So much for the good news beat

In another demonstration of whose interests are actually primary in our national economy and political debate,

the Supreme Court ruled today that states could bar [unions that represent public employees] from using forced dues for political purposes unless individual employees gave their explicit approval,

the Los Angeles Times reports.

In the 1970s, the Court held that contracts with public employee unions could require all employees covered by those agreements to pay dues (or fees in lieu of dues) to be used to cover the costs of collective bargaining. In 1977, the Court added the restriction that such agency fees collected from non-members could not be used for political purposes against their wishes.

In response, some affected unions set up "opt-out" arrangements where such objecting non-members could declare they didn't want their fees used for non-bargaining purposes. That, of course, was not good enough for the union-haters, who demanded an "opt-in" process where a non-member's fees could used for other purposes only if that person specifically approved of it. Usually, the demand was that the opt-in had to be for each activity, not just for a general "non-collective bargaining" category.

The Washington Supreme Court upheld an opt-out plan, but today SCOTUS overturned that decision in a ruling that had some truly bizarre - or perhaps, more accurately, revealing - aspects. For example, in Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, agency fees in general were called giving "a private entity the power, in essence, to tax government employees." What's more,

[r]equiring unions to obtain an explicit approval from a dissident teacher before spending their dues money is a "modest limitation ... on the union's exercise of this extraordinary power" to collect forced dues from all teachers, Scalia said.

Utter, utter, bullshit. This is no "modest limitation," the whole purpose of this business is to damage the ability of public-sector unions to engage in advocacy by limiting their funds and imposing onerous record-keeping requirements: Note that under an opt-in program, unions will have to keep track not only of what money goes where but whose money goes where. It's just one aspect of the old "defund the left" crap. The purpose, that is, and one which SCOTUS has now endorsed, is to tilt an already-tilted playing field even further in favor of corporations, whose ability to spend on behalf of their own lobbying and advocacy cannot be restricted except by the depth of their pockets - because to do otherwise is offensive to their "free speech" even as their speech is being enabled to drown out others.

Indeed, Scalia's opinion seemed positively to invite states to go further: In addition to referring to an "unusual" and "extraordinary power" and to fees as a "tax," he declared that states could "eliminate agency fees entirely" if they so chose. And the decision itself, while not immediately invalidating similar arrangements in other states, does make it unlikely they would stand against the legal challenges I have no doubt are already being plotted.

One other thing: It's not just states, it's other employers as well. While the case was limited to public-sector unions, there is absolutely nothing in the decision or its "logic" that would restrict its extension in subsequent challenges to private-sector employees covered by union contracts, challenges undertaken "in light of this recent ruling."

For those of you who might be tempted to mutter "Scalia" or "that's what you get for electing Bush," it's important to note that the ruling came down 9-0. It was unanimous. Some might say that means the legal principle at issue was clear; I say it's the social and economic principles involved whose clarity is on display.