On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say "NO" to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation - that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price…[more]

July 15, 2019 • 02:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
As Justice Kennedy Retires, Supreme Court Finally Ends Compulsory Public-Union Dues Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, June 28 2018
[T]he majority ruled that states and public-sector unions may no longer forcibly extract payment from unwilling employees. That violates the First Amendment, as the freedoms of association and speech mean that people must freely choose to support the behavior in which unions engage.

Groucho Marx famously observed, "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." 

For decades, millions of American public-sector workers who were forced to join unions have pleaded, "I don't want to belong to any club that would force me to become a member." 

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court finally granted relief to those millions of people.  No longer must they pay involuntary membership dues to powerful unions that serve as conduits for political contributions to leftist candidates and social causes. 

And with the Justice Anthony Kennedy's subsequent retirement announcement, the narrow 5-4 decision highlights once again the critical importance of securing conservative judges and justices in our precariously balanced Supreme Court and throughout the rest of the judicial branch. 

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Supreme Court addressed a lawsuit filed by Illinois state employee Mark Janus, who declined to join a union whose political activities and collective bargaining positions he opposed.  Under Illinois law, however, non-members were forced to pay what are known as "agency fees" to unions to cover whatever they decree germane to collective bargaining activities.  In Mr. Janus's case, that agency fee unsurprisingly amounted to approximately 80% of full union dues. 

Unfortunately, the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that hasn't aged well in the ensuing four decades supported the union's position.  Consequently, the federal District Court and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Janus's lawsuit. 

In a welcome decision and astonishingly blunt terms, however, a majority overruled Abood and restored the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association to millions of public sector workers: 

The State's extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment.  Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it.  Abood is therefore overruled.  Abood's holding is inconsistent with standard First Amendment principles.  Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns.  That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. 

And in withering language, the majority eviscerated not only the illogic of Abood, but also the justifications offered for compulsory union membership: 

The Union claims that Abood is supported by the First Amendment's original meaning.  But neither founding-era evidence nor dictum supports the view that the First Amendment was originally understood to allow States to force public employees to subsidize a private third party.  If anything, the opposite is true...  Abood was poorly reasoned, and those arguing for retaining it have recast its reasoning, which further undermines its stare decisis effect...  Developments since Abood, both factual and legal, have "eroded" the decision's "underpinnings" and left it an outlier among the Court's First Amendment cases.  Abood relied on an assumption that "the principle of exclusive representation in the public sector is dependent on a union or agency shop," but experience has shown otherwise.  It was also decided when public-sector unionism was a relatively new phenomenon.  Today, however, public-sector union membership has surpassed that in the private sector, and that ascendency corresponds with a parallel increase in public spending.  Abood is also an anomaly in the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, where exacting scrutiny, if not a more demanding standard, generally applies.  Overruling Abood will also end the oddity of allowing public employers to compel union support (which is not supported by any tradition) but not to compel party support. 

Accordingly, the majority ruled that states and public-sector unions may no longer forcibly extract payment from unwilling employees.  That violates the First Amendment, as the freedoms of association and speech mean that people must freely choose to support the behavior in which unions engage. 

In an age in which unions donate upwards of 90% of their political dollars toward leftist candidates and causes, the Supreme Court's decision will in turn prove dramatically consequential, as it already has in states like Wisconsin that instituted reform and witnessed immediate declines in union membership. 

As pivotal swing Justice Kennedy retires, it's important to remember that four justices remained willing to allow forcible union dues payment to perpetuate their political power. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the longest-serving U.S. Secretary of State?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Months of bleak polling couldn't stop the parade of lower-level Democrats crowding into the presidential primary.But bankruptcy might.Eleven Democratic presidential candidates -- nearly half of the sprawling field -- spent more campaign cash than they raised in the second quarter of the year, according to new financial disclosures filed Monday. Eight contenders active in the spring limped forward…[more]
 
 
—David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
— David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
 
Liberty Poll   

Do the "politics of personal destruction," now rampant across the political spectrum and amplified by the media, make you more or less inclined to personally participate in political activity?