP still hasn’t hit bottom in this state and any GOP statewide candidate would seem pretty easy to take out in 08. Surely McKenna knows this.
Is there a pic of McKenna holding up a Bush/Cheney sign anywhere out there?
Re 12: Like I said, if you can find a liberal that can read a newspaper. See number 10 brain surgeon and notice the media neglect.
ArtFart @ 7
Your last paragraph does raise a good point. And I missed the satire in Goldy’s post. Not to mention that I didn’t look at the picture that carefully.
I don’t think it is wise for McKenna to appear politically biased (as opposed to the professional lawyer representing the State and Citizens) by speaking from an EFF podium (especially with the particular URL on it!). Not wise professionally, and probably not wise politically either.
What did Gregoire and Eikenberry do for press conferences and media relations when they appeared in Washington DC to argue cases before the U.S. Supreme Court?
By the way, is this the first time in the 18 years and 2 months since he was admitted to the Bar that Rob McKenna has actually argued a case before a judicial officer or officers? I bet he didn’t argue this case before the Washington Supreme Court or even bother to walk over from his office in the Highways-Licenses Building to the Temple of Justice (even to sit and observe) when it was before that body!
McKenna was on inactive status with the Bar for nearly five years when he sat on the King County Council. I called up the WSBA and got the exact dates back in 2003, right after he announced for Attorney General.
I think he was still on inactive status when he told the media he would run in 2004 and for a couple more months after that. No problem, since he only had to be “active” — i.e. licensed to practice law — when he filed for office.
The other problem McKenna was facing in 2003 was that he was getting pretty close to five years of “inactive” status. If you are “inactive” for even a day over five years altogether out of the ten calendar years, you have to take and pass the bar exam again to become active. McKenna got almost to that five year mark in 2003 before he put in his application to change back to “active”.
Basically, McKenna saved a few hundred dollars per year on his WSBA dues by being on “inactive” status.
However, “inactive” status doesn’t save somebody on their “CLE” continuing legal education requirements. If you don’t take your CLE courses while you are “inactive”, you have to make all of them up before the WSBA will approve your transfer back to “active” status.
It would have been really funny if McKenna hadn’t been able to make up his CLE courses back in 2003 in time to avoid the five year “inactive” status and had been required to take the bar exam again in order to become “active” and qualified to actually file for the Attorney General race.
The lawsuit is about Union Busting. Nothing more.
People who are’nt in the union don’t have to pay for the union’s political contributions.
Right wingnuts not only lie, they cheat.
Anyone have an idea how much money we’re talking about here? Or is it all based on the assumption that the unions’ accounting has been sloppy enough over the years that being audited to determine what refunds they owed would throw them into chaos?
Artfart @ 7, Richard @14:
I missed all the EFF stuff at first too, and focused on Goldy’s words. I was about to yell at him for acting like Sharansky and posting about stuff he doesn’t know a thing about. Thanks for pointing out that, as usual, Goldy was wrong.
It is the AGs duty to argue for the people of the state of Washington, he or she has no choice. The people passed the law. If you don’t like it, change the law, but the AG isn’t there to represent your point of view once the law is passed.
However, for exactly that reason, it is equally wrong for him to address a rally of partisans. It appears to remove his impartiality. It makes it look political. He is supposed to represent the state, not lobbying group or a political party. They have there own lawyers.
Good catch Goldy. Thanks for bringing this error of McKenna’s to our attention. I wonder when the people who demanded that Gregoire not have the dinner she auction off because it “appeared” bad ethically will demand an apology from McKenna.
I know it is not an open thread, but: HERE WE GO!
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
find the rest at msnbc.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....5732/posts
“State of Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna, arguing for the nonunion workers, told the justices yesterday that it’s not fair to force employees who opt out of the union to go through the annual process of requesting refunds for the portion of their dues used for political purposes.
The case involves about 3,000 Washington state teachers and other education employees who have chosen not to join the 80,000-member Washington Education Association. Because the nonunion workers are in the bargaining unit and thus represented by the union, they are charged a fee for labor negotiations that affect them.
Washington state in 1992 adopted a campaign-finance law that requires labor unions to annually ask members whether part of their union dues could be used for political purposes. Workers then could request a refund if they said no.
But last year the state’s high court struck down the law, saying that requiring the union to get specific consent from each worker was burdensome and infringed on the union’s First Amendment rights.”
My question is this: Why should the 3,000 non-members be able to force the union to ask the union membership about the contributions. It doesn’t make any sense.
From what this article says, Mckenna is arguing against our state Supreme Court.
Freepers. Did you like my source? What a bunch of stinky whores conservatives are.
Re: 23. At least you source (free republic) reported the facts. Unlike Goldy.
We should force the non-union members to pay for the use of an employee of the state. In fact, if they win, they have established the principle that they owe us. WE shouldn’t have to pay for their politically motivated lawsuits.
Dwight hates McKenna and spent years on the county council trying to defeat his conservative tactics. McKenna is no moderate, he plays one on TV. I am sure he will make sure the party tracks Right Wing Rob’s every step.
Re: 20. Do you have a problem with that? Maybe you believe we should give the Iranian Opertives a condo on the Eupahtes River?
re23: You miss the point. McKenna IS representing EFF’s political agenda. If he wins, then the 3,000 non-union owe us taxpayers for their lawsuit.
Why should we (the taxpayers) pay for their political activism? Or, do Freeper PRINCIPLES begin and end where their own shortsighted self-interest lies.
You guys are idiots!
re 26: From: The Wingnut Debate Dictionary
False DickChenomy: The arguer offers only two options in a situation, one of which is objectively pro-terrorist.
re 28: hehe
Wally @ 21
McKenna represents the State, not the State Supreme Court. If the State Supreme Court says that a state law violates the federal constitution, then McKenna basically has a duty to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — so long as a reasonable case can be presented on appeal.
I don’t quite understand what the campaign finance law in question is supposed to do. Does the union have to ask everyone whether dues can be used for political purposes, or only its non-members?
In any event, the non-members would not be forcing the union to do whatever it is required to do under the law. Well, I guess non-members are suing to force the union to obey the law. But if that is the law, and if the law is constitutional, then the union would be legally required to follow it, regardless of what non-members do, and regardless of whether or not there were any non-members in the bargaining group.
I am not sure why the law should be unconstitutional. The State of Washington can certainly pass a law to prohibit unions from making any contributions at all to state political campaigns. Texas has such a law, making it a felony for unions and corporations to contribute to state political campaigns. (That is basically what Tom DeLay is being charged under, in relation to corporate contributions.)
So if our state law said — let’s suppose — that a union can only use dues money for political purposes from employees who affirmatively consent, and that all other employees have their dues reduced pro-rata — then I think such a law should be constitutional. (Whether it would be — that is a different question.)
Of course, to be totally fair, corporations should have the same restrictions — only allow contributions to come from dividend money that would otherwise be paid to shareholders who affirmatively consent, and higher dividends to all other shareholders who don’t consent. And if the corporation doesn’t even pay dividends, then I guess there is no pool of money available for political contributions at all.
re 30: No. They have to ask members and non-members alike. It is a union busting tactic that was devised in Thatcherite Britain, and is very successful in stressing unions.
What if corporations were forced to ask each and every stockholder if they approved of a political contribution the corporation made? You see what an unfair hindrance it is. But 25 years of wingnut rule have blinded many to common sense. They mindlessly do the bidding of the ruling class (of which you are very conspicuously NOT a member of, Richard Pope).
re: 30. Your comparison between unions and corporations is comparing apples to oranges. Union employees HAVE to contribute to keep their job. Investors in corporations can choose not to invest because of the corporations political beliefs, or any other reason they want to and invest in another company that they are comfortable with.
Union employees don’t have that choice.
re 30; is being “totally fair” only an afterthought for you, or an idea to which you are committed.
You kind of threw the corporate fairness thing in there as if some wacky left wing thought had suddenly moved you toward fairness for a moment.
re 32: Saying that someone is comparing apples to oranges is what people say when they have run out of arguments. I don’t think you even understand the context of the apples to oranges argument, as even a third grader will very reasonably point out that one comparison that can easily be made is that they are both somewhat spherical.
But 25 years of wingnut rule have blinded many to common sense. They mindlessly do the bidding of the ruling class (of which you are very conspicuously NOT a member of, Richard Pope).
Wally, read a book or the paper or something. Bill Clinton, Tom Dashele and the democrat congress and senate before 2004 were not wingnuts.
Do liberals just enjoy lying or are they just stupid?
Wally, read a book or the paper or something. Bill Clinton, Tom Dashele and the democrat congress and senate before 2004 were not wingnuts.
Do liberals just enjoy lying or are they just stupid?
re 32: Do people with 401 K’s “choose” to invest their dollars in a particular enterprise. How about union retirement funds? Do the union members (each and every one) need to be asked by the corporation about political contributions? I would say, no, they don’t.
A wingnut brain is a cumbersome tool on a blog such as this.
re: 35 my mistake and I will correct it sorry.
Re: 36 , yes in fact people with 401k’s have several choices in which to invest
re 35: I’ve obviosly read more about the “apples to oranges” argument than you have. You can’t even use it correctly.
I’m waiting for you to Google it and blather some nonsense to me about .
Can’t wait, in fact. I love showing people waht a stupid jerk you are.
re: 35, I meant to say the democratic congress before 1994.
re 38: Only in a very general way. Not in the “free market” nonsense way that you meant it.
Admit it. What you believe is more a qusi-intellectual gobbldygook that you pull out of your ass to try to impress the credulous that there is more than hot tuna between your ears.
Re 35. Ok Einstien tell me again about the last 25 years of wingnut control and don’t leave out Bill Clinton, Tom Dashel (who was leading the senate when they approved the Iraq war) or the democrat congress and senate before 1994?
re 40: Reagan did most of his damage through executive fiat and non-enforcment of labor laws — even downright unlawful behavior on his own part.
Air traffic controllers. Look it up. junior.
Wow! Goldy has raised $1,270 in 24 hours! Look out McKenna! HorsesAss is STILL IN BUSINESS!!!
Re: 41 obviously you are not employed enough to have a 401K from a decent company.
re 42: Have you ever read anything by the real Einstein?
I have. And I can provide you with links to some of his essays. Guess what? None of them sound like they were written by Newt Gingrich or W.F. fucking Buckley, JR.
44: Wow that’s great, it is alomost 35% of what he needed to eat. It’s called the Goldy weight loss program.
re 45: So. Ya wanna cross swords with me any more on the “apples to oranges” thing?
Man — you dropped that like a hot potato!
No one’s forgotten that you are a supercilious dummy. Your mom only told you you were smart to make you feel better.
@1 “Bill Clinton will be the next President because the wife lacks the ability to run a Nation”
If Nancy Reagan can be president, why can’t Bill Clinton be president?
Goodnight , Gracie!
.46: actually I did a reconstruction of Einstein’s house at Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas. In the course of that we archived several of his papers and photographs.
Don’t talk about something you know nothing about asswipe
.46: actually I did a reconstruction of Einstein’s house at Charlotte Amalie in St. Thomas. In the course of that we archived several of his papers and photographs.
Don’t talk about something you know nothing about asswipe
Re: 49. Could you run Bill and Shillary’s military record by me again?
Re: 49. How about Borak Hussein Obama’s military( or as cnn and teddy kennedy refer to him as “Osama Hussein Obama) record. Well ok how about John Edwards?, hmmmm Joe Biden? ok how about Dennis Chucinich?…Chris Dodd?
Re: 53 and 54. this is the democrats dream team of potention commander’s in Chief. None of them know’s how to even put on a uniform.
Wally the talking Badger @ 31
“What if corporations were forced to ask each and every stockholder if they approved of a political contribution the corporation made? You see what an unfair hindrance it is.”
I don’t think it would be an unfair hindrance at all.
Union-represented employees (members and non-members alike) are merely asked (under Washington law) whether they want a specified portion of their dues used for political purposes. If they don’t affirmatively approve, they get that portion of their dues refunded. They are not asked whether or not individual political contributions (i.e. $1,400 to Gregoire, $5,000 to no on I-Eyman) can be approved.
With corporations, every shareholder must be mailed a proxy statement and a proxy voting form every year. The shareholder can return the proxy voting form, and vote for whomever they choose for director (yes, these nominees are usually unopposed — just like Democrat candidates in Seattle), and vote yes or no on each of the propositions. This voting can usually be done by telephone or internet, and can even be changed prior to the actual shareholder meeting.
The exact same form can also be used for each shareholder to indicate whether a specified portion of their dividends will be spent for political purposes. The corporation would have to specify the proposed amount for share in political funding for the coming fiscal year. They could explain which political causes were funded in the previous fiscal year.
If the shareholder says “YES” on the proxy voting form, then the specified amount per share is deducted from their dividends in the coming year, and used for political purposes. If the shareholder says “NO”, or leaves the answer blank, or doesn’t bother to return the proxy form, then they receive their full dividend without any political deduction.
56: Richard, No one is forced to by stocks (be a shareholder in a company) to keep their job. Professionals are forced to join a union to keep their job. You are again comparing apples to oranges.
Rob @ 57
I haven’t compared apples and oranges. You have.
Let’s suppose apples represent unions, and oranges represent corporations.
You say that workers rights versus union power are more important than shareholder rights versus corporate power. That is a comparison of apples and oranges — i.e. apple eaters (workers) deserve more protection than orange eaters (shareholders).
I haven’t made this comparison – YET.
For the record, I would make the exact same comparison that you do. If we could only give protection to one group and not the other, I would choose to protect apple eaters (workers) and not orange eaters (shareholders).
However, my previous comment was that orange eaters (shareholders) should be given the same protection that is currently afforded to apple eaters (workers). That is certainly not a COMPARISON of apples and oranges.
@5 Your argument is disingenuous, Richard, and I have to side with Goldy on this. You’ve done an excellent job of dressing up your comment to look like a technical legal explanation of the case, and of McKenna’s role in it. But what you understand, and most readers of this blog won’t pick up, is that certiorari appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court are DISCRETIONARY. As state AG, McKenna didn’t have to file this appeal; he could have accepted the decision of the Washington Supreme Court as the final word. Why didn’t he? Precisely for the reasons Prof. Olsen and Goldy stated.
58: you completely missed my point. Union workers have to join the union to work. Investors can invest anywhere they want. Apples/Oranges. Union workers don’t have a choice, investors have thousands.
Re: 59. Bugus rodent. This is the same supreme court who put 200 murderers back on the street and you want to take their word for it? Sorry, he did the right thing in going over their murderer loving heads.
Re: 61. bugus=jebus
@5 Here’s a synopsis of the case. The Washington Education Association (WEA) is a union representing public school teachers. Teachers may opt out of WEA membership by paying “shop fees” for WEA’s costs in providing representation and bargaining services. Under the National Labor Relations Act and U.S. Supreme Court cases, non-members paying “shop fees” to a union may “opt out” of the portion of fees used for “ideological” or political purposes. For years, Evergreen Freedom Foundation has fought WEA’s use of dues for political activity; in fact, this is EFF’s principal activity. EFF receives major financial support from ultra-conservative foundations such as those run by Richard Scaife and Wal-Mart heirs. It is fair to say that EFF represents the virulently anti-union views of these individuals.
The legal issue revolves around the conflicting free speech rights of union members who support their union’s political activities, and non-members required to pay “shop fees” as a condition of employment who object to financially supporting those activities. The SCOTUS decisions carefully crafted a “balance” that allows non-members to “opt out” of paying the portion of fees that would go for such activities.
In 1993, Washington voters passed an initiative that included an “opt-in” provision. This law stood the SCOTUS rule on its head: Instead of non-members having the burden of affirmatively “opting out” of contributing to the union’s political activity (on forms sent to them annually), the Washington law prohibited unions from spending “shop fees” on political activity unless the non-member affirmatively “opted in,” i.e., gave written consent.
For years, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s principal activity has been attacking WEA’s use of dues and fees for political activity. EFF receives much of its funding from ultra-conservative foundations run by virulently anti-union people like Richard Scaife and the Wal-Mart heirs. In 2000, EFF initiated a complaint against WEA that led to a Washington Supreme Court decision holding the “opt-in” provision of the 1993 initiative unconstitutional. The majority appeared to simply follow what it considered a mandate from SCOTUS.
The reason he did this was that it was his f**kn’ job, you moron. He represents the law of the State of Washington, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican-passed law. You show your age,Goldy, on this one. Show McKenna some respect. Gregoire would have argued the same case when she was AG.
Whacky
@5 (continued) Richard Pope is correct in stating that the state Attorney General has a duty to defend state laws when they are challenged in the courts. In fact, Christine Gregoire was attorney general when this case was decided by the state supreme court.
In addition, I can’t disagree with Richard’s assertion that there is a debatable legal issue. Obviously there is, or SCOTUS would not have accepted the case. What this issue boils down to is: Do the prior SCOTUS cases require use of an “opt out” procedure, or do those cases leave states with some wiggle room to adopt an “opt in” procedure?
This issue raises a constitutional question because if the “opt in” procedure enables dissenters to frustrate a majority of union members from expressing themselves politically, the effect is to interfere with the latter group’s free speech rights. The “opt out” procedure appears to represent a carefully crafted “balance” between the rights of the two opposing groups. The state court declared the “opt in” law unconstitutional because it upset the apple cart and gave too much power to one group at the expense of the other group.
The reason there’s a debatable legal issue here is because while the SCOTUS cases seem to say the “opt out” approach is what I would call the “balance point,” they don’t expressly say so, nor do they expressly rule out use of the “opt in” approach. Thus, there is an ambiguity in what these cases mean, and SCOTUS probably accept the WEA case to clarify the prior decisions.
@5 (continued) As far as McKenna’s role in the case, as Attorney General, he makes the ultimate decision whether to appeal the Washington Supreme Court’s decision to SCOTUS — and chose to do so. He fulfilled his duty, as AG, to defend the law by doing so in the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. He would not violate this duty if he were to say, “The state court ruling appears to conform with U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the issue, and while there may be a bit of ambiguity in the latter’s decisions, further appeal is a speculative venture at best and the likelihood is that SCOTUS will uphold the state court.”
However, in exercising his discretion to appeal to SCOTUS, he is within his AG’s prerogative to seek clarification of exactly what the SCOTUS decisions mean and to reinstate the state law that was struck down, if possible. And, in doing so, he is performing a proper function of the state AG’s office, and no matter what his motive is, it goes too far to say he’s representing EFF in this lawsuit, even though his position on the legal issue is identical to EFF’s.
But it is within fair bounds to ask whether McKenna has a political motive in exercising that discretion the way he did, and what that motive is. This is what Prof. Olsen and Goldy have done, and it’s unreasonable to fault them for delving into McKenna’s possible political motives. McKenna is, after all, an elected official with aspirations for higher political offices. Therefore, we have a right to know whether he’s personally anti-union.
Given how extremely discretionary this appeal was, and how closely it conforms with the interests of the national right-to-work movement, it certainly looks that way.
@17 I don’t agree, Wally. It may be that McKenna was influenced by anti-union feelings — or a desire to please anti-union political supporters — in deciding to appeal this case. However, what McKenna is doing before the U.S. Supreme Court is defending the constitutionality of a state law that was struck down as unconstitutional by the state courts, which is a proper function of a state attorney general. This is something an attorney general doesn’t have to be anti-union to do. Whether McKenna is actually anti-union, or simply seeking an answer to the technical legal issue that the case presents, is an unanswered question of fact. Prof. Olsen and Goldy have provided us with some “food for thought” from which we as individuals may draw our own inferences.
@51 rob, you strike me as the type who doesn’t understand a fucking thing about anything Einstein ever said or wrote, and would be interested in it only if it goes “boom.”
@53 What’s that got to do with anything?
@54 It doesn’t matter, as even being a wounded veteran or former POW doesn’t stop you wingnut asswipes from savaging a candidate with lies and smears:
Exhibit A: Max Cleland
Exhibit B: John Kerry
Exhibit C: John McCain
And, in addition, you wingnut asswipes don’t really give a shit about a candidate’s military record anyway, as shown by your demonstrated willingness to support draft evaders and deserters:
Exhibit D: Dick Cheney
Exhibit E: George W. Bush
So go fuck yourself, rob. Fucking hypocrite.
“rob” is a good name for any Republican because that’s what they do in office.
55 The issue isn’t whether they know how to put on a uniform, dumbass, but whether they know (a) when to go to war, when not to, and whom to go to war against, and (b) how to fight a war. Republicans have failed miserably on all four counts. No one, and I mean no one, could possibly do worse than the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice “team” of fuckups. You could randomly pick a diner along any highway in Utah, Nevada, or Wyoming; randomly pick out one of the cooks or waitresses from said diner; elect said person president; and s/he would do a better job than you Republican screwups have. Guaranteed.
@60 “Union workers have to join the union to work.”
This isn’t true. Under the National Labor Relations Act, no one can be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. However, to keep non-members from freeloading on members, they CAN be compelled to pay a fee in lieu of union dues to defray the costs of the representation and bargaining services the union provides to members and non-members alike.
You also conveniently omit to mention two other points, rob. First, no one is forced to apply for a job position that is represented by a union. There are plenty of non-union employers; if you don’t want to work for union wages and benefits, go apply to one of those employers.
Second, unions exist only in those workplaces where a majority of the workers have voted to be represented by a union. What anti-union ideologues like you are really saying is that one person has a right to keep everyone else from joining together to get better pay, benefits, and working conditions. Fuck you, rob. That’s it, that’s what I have to say about your anti-union ideology: Fuck you. That’s all.
@61 I suggest you let us lawyers argue about legal cases and leegal issues, and shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.
btw, we’re only 27 hours into Goldy’s fundraiser and he’s already over $1400, asswipe.
typo @74
“legal” not “leegal” (obviously)
@64 “Gregoire would have argued the same case when she was AG.”
I disagree. The argument is flimsy, the chances of success at SCOTUS are speculative, and the appeal probably is politically motivated (as Goldy has pointed out). I don’t think Gregoire would have filed this DISCRETIONARY appeal; I think she would have accepted the results of the Washington Supreme Court case.
Roger, how’s the insomia? Still troubling you?
re 77: So, at the end of the day, Mckenna is working for the EFF, which is largely funded by Mellonhead-Scaife and WalMart. So, McKenna is in reality doing union busting for WalMart and Mellonhead-Scaife.
So, to be entirely accurate, Mckenna should have a WalMart and a gold-plated limo as a backdrop and not a Federal Building.
Photo Shop experts: Here’s a rare opportunity.
Ummm, Rob McKenna is a Republican and acts like one? Surprise!
Just in case the facts actually matter…
1.) The law in question was passed by nearly 73 percent of the citizens of Washington State. Rob McKenna was representing the state of Washington, not any organization.
2.) There is nothing partisan about this case. It was started at the trial level by Christine Gregoire when she was AG. Her office won the initial judgement at the trial level. The WEA admitted violating the law and was fined nearly $600,000.
3.) The folks in the photo with Rob McKenna are not EFF members. They are teachers. EFF was only involved with this case because a group of teachers came to EFF and asked for help. They also went to AG Gregoire for help.
4.) The case is not about union busting. All it is about is whether or not the rights of the union to spend mandatory dues on politics out-weighs the First Amendment rights of workers not to pay for politics they disagree with. The WA law in question does NOT affect how union members’ dues can be spent. It only addresses how non-members’ agency fees can be used. Non-members, or agency fee payers, are people who have already said they don’t want to be a part of the union or pay for the union’s politics. These folks are forced to pay an agency fee, however, just to keep their job. That fee is only supposed to be used for collective bargaining, not politics, unless the agency fee payer gives his or her affirmative permission.
Those are the facts of the case. I suggest you read the briefs and oral arguments for more details. On http://www.teachers-vs-union.org, you will find a case timeline, all of the legal briefs in the case, press releases from EFF and the WEA, the transcript of the oral arguments, teacher profiles,and other useful information needed to form an informed opinion.
January 26, 2007
Teachers Go to Washington (Jeff Leer)
http://www.edspresso.com/2007/.....n_jeff.htm
As I stood shivering in the frigid morning air, my mind scrolled back to all the events that have transpired to bring me to this moment. In particular I remembered a conversation I had with a seasoned veteran teacher at my school who told me that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn. My reminiscing was brutally interrupted by the cutting wind that was blowing at 5:00 a.m. as I held on tightly to my cup of coffee, hoping to suck out every ounce of heat I could. Here I was standing with a number of teachers on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping to get a seat to hear oral arguments in a case that had it origins some 14 years ago.
In 1992, our state had just passed a new campaign finance law that required, among other things, unions to get permission before they used members’ dues for politics. I had always been troubled by the political leanings of our union and the fact that my money was being used to support issues and causes that I opposed. I entered this fight when I heard of Cindy Omlin and Barb Amidon, two teachers who had started a grassroots organization of teachers to hold the union accountable, and contacted them. They had discovered that the union had “loaned” its political arm, WEA-PAC, hundreds of thousands of dollars just prior to this new law taking effect. They soon “forgave the loan,” resulting in our minds to be a clear violation of this new law.
Of course the union did not see it that way, nor did the Democrat state attorney general, who received support from the union in the past. With nowhere else to turn, we asked Bob Williams of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation if he could help us. Bob was a former state legislator and auditor and is a big reason this case was before the court that morning. He has been an incredible advocate for our cause at great personal and professional expense to him and his organization. But Bob helped us for the same reason I and teachers across the land were willing to stand in line that morning – because freedom matters.
The Supreme Court had agreed to take our case due to a strange ruling from our state Supreme Court. The majority had ruled the initiative was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment rights of the union to advocate for their members. Apparently, the First Amendment rights of the individual teachers were not as important as those of the union. Because our case Davenport vs. WEA was merged with Washington State vs. WEA, the state attorney general would also be presenting oral arguments. Milton Chappell of the National Right to Work Foundation had agreed to take our case and would have his first chance to argue before the Court after years of fighting for the rights of workers. Sometimes the government also will ask to argue on behalf of an issue and the Solicitor General of the United States would also be given time to argue on behalf of our side. That presented a dilemma. There was only time for two lawyers to argue on our behalf and if the government asks to speak, they will speak. In an incredible act of humility and selflessness, Milton Chappell stepped aside and assisted from the bench without getting to fulfill the dream of every lawyer.
As we were led up the stairs to enter the courtroom we were excited beyond belief. We had gotten in line in time to assure ourselves a seat. Cindy Omlin, Executive Director of Northwest Professional Educators Association and one of the two original teachers who started this cause years before, walked up ahead of us as she had been given a reserved seat for the hearing. It seemed wrong to me that her compatriot and fellow challenger Barb Amidon, who was unable to make the trip, was not by her side walking up those steps next to her on this historic day. After passing through two security checkpoints we were finally seated in the historic room. With little fanfare and quite abruptly, the members of the court took their seats and got down to the serious business at hand. We were the second case on the docket that morning.
Attorney General McKenna was first to speak. It was quite clear that his job was to protect the interests of the state in terms of the law that was violated and not necessarily the first amendment rights of the individual teachers. This line of argument confused Justice Alito who tried, it seemed, to change McKenna’s direction of argument by questions he raised regarding individual teachers rights. This is where Milton Chappell would have really helped our case. Milt gets it. He understands the frustration of every union member that has even one penny of their hard earned money used to support a cause or issue they don’t support. He has been fighting this fight for many years and on many fronts. He should have had his day in court.
Paul Clement was next to speak and quickly returned the argument to where it belongs. He argued that the problem of the lower court’s ruling is that they failed to realize the constitutional rights needing protection in this case were “principally the rights of the individual workers.” He also asked the court to not only overturn this decision but to leave room for play in this area of labor law. I just about jumped out of my seat at this point with applause. Clement was asking them not to rule on the narrow questions of this case but to consider the unbelievable power the government has given unions to reach into the pockets of its members to use their own money for politics.
Representing the union was John West. This was the most entertaining part of the morning, both in terms of the stretches that were being attempted by West to support his case and by the questions the justices threw back at the struggling attorney. Justice Kennedy scolded West because he argued like the rights of the individual teachers were not at issue here. Justice Souter chided West on the fact that the states have every right to go further to protect workers rights than what has been done at the federal level. He then reminded West that the funds in question were not the union’s funds as West kept asserting, but those of the individual teachers who have opted out. My absolute favorite moment was when Justice Alito told West that it was highly unlikely that teachers who have opted out of union membership would want to have their money spent on the politics of the union. When (as shown on page 40 of the transcript) Mr. West responded, “I absolutely disagree with you,” you could hear the chuckles ripple across the room.
We left the courtroom that day with a feeling of deep satisfaction. After years and years of setbacks in our battle in the lower courts, it seemed to us that even though Milt was not there to present our case, the justices of the Supreme Court also “got it.” The questions they raised and the way they challenged John West made it clear that our case was in good hands and a positive outcome was likely. The only trouble we would have was to wait at least 3 months longer to hear the verdict. It seems the wheels of justice will have to continue turning a little longer.
Jeff Leer is a teacher and coach in Northwest Washington and is a founding member of Northwest Professional Educators Association, an association of teachers interested in returning professionalism to teaching.
Booker @ 81 & 82
Thanks for the clarification.
re 81: Agency fees are never used for political purposes. And those are the only fees that are withheld from non-members salaries. So, that is a red herring.
The fight is, indeed, about union busting. It is about non-union workers (who only pay agency fees) forcing the union to ask theiractual MEMBERS Every Year if it is OK with them to make political contributions in the unions name.
Why don’t those union teachers (and Atty. Genl., Rob McKenna — a public servant — get their nose out of the PRIVATE affairs of the teachers union?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
re 84 Should be “non union”.
Why can’t the WEA just form a separate Voluntary Political Action Fund, that allows members who agree that politics should be waged by their Union can contribute. It also allows members who don’t want to endorse a blank 100% left of Dem not to participate in the political action of their Union. What the hell is so hard with that?
And no, it isn’t that hard to set up a PAC (Especially with the vast resources of the WEA). The reason why they don’t want to do it? Because then their political clout may decrease because they will find that there are more teachers out there who are tired of the same old politics and the same old problems. What about the First Amendment Rights of the Members, not just the Union. The Union is in place to represent the members. All of them, not just the ones the E-Board agrees with.
It’s ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Rob “RMK” McKenna and he says, “BRING. IT. ON.” And you want $$$?
BTW, it’s nice you finally got around to blogging about the EFF vs. WEA war. This noble conflict started when the NEA and WEA teamed up to compel dues from those whom already opted out of the WEA.
I have been cruising Google Blog Search and the best summary post of this conflict is HERE.
Finally, full disclosure: I am an EFF member (gee, I wonder why?), I have a crush on somebody w/ the last name of Gunn (golly gee, I wonder why?) and I have a Teachers vs. Union t-shirt on (oh golly gee, I wonder why?).
87. 01/26/2007 at 10:27 am
Got that right.
5. 01/25/2007 at 6:16 pm
Good defense of our attorney RMK. Thank you.
82 & 83 – Booker, you da man!!! GO EFF GO!!!
BTW, the photo of Attorney General Rob “RMK” McKenna is from the official EFF war blog.
A recent column on TomPaine.com by a member of the UofW law faculty named Dmitri Iglitzin contained a great admission that will almost certainly bring down the WEA in the Supreme Court:
The Washington Education Association (WEA) challenged this rule in court, arguing that its First Amendment right to act on behalf of all of the employees it represents is interfered with if it has the heavy burden of obtaining “affirmative authorizations” from all of those employees before spending their money for political purposes. The WEA was successful in making this argument before the Washington State Supreme Court, which struck down Section 760 as unconstitutional.
The problem with this argument, which was not lost on the U.S. Supreme Court, is that the union has no underlying constitutional right to compel any employee to contribute any money to it. In fact, in many states, unions are statutorily forbidden to compel employees to pay dues of any sort—and it is clear that such prohibitions are constitutionally valid. Since Washington could lawfully forbid the WEA from involuntarily extracting any dues money at all from the workers it represents, why can’t the state take the lesser step of forbidding the WEA from extracting such money for certain purposes without “affirmative authorization” by the worker?
You know something you guys – you just might want to realize that we on the right are going to win this one. And when the forces of good win, freedom goes forward. There’s nothing wrong with affirmative authorization… unless your job depends on something else.
Colonel Tucker “Biff” O’hanrahanrahan @ 85:
While you say “Agency fees are never used for political purposes,” the union admitted to doing so in court multiple times. I don’t know how you can get more clear than this.
In “Stipulation of Facts, Violations, and Recommendations,” September 25, 2000 The WEA admitted to “multiple violations” of the law when investigated by the state.
In “Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses,” November 22, 2000, the WEA admitted to violations. “Defendants admits that it collects agency shop fees from agency shop payers… [and] that a portion of these funds is deposited in the WEA’s general treasury….” Defendant’s Answer, ¶ 10. “Defendant admits that during the past five years, it has expended funds from its general treasury for contributions and expenditures to influence an election or to operate a political committee,” Defendant’s Answer, ¶ 11.
In, “WEA Brief in Opposition, U.S. Supreme Court,” August 14, 2006., “[WEA] political advocacy … is financed almost entirely by members’ dues and only to a very small extent by agency fee moneys.”
The WEA admitted guilt, so how can you say it is innocent?
Union Fireman @ 87:
The union already has a “voluntary” PAC, but it can’t get enough members to contribute to it. Before the law went into effect, 82 percent of teachers contributed. Afterward, participation dropped to 11 percent.
This wasn’t enough to fund the union’s political involvement, so it ignored and intentionally violated the law, hoping to get away with it. Instead, Gregoire, as AG prosecuted it.
Actually, you folks on the right could probably get a bunch of us lefties to go along here, except for the problem that many (not all) of you aren’t really looking for a reasonable answer to the entire issue. You just seem to want to go for the organizations (large unions) that tend to support the left, while arguing that the organizations that tend to support the right (large corporations) are an entirely different matter.
Just as nobody is forced to join a union (and I will happily concur that if someone is simply paying the “agency fee” that those monies should never be used for political advocacy) nobody is forced to own stock.
But, both union members and stockholders should have the right to opt out of the political advocacy of the large organization. Or not, as we really aren’t talking apples and oranges here. In both cases, we’re speaking of corporate “entities” that are advocating for or against things that they see as either beneficial or adverse to their interests.
Also in both cases, the people involved are the “owners” of the organization, and it is their money that is going to causes that they may not support.
The fact that many of the folks on the right that are pushing this are also vehemently opposed to the idea of getting stockholder permission to use corporate profits to fund political agendas tells me that this is more a case of trying to unfund the opposition than it is a case of trying to ensure some kind of fairness.
Still, there are a few honest people that are truly offended when an organization that they have a stake in spends money on causes that they abhor.
Pity the poor Democrat that owns stock in Safeco.
“The WEA has 80,000 members statewide and collects agency fees from about 3,500 more teachers who opted out of the union.” (From the first Fishwrapper article linked @11)
Isn’t that interesting. All over the state, including the red portions of the state, 95.8% of the state’s public schoolteachers choose to belong to the union.
@80 A not totally unreasonble characterization of a not totally unreasonable inference.
@82 “All it is about is whether or not the rights of the union to spend mandatory dues on politics out-weighs the First Amendment rights of workers not to pay for politics they disagree with.”
This is a very serious misstatement of what the facts and law are. Teachers who object to contributing financially to WEA’s political activities can avoid doing so simply by returning the “opt out” forms.
It’s no different, or more burdensome, than the similar forms you give to your bank to keep them from selling your account information to marketers. “Opt out” is the norm in the business world; how many businesses sell your information only if you “opt in” (i.e., ask them to)? If “opt out” is good enough for the private sector that Republicans constantly fawn over, why isn’t it good enough for the labor side of the equation? Why the double standard? These are legitimate questions.
Unless the teachers in the photo are incredibly lazy, not one of them is paying for WEA’s political activities. Obviously, people who feel strongly enough to show up for a rally, also feel strongly enough to exercise the “opt out” procedure. So, what these people really are trying to do is interfere with contributions to WEA’s political activities made by OTHER PEOPLE. Some folks call that “officious meddling.”
@84 Geez, Richard, I’m surprised that you accepted Booker’s legally erroneous comment (see #97) uncritically and without comment. Are you asleep this morning?
As a lawyer, you certainly know that Booker’s statement that “it is about … the rights of the union to spend mandatory dues on politics” is factually and legally false.
@87 For the same reason that every corporation I own stock in doesn’t ask for my permission to spend profits that belong to me on political activities I may disagree with.
Why the double standard, fireman? Why different rules for corporations who support Republicans, and unions who support Democrats? Could it be the objective here is to get an unfair political advantage, because Republicans know they can’t win elections on a level playing field?
@88 So … you admit you’re stalking a married woman?
@92 “Agency fees are never used for political purposes”
Biff is mistaken — in fact, that’s what the legal fight is all about. Agency fees ARE used for political purposes UNLESS the person paying them submits the “opt-out” form to the union.
re 101: Biff is not misstaken. If the teacher is not a union member , they pay only the agency fee whether they want to or not. If the non member notifies the union, on a yearly basis, that they want to opt out, then what they have paid (for services over and above the agency fee) is returned to them. They have to request the same exemption on a yearly basis. Not a huge problem, right?
BUT: What the 3,000 non members want is to FORCE the union to personally ASK ALL 80,000 UNION MEMBERS, on a yearly basis, if the union has their permission to make political contributions with the money they donate for that purpose.
I know what I am talking about. The only other person, so far, to understand is Richard Pope.
Agency fees are not spent for political purposes. Why don’t you call the WEA and verify the verity of my testifyin’?
100. You’re such an idiot. Gunn doesn’t equal Lane. Again, you’re such a gullible idiot – I was jerking you around knowing you’d respond to that and that only.
So I could pelt your crowd in the face with the cold hard truth.
94 – 01/26/2007 at 2:41 pm: All that Democrat has to do is NOT invest in Safeco. Teachers just don’t have that option – or you can correct me if you wish.
To all: There is also the issue that some of the money from people whom opt-out is spent on poltics anyway. Any of you thought about that?
Furball: Why no commentary on #92? Looks like a slam dunk with their admissions!
Colonel Tucker “Biff” O’hanrahanrahan @102:
Teachers did not force this law on unions. Rather, 72 percent of voters did in 1992.
Roger @ 99,
Come on roger, even a rabbit can figure this one out. One more time for the kiddos….
Corporation: For Profit
Union: Not FOR Profit
Ummmmmmm, different rules for different organizations.
Besides, Washington is a Liberal state, but even the voters approved this law. Take it up with them.
re 106: Well, they didn’t understand the issues because what they voted for was unconstitutional — and you can’t vote away my God given rights.
So go fuck yourself. Nazi.
The people also voted to put (despite all your cheating) Al Gore in the White House. Where do you stand on that?
re 107: So, non-profit organizations have no legitimate political voice?
You are a fool. Union pensions are for profit. Wage negotiations are for profit.
Union pension funds are starting to be invested in such a way that they change the behavior of corporations.
My unions got billions of dollars to sway both corporations and politicians. What you got, suckah, that EVEN measures up?
re 107: You are not sucking on the corporate teat. Rather , you are kissing the corporate ass.
Josef said:
Ok, consider yourself corrected. That teacher does not have to join the union.
They do have to pay an agency fee to pay for the collective bargaining services that the union provides. I suppose we could give them the option of working twice as many hours for minimum wage, while not paying for collective bargaining, but it really isn’t practical.
Now, for those that are arguing that the WEA is using the agency fee to support political purposes, my understanding is that this practice is illegal, and while the WEA may want to fight that in court, even most of us lefties will agree that the law in that case is reasonable.
What the EFF and its various cronies are trying to push through is a different matter. They want the union to have to ask each member, every year, if the elected union leadership can use union funds to support union goals.
Essentially, they want to make it as hard as possible for the union to lobby in favor of labor-friendly legislation.
Myself, I think that there is just way too much money in politics, so I would be happy to see legislation that states that any “corporate individual” (union, company, association, club, whatever) has to ask each of its members/owners if the “corporate individual” can use that member/owner’s funds for political purposes.
But if we’re going to do that, we need to do it for all “corporate individuals”, not just for the unions.
I think the corporations should stop first. Ever since REagan
Oh, and just to be completely open and honest about this topic. I belong to a trade association (the National Association of Realtors) that has a nasty tendency to spend my dues money on right-wing causes and candidates. With over a million members, they are the single largest trade organization in the country.
While I can work selling real estate without being a NAR member, I cannot work at my current agency, nor can I work at any other agency that I would be willing to be associated with. (They may be rather right-wing, but they do a pretty good job policing their members.)
Last year, they added a $100 “political action fee” to my Realtor dues. There was no opt-out provision. I paid or I found another agency to work at. My choice.
The teachers can opt-out. I couldn’t. Why don’t we hear the righties complaining about that? Oh, I forgot. NAR tends to support right-wing candidates, so it’s ok.
John Barelli @ 113
Just shows what an opportunity these dumb liberals are missing. The NAR is a private organization. No one has to be a Realtor (R) to be a real estate agent or broker.
If liberals would stop using Realtor (R) members, then a non-Realtor (R) brokerage could make a ton of money.
John Barelli – after this case, you will probably get a good means to opt-out. Yes, you – and I support that.
111. 01/26/2007 at 10:25 pm
This EFF member finds me in almost total agreement w/ you. Opt-in to politics should be the way, left or right.
The WEA, however, has abused agency fee-payer/opt-out of the union money in the past. See this post from one of the blogs covering the situation.
Frankly, there are alternatives to the WEA and teachers should be encouraged to use them – such as the Northwest Professional Educators that stay (mostly) out of politics.
re 116: Josef: Who is this “Marsha Richards” That is quoted in the blog’s banner? Any relation to the Marsha Richards who runs EFF?
What happens is that the non-members have to ask on a yearly basis if they want to remain off the list of Teacher/Contributors. If they don’t request it, they are back on the list.
You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting what this fight is about and I will check this thread every day and counter your lies.
You won’t get the last word.
http://www.nea.org/nr/nr020920.html
“Thurston County, Washington, Judge Imposes Sanctions On Evergreen Freedom Foundation”
Read the whole article to find out how crooked and deceptive the EFF is.
I have links detailinf their financial contributors as well.
http://www.examiner.com/a-4937.....money.html
Former teacher’s lawsuit challenges union’s use of money
“He agreed to let the conservative think tank and longtime union adversary put his name on the lawsuit but now can’t remember the details of the conversation.”
Yeah. This guy sounds hoppin’ mad — not!
Richard at 114.
Unfortunately, many (most?) of the non-Realtor outfits I’ve had dealings with are places that I wouldn’t be willing to hang my license. Even though I’m not crazy about their politics, NAR does (my opinion) a pretty good job policing their members and holding them to a rather strict code of ethics. Lots of really good (and important) training is also done through NAR.
Given my choice between going up before an ethics board and going before the licensing folks, I’d opt for the licensing folks. I’m told that the ethics board is much tougher, and I like the fact that we hold ourselves to higher standards, with a method of ensuring accountability. I’d like to believe that most folks would hold themselves to that standard even without the threat of that ethics board, but I didn’t just fall off that turnip truck yesterday.
Their politics aside, it really is a pretty good outfit to belong to, and even the political types can be reasoned with, as their main concern is real estate laws, rules and regulations. Still, that $100 political fee bugged the heck out of me. (At least they didn’t endorse Lois McMahan again.)
Still, I really wish that the Realtist organization would give them a bit more competition. (They’ve got a pretty strict ethics code too, although I don’t know about their enforcement.) Competition is good.
117. Marsha Richards (now Marsha Michaelis) is an education analyist at EFF and on maternity leave. Yes, another REPUBLICAN in 18 years (I hope). She does NOT run EFF.
You are correct that most of this fight is about opt-in versus opt-out. But while you bluster, I fund and defend EFF in the public square.
118. – I think you are picking and choosing facts grand moire.
RMK!! RMK!! RMK!!
Rob McKenna is a great Attorney General!! He’s our Kennedy – fighting for civil liberties (such as open records laws) and civil rights (such as the rights of dissenters against Big Union) against the mighty and the powerful!!!
RMK!! RMK!! RMK!!
John Barelli @ 133:
I disagree with all forced political speech, whether it benefits the right OR left, so we agree.
Just FYI: here’s something that might interest you. The Colorado Secretary of State made a rule requiring all “membership” organizations to ask before spending any dues on politics. This law applied to realtors’ associations, think tanks similar to EFF, unions, gun clubs, etc. Any organization that collected membership dues had to ask. The teachers’ unions sued and the rule is suspended for the time being. It may be fun to look it up and mention it to you legislator and see whether it is a plausible idea here in WA. It benefits both sides of the isle. BIAW, AWB, et all, will have to ask member’s permission just as much as the state bar association, unions, (which already have to, so there is no real burden on them.), etc.
The only opposition will be from the membership organizations, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with ensuring that no organization in Washington state can hijack a person’s political voice (money) and spend it in ways that person objects to?
Gregoire is trying to prevent BIAW and other organizations from running a judicial campaign like they did last year. This could be a possible solution that doesn’t limit the voice of those organizations (which could see some Constitutional challenges), but makes sure their voice is authentic.
Go to http://theymustask.com/ for more information. It is a right-leaning site (it is not partisan though), but you should be able to tolerate it.
Anyway, some ideas…. And all in all, a productive discussion, other than the inappropriate racial and polarizing slurs from one or two participants. I have observed that slurs like that discredit the mouthpiece more than the recipient.
Rob – NO WORKER in Washington State is required to join a union. If you go to work at an employer whose workers are represented by a union and you choose not to join. . . so be it. However, you would be required to pay the Union for “services rendered” like collective bargaining or grievance handling. Roger Rabbit explains it better in comment #74. Also, good synopsis of the case at comment # 64.
A proud union member