Forced Political Speech

Over the years, mandatory dues and forced political speech have been explored by the courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. Most, but not all, of the cases have involved mandatory union dues and political expenditures beyond the collective bargaining purposes of a union. The protection of members from forced political speech comes from what is know as the Abood line of cases. The case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court in 1977.

The Court ruled that compulsory dues for politics violates the First Amendment and that it is illegal to withhold forced dues from dissenters beyond the cost of collective bargaining.

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled in Communication Workers v. Beck, a case related to a specific collective bargaining provision, that non-members required to pay dues could not be compelled to pay dues or fees beyond those related to collective bargaining. This established what is known as "Beck rights".

The Supreme Court again ruled June 2007 in a case about the protection of non-members from forced political speech, Davenport v. Washington Education Association, by upholding a Washington State law making it harder for unions to spend mandatory fees collected from nonmembers on political campaigns.

Prior court rulings have held that people required to pay fees to certain organizations for professional or other reasons -- such as attorneys who must join a state bar in order to practice law or undergraduates who are assessed student-government fees -- can't be compelled to contribute to political causes they oppose. Those rulings often have led to "opt-out" policies, in which individuals can request a refund of the portion of their fees that would be used for political speech.

Wall Street Journal 1/8/07

The Supreme Court in 1990 had held in Keller v. State Bar of California that:

1. The State Bar's use of petitioners' compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities with which petitioners disagree violates their First Amendment right of free speech when such expenditures are not necessarily or reasonably incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.

The virtual monopoly held by the North Carolina Association of Realtors (NCAR) over licensed residential real estate brokers in North Carolina, (NCAR members and non-members alike), North Carolina's Right to Work Law and the case law established by the United States Supreme Court, makes NCAR vulnerable to legal challenge over the mandatory dues assessment for the Issues Mobilization Fund and threatened punishment of dissenting members.