Yes. And the bill that we passed in the House made it a proactive responsibility of the union to notify their members that if they did not want their union dues money to be going to any campaign through the soft money, that loophole, and the sham-issues ads, that other loophole, they could say they did not want it and withdraw as a member of the union and still pay the agency fee, which is the union dues money minus what goes for political purposes. My wife took advantage of it. She took advantage of it, and for a number of years her money was not contributed to places she did not want. The sad thing clearly was that she was forced to have to withdraw from the union.
Christopher Shays: “Yes. And the bill that we passed in the House made it a proactive responsibility of the union to notify their members…”
On the recordFebruary 15, 2000
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing union dues and members' rights regarding political contributions.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
Apr 22, 2008
And if I could just jump in. The key that you make is that there are 8 million individuals, either actively working for the government or retired, who are part of the same pool, and so the purchasing power becomes more powerful.
Sep 17, 2008
When a candidate attacks the other candidate for being sleazy and ugly, they are as negative as the candidate that they are criticizing.
Jun 26, 2008
I rise today to support to H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act, because I believe the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, must investigate speculation in the energy futures market and account for any manipulation and price…





