On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown that struck down a California law prohibiting the use of public funds to either assist or deter union organizing. Immediately after the ruling, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who brought the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of several organizations doing business with the state of California, submitted a press release stating that the Court's ruling will likely result in the invalidation of a similar Massachusetts law. However, a closer look at the respective statutes reveals that the Chamber's assault on the Massachusetts "No Public Money" law is spurious based upon the legal grounds on which the California law was found to be unconstitutional.

The majority of Justices asserted that specific restrictions within the California statute created "burdensome" and "onerous" record keeping requirements, an expensive cost of compliance, as well as unfair punitive sanctions for non-compliance. The overly burdensome California law restrictions were found by the Court to impede employers' ability to make even legally permissible speech to employees. The majority also noted that Congress has passed similar statutes limiting the use of federal money that the Justices did not find improper.

For the Massachusetts "No Public Money" statute to be found invalid, the law would have to include restrictions that are burdensome to the same extent of the California law, forcing employers to forgo their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, due to fear of excessive fines or litigation. Under all "No Public Money" laws, employers are permitted to engage in pro or anti-union speech, as long as they are not using public money to do so.

Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes defended the merits of the Massachusetts statute, saying,

"Ultimately, the California law was struck down due to a small number of provisions that the Court found unconstitutional. The basic premise of the law was not found to restrict the speech of employers. Though the Chamber of Commerce started an immediate attack on our law which prohibits public money from being used to encourage or discourage union organizing, the fact is, this law was carefully crafted, is on the books, and still instructs the state quite accurately and constitutionally on state influence over unionization. It's no surprise to anyone paying attention that the Chamber would claim an unfounded, empty victory in the same knee-jerk fashion that they oppose all workers' rights. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO will always fight to ensure our state never sanctions anything that prevents workers from exercising their right to organize and collectively bargain."

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who dissented on the case, wrote in their opinion that the statute did not limit the free speech of employers because there is no limit on the use of their own money to address labor-related issues.  The dissenting Justices ask why, in light of the fact that states have broad legal authority in deciding how to spend the People's money, "should they be conscripted into paying" for expenditures related to management's position in labor organizing contests.

The dissent, in their opinion, makes a compelling case that the statute in question was in fact constitutional, and also reinforces the necessity of "No Public Money" laws. It is precisely this reason why the Massachusetts statute was enacted, and why it must remain on the books.

The State House News Service was the first to report on the Court decision in Massachusetts and quoted Massachusetts AFL-CIO Legislative and Communications Director Tim Sullivan in responding to the unfounded, predictable public relations spin by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The article is below.

STATE CAPITOL BRIEFS - THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

U.S. CHAMBER SAYS RULING COULD INVALIDATE STATE LAW
The Supreme Court's rejection Wednesday of a California law could lead to the invalidation of a Massachusetts statute that critics say restricts employers' ability to communicate with workers about unionization, said a top national business group. The court ruled in favor of the US Chamber of Commerce in its Chamber v. Brown suit protesting a California law that prevented companies from using state grant and program funds to "assist, promote, or deter union organizing." Massachusetts has a similar law on the books that forbids employers from using state funds toward promoting or opposing unionization. The national Chamber said the California law limited employer speech by forcing employers into "burdensome segregated accounting systems, onerous recordkeeping requirements," and other hardships. A Massachusetts AFL-CIO spokesman said the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling applied too narrowly to provisions of the California law absent in the Bay State version. The decision, said Tim Sullivan, "has nothing to do with the general premise, of course, that a state shouldn't use public money to encourage or discourage." Pending Massachusetts legislation would add enforcement mechanisms to the existing statutes.