Supreme Court’s Janus Ruling Threatens Liberal Funding
We all have known for years that much of the funding for the DNC and their causes comes from the labor unions. They receive their money in many states that force a worker to be part of the union, pay their dues to be employable. The fact that these unions contribute and support leftist ideology and candidates, even if the employee is conservative, means nothing, they are forced to pay into funds to help a party they wish nothing to do with. This all stopped with the Supreme Courts Janus Ruling.
What exactly was the Janus Ruling? Janus vs. AFSCME was a case brought before the Supreme Court where the defendant, Mark Janus, took the public workers union to court, said that by forcing him to pay into a fund that was supporting liberal causes, they were violating his free speech rights if he did not support the ideology of the liberal groups they were helping.
This was fought up to the highest court, not surprisingly the lower courts with more left-leaning justices found against him in their rulings; the left was outraged when the highest court ruled in favor of Janus and stopped the practice of unions forcing none union members to pay or lose their jobs.
One of the most significant problems over the years was the fact that the unions have only supported liberal causes if you were a member and were conservative, you had no say whatsoever in how your union dues were spent. What is more, having a public sector union fund only one party smacks of corruption, they should be politically neutral, they are supposed to be representing workers from all political parties, but this has never been the case.
The left’s reaction to this was very predictable, LA Times wrote:
The court’s decision in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME seemed a foregone conclusion, following a few near-misses in recent years. The court’s conservative majority had made no secret of its hostility to public employee unions in a string of earlier cases. The author of the Janus decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., had become the leading spear carrier in this campaign after the 2016 death of its previous leader, Antonin Scalia.
New York Times wrote:
Limiting the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups. They seemed poised to succeed in the Supreme Court in 2016 when a majority of the justices looked ready to rule that the fees were unconstitutional.
The liberal justices who voted in favor of the unions saw things. Differently, Kagan wrote the dissenting view:
Nothing in the changed employer-employee landscape, she argues, warrants overturning Abood, which has successfully guided state and local employment relations since 1977. This wasn’t about the 1st Amendment, Kagan observes. Instead, the majority “wanted to pick the winning side in what should be — and until now, has been — an energetic policy debate” over the role of unions in the public sector. “Today, that healthy — that democratic — debate ends…. Maybe most alarming, the majority has chosen the winners by turning the First Amendment into a sword.