[EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

[Richard Winger]

I think the problem with this very thoughtful analogy is that you have a choice of auto insurance companies, and a choice of health insurance companies.  But if you are a worker in a union shop, you don't have a choice of labor unions; there is only one.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Fri, 6/22/12, Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com>
Subject: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU
To: law-election at uci.edu
Date: Friday, June 22, 2012, 6:44 AM

Yesterday's decision in Knox v. SEIU, and particularly the broad dicta in the majority opinion, lead me to ask the following question:  If I live in a state where (a) state law requires me to buy liability insurance as a condition of registering a car, and (b) some or all of the auto insurance companies in my state spend money to advocate for or against ballot propositions regarding insurance regulation, am I constitutionally entitled to a rebate of the portion of my premium that went to such expenditures?  Is the insurance company required to make a Hudson-style disclosure of its political and ideological expenditures so I can opt out?
There could be an easy or obvious answer to this question, but I am interested in others' thoughts.

Samuel R. BagenstosProfessor of LawUniversity of Michigan Law School625 S. State St.Ann Arbor, MI  48109sambagen at umich.eduhttp://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/Twitter: @sbagen







-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120622/df8aeeb4/attachment.html>