I am a landlord, a property manager and a mom (not in Madison). When one changes one's address a number of things change. I give my tenants change of address forms so I don't have to get their mail. I provide them information on recycling and garbage schedules. I hadn't thought of it before, but now I will be happy to provide them with a voter registration form. I see no way in which handing a person a piece of paper is intimidating - if it was, my tenants would get their recycling sorted and out on time. That hasn't happened yet.
I'd like to see college students up in arms over these attempts to disenfranchise them. What is happening with politics today puts their very lives at risk. Their vote is extremely important. Encouraging and educating young voters is the most important thing any citizen can do.
The Amway corporation is known to have funded ALEC's work although it is not known to be a current funder, see [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Corporations here].
The Amway founders received ALEC's highest award for their ideological affinity to ALEC, as noted [https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/05/11512/cmd-special-report-alecs-gun-agenda-flourished-koch-industries-board-other-koch-f here].
The Amway family fortune, through Besty De Vos, funds groups that are part of ALEC's effort to undermine public education, as noted [https://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/03/11325/wisconsin-education-reform-only-alec-could-love here], through the so-called "American Federation for Children," which is [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Federation_for_Children part of ALEC].
Lisa
I am unaware of anyone wanting to outlaw guns so why do you say this? For hyperbole effect? Do you imagine you win points of some kind, advance some kind of argument by engaging in nonsense talk? Guns don't kill people, magic fairies do.
Strange. The Supreme Court suggests that unions should not be able to take money from people who have manifest NO consent to ANY element of the union's agenda, let alone politics, and it "threaten[s] unions' ability to raise any political funds, or even raise money for their very existence"?
Gee, sounds terrible. After all, we all know that unions are incapable of attracting voluntary MEMBERS without coercion.
And Knox says that unions should obtain CONSENT before extracting money for politics from NONmembers, so "the majority opinion's language ... might apply to all mandatory dues arrangements, which could potentially end the requirement that non-union employees be required to pay the costs of union representation"? As counsel for the Knox nonmembers, that might be nice, but it certainly doesn't logically follow from the premise governing the majority opinion.
Thus, while "Citizens United opened the door for both corporations and unions to spend more freely on elections, the Knox decision will likely mean that unions will have fewer resources with which to do so" only because unions will no longer be able to "free ride" on the backs of nonmembers who never authorized unions to speak for them regarding ANY issues, let alone political issues.
And as for corporations, yours (and Chemerinsky's) is a false equivalency. I am aware of no corporation permitted to dip its hand into ANYONE'S paycheck and FORCE them to buy corporate stock. Which is what would be required to maintain a legitimate First Amendment claim against them for political spending. Remember: what is at issue in Knox is FORCED dues. Forced corporate stock purchases? They don't exist, as far as I know.
Oh, and you neglected to mention that monopoly representation is a PRIVILEGE lobbied for an jealously guarded by labor unions. "Unions have an obligation to represent all employees in a bargaining unit, regardless of whether an individual employee chooses to join the union" because they WANT that power. "Free riders" are a carefully-contrived myth. If unions don't want what actually are FORCED riders, they can easily avoid them by surrending their monopoly bargaining power.
Pages