Under Michigan law, labor unions may not deduct dues from the paychecks of workers for contributions to political action committees without first asking for permission from each worker every year. This is an example of what is known as a "paycheck protection" law. As Robert P. Hunter, the regional director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in Washington, D.C., described it in a 2003 essay for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, "Paycheck protection codifies a simple philosophy: If unions want their members to give their own money to the political campaigns unions favor, they’re going to have to get their members’ permission first."

However, Hunter also pointed out that there are limitations to the Michigan law: "Michigan’s paycheck protection law could be improved significantly. Under Michigan’s law, payroll dues deductions may be used for political action fund contributions only after individual workers grant their consent each year. The law does not cover union-sponsored phone banks, issue advertisements or publications, many of which are political in nature. Full paycheck protection would cover all union nonworkplace-related dues expenditures."

An August 2002 opinion poll commissioned by the Mackinac Center showed 63 percent support amongst likely voters for strengthening Michigan’s paycheck protection law so as to add the provisions that Mr. Hunter suggests. This poll also showed 49 percent support amongst voters who are members of unions.

But even the modest gains already made toward paycheck protection in Michigan are under siege. A bill that would eliminate the requirement that employees affirm annually that they want paycheck deductions to go into a union PAC recently passed the Michigan House of Representatives on May 2, 2007, and awaits attention from the Senate. House Bill 4628, sponsored by State Rep. Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens, would make several other changes to Michigan’s campaign finance laws. The bill was the subject of numerous amendments prior to its passage.

An amendment offered by State Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton, would have reinserted the spirit of existing paycheck protection language back into HB 4628. The Ward amendment stated that unions would be required to get annual permission in writing from each member to use any portion of their union dues for political activity. This amendment was rejected by the House on a vote of 58-50, with one Republican joining 57 Democrats in voting it down.

HB 4628 was later approved without this amendment by the House of Representatives. If it is adopted by the Senate and signed by the governor in its present form, unions will no longer be required to ask for annual permission before contributing the dues of their members to union political action committee accounts. The bill is currently pending before the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee, chaired by State Sen. Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau.

Hunter’s essay describing paycheck protection laws can be read in its entirety at www.mackinac.org/5192. His description of the 2002 opinion poll regarding support for paycheck protection laws can be found at
www.mackinac.org/4571.

The MichiganVotes.org tally for the Ward amendment to restore paycheck protection to HB 4628 is provided below.

Late this May, the 2007 state budget was showing an $800 million gap between the money Michigan lawmakers had planned to spend and the money that was actually coming in. Seemingly faced with a choice between raising taxes and cutting spending, lawmakers chose neither path, as described in this excerpt of an article on the subject by Mackinac Center Legislative Analyst Jack McHugh:

"Rather than address the real problems, the Legislature and governor entered a bipartisan deal with the devil to paper it over with debt, shortchanging pension contributions, raiding so-called ‘restricted funds’ and pushing disbursements into the next year.

"... The Legislature decided to borrow $410 million against future revenue from the 1998 tobacco company lawsuit settlement, and also use another $100 million from a fund that borrows money to provide college loans. In addition, using an accounting gimmick that would probably mean jail time for a private-sector pension manager, they will shortchange by $220 million the already inadequate annual contribution to cover state and school retiree benefits promises.

"All told, it’s more than $700 million of stealing from the future to sustain excessive spending today."

There were other alternatives considered. Both chambers of the Legislature voted on a modest package of spending reductions earlier this spring. The centerpiece of the plan would have cut approximately $250 million from government spending appropriated in scores of line items. Among the cuts were $11 million from welfare spending; $40 million from state revenue-sharing; $14 million in public transportation; $3.6 million in arts grants; money for community corrections programs, loans to parolees and to a prison union leave bank; and many others. Overall state government spending is budgeted at approximately $42 billion in fiscal 2007.

On March 22, 2007, this spending plan was approved by the Michigan Senate on a strictly partisan vote of 20-17, with all Republicans approving and all Democrats opposing. On April 17, the same plan was rejected by the Michigan House of Representatives on a vote of 60-49, with two Republicans joining 58 Democrats in rejecting the cost containment measures.

In describing this vote and the alternatives facing lawmakers, Mackinac Center Policy Analyst Kenneth M. Braun pointed out that these cuts and many, many others remain on the table and should be considered in future budget discussions:

"The Legislature will soon shift its attention to writing and paying for the 2008 budget. The sensible spending restraint ideas that were tried last March and countless others remain as fiscally sound alternatives to yet another borrowing binge (or perhaps even a major tax increase). Lawmakers must not put taxpayers on the hook for more future spending or taxes. Michigan deserves a less costly tomorrow."

McHugh’s description of the deficit-financing measure that was ultimately approved can be read in its entirety at www.mackinac.org/8630, while Braun’s companion commentary is posted at www.mackinac.org/8631. Finally, the Mackinac Center’s roadmap of nearly $2.0 billion in additional spending reform ideas available to lawmakers appears at www.mackinac.org/8798.

The MichiganVotes.org tally for the spending cuts package that was defeated is provided below.