Coerced political contributions corrupt democracy and freedom

     
     Mr. Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave if he only knew how many Americans today are compelled to contribute to political campaigns that they don't support. Specifically, I am referring to union members who are forced to pay monthly dues that are diverted by union bosses, in some cases corrupt union bosses, to political candidates and causes without the permission of the contributing employee.
      It's hard to imagine a more un-American practice. Not only are many employees left with no choice but to join a union if they want the job (although Nevada is a right-to-work state), their mandatory monthly union payments can be used for political contributions that they might find repugnant and totally disagreeable.
      If you find this as distasteful as I do, then I'm happy to inform you that something can be done about it: There is a strong likelihood that an initiative will be placed on the Nevada ballot that will outlaw the practice of forced political contributions in our state once and for all. The initiative, called the Paycheck Protection Act, will prohibit union bosses from using any portion of a member's dues for political purposes without annual written authorization from the individual union member.
      Now that's real campaign finance reform, unlike the phony "reform" bill that was voted down in Congress a few months ago, which did not even address the issue of coerced political contributions.
      The Paycheck Protection Act is a lethal bullet to the heart of the politically potent unions in Nevada. That includes, of course, the Culinary union, the teachers unions, and most any AFL-CIO or Teamsters affiliated unions in the state.
      According to a confidential poll conducted in neighboring California eight months ago by Steinberg and Associates of Calabasas, 85.5 percent of those surveyed favored a similar initiative, when told of its key provisions, that has already qualified for the ballot in California. Even when the questions were asked in a manner purposefully designed to reflect negatively on the initiative, a tactic known as "push-down questioning," an overwhelming 72 percent majority still expressed their strong support.
      CNN's senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, conducted a national poll a few weeks ago reaching very similar results. Rank-and-file union members were found to support the initiative by a 4-to-1 margin, while registered Democrats were found to support it by a 2-to-1 margin. These result are even more dramatic than the initial favorable polling results on California's Proposition 209, which dealt with racial preferences.
      It is well known that the great majority of union political contributions go to Democratic causes and candidates. Because the passage of this initiative will be a major blow to the political clout of unions it will also hurt the Nevada Democratic Party. We can expect union bosses, the state Democratic Party, and their cheerleaders in the media to fight this initiative with every ounce of resources at their disposal.
      For Republicans on the other hand, this is a no-brainer. Even if the initiative loses, the status quo will remain. On the other hand, if the initiative wins, Nevada Democratic candidates and causes will be greatly weakened in future campaigns if they can't depend on coerced union money. But no matter the outcome, the immediate benefit for Republicans is that unions will be forced to spend millions of dollars defending the indefensible on their own turf, with money that would otherwise have gone directly into the coffers of Democratic candidates and causes.
      Putting partisan politics aside, clearly the time has come to give all Nevadans free choice in our elections -- especially those union members who all too often are stifled and virtually disenfranchised by union bosses.
      For generations, it was the boast of every American citizen -- native-born or proudly naturalized -- that America is a free country. But a lot of working Americans are not free to exercise the political choice that fundamentally defines our rights and freedom as Americans. Any member of a union should be free to speak his mind. He shouldn't be forced to have his pocket picked for candidates and causes he doesn't support. Period.
      Democracy is a wonderful thing. Over time, It tends to correct its own flaws. By doing away with blatant coercion and forced contributions, the Paycheck Protection Act will advance the principle of freedom of individual political choice over mandatory group participation, which breads corruption and cynicism.
      This campaign has the promise of becoming one of the most hard-fought and interesting political confrontations in Nevada during the coming election cycle.
     
     Joe Gelman, a political analyst and columnist, was the campaign manager for California's Proposition 209. He is a resident of Las Vegas. His e-mail address is j-o-g@email.msn.com.