[EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU

Fri Jun 22 11:53:19 PDT 2012

Doesn't this assume the very point in issue?

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

On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Mathew Manweller wrote:

> I think the boring answer to this question, but probably the most on point legally, is that the insurance company is spending their own money and the SEIU is spending another person's money. Now, we as customers may think of it as "our money" but once you give it to an insurance company--for whatever rate/cost, whatever they plan to do with it, etc, it is THEIR money. They don't need our permission on how to spend it. In the case of the SEIU, they are taking someone elses money out of their paycheck. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central Washington University
> Associate Professor of Political Science 
> manwellerm at cwu.edu
> 509-963-2396
> 
> ?The first lesson of economics is scarcity. There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.? ? Thomas Sowell
> 
> >>> "Liptak, Adam" <liptaka at nytimes.com> 06/22/12 7:02 AM >>>
> 
> This interesting article by Benjamin Sachs in the Columbia Law Review explores these questions:
> 
> http://columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/112/4/Sachs.pdf
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Samuel Bagenstos [sbagen at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 9:57 AM
> To: richardwinger at yahoo.com
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU
> 
> Maybe. But (a) maybe every insurance company in my state is engaged in some ideological/political expenditures (if not all on the same side or the same issue), and I'd just prefer that my money go to paying claims and associated administrative expenses rather than subsidizing political speech on issues that I have not made my own; and (b) I don't necessarily have to work in the public sector, not all public sector jobs are unionized, and not all unionized public sector jobs are represented by the same union. If I don't like AFT, I can work as a teacher in a private school (where, if I have a union, it won't be a public sector one), or a charter school (where if I try to unionize they'll fire me for sure!), or I can work in a next-door district represented by NEA.
> 
> Samuel R. Bagenstos
> Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> sambagen at umich.edu<mailto:sambagen at umich.edu>
> http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411
> http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @sbagen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Richard Winger wrote:
> 
> 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<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> From: Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com>>
> Subject: [EL] Serious Question About Knox v. SEIU
> To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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. Bagenstos
> Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> sambagen at umich.edu<x-msg://759/mc/compose?to=sambagen@umich.edu>
> http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411
> http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @sbagen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<x-msg://759/mc/compose?to=Law-election@department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b812e8d5/attachment.html>