Employee Act Case Study

The issue at hand is whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution to require non-union members to pay agency fees. Agency fees are used to pay for representing employees and negotiating contracts, in addition to lobbying activities to support collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The argument is that because these fees are used for lobbying, it potentially violates the first amendment right to prevent individuals from funding political speech that they disagree with. In addition, the argument is that collective bargaining is also political since wages and benefits that unions negotiate on also come out of the public budget. The other side of the argument is that paying these fees contributes to collective bargaining and prevents individuals from free loading representation by the union in negotiations of wages, breaks, etc. This specific case dealt with the California Teachers association and the role its union plays in funding lobbying that is not supported by certain teachers that are non-union members. Agency shop laws require for dues to be paid as a condition of employment.

President Chester Arthur issued these rules [1881]: "First: No person in civil service shall use his office, his official authority or influence, either to coerce the political action of any person or body to interfere with any election. Second: No person in the public service shall for that reason be under any obligation to contribute to any political fund or render any political service, and he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so."

I agree with the assumptions underlying the law; it is a wise barrier against public officials abusing their power. It is easy to imagine a heavily disapproved-of representative or senator attempting to raise their salary prior to an election they were unlikely to win to give themselves a golden parachute before being voted out. This

This branch, however, does not have all the power. There is a system put into place by the founding fathers called checks and balances. This system was though up with one goal in mind, to allow near equal flow of power

The legislative branch, Congress, has the power to make laws valid for the whole country. Powers like the regulation of taxes, regulation of commerce between the states and with foreign countries, the power to declare war, and the power to impeach the President are some of the issues the legislative branch has to deal with. Congress has two chambers (or "houses"): the Senate and the House of Representatives ("the house").

The judicial branch, or the judiciary, is basically the court system for the United States. Their main purpose is to make sure all laws passed are in accordance with the Constitution, and to resolve any disagreements. The decisions in the courtroom are either ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. They also have judicial review which is the ability to declare laws unconstitutional. The head of the judiciary is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is made up of nine judges, one of which is called the chief justice. The judges are appointed by the President and supported by the Senate if they are in agreement. These judges do not

When the framers of the Constitution developed our government, they gave Congress the authority to create the departments necessary to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities of governing - the federal bureaucracy. The vast majority of the departments, agencies, and commissions that make up the federal bureaucracy today were created by Congress through legislative acts. Congress is unable to act in a bubble though, due to the nature of the system’s built-in checks and balances, Congress must first get the president’s “buy off” which is represented by his signature. Although Congress has the authority to create these agencies (with the president’s agreement

The Fair Elections Now Act was introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois in February 2014, and it would change the way Congressional candidates can finance their elections. The Act stipulates that qualified Congressional candidates would earn grants, matching funds, and television vouchers based on a minimum amount of small-dollar contributions from their local community (Durbin, 2015). This bill has still not been adopted, or accepted into law. This type of campaign finance reform is needed for Presidential elections as well.

During a debate of Attorney General Jeff Sessions qualifications, Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced under Rule XIX Section 2. The rule states “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” According to the rules, Senator Warren was in clear violation and therefore appropriate. However there are two issues with this rule, one inherently partisan, the other ethical.

In this Supreme Court 5-4 decision, the Court states that the First Amendment protects corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in elections. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Or as the Court says, the

In 1974, FECA–the Federal Election Campaign Act–a campaign finance law, was amended to place legal limits on campaign elections to a maximum of $1,000 per individual and $5,000 per PAC–political action committee–for each primary, election and runoff. However, FECA neglected to take into account the effects of inflation. Since 1974, inflation has caused $1,000 today to equate to only $240 in 1974, less than a fourth of the originally intended amount. Due to this, candidates need to raise four times the amount of money that they did 41 years ago when the act was amended. Consequently, candidates must focus more on fundraising and have less time to meet citizens and tend to their official

Each of these committees would donate less than $100; therefore, avoiding the need to report the donation (Fuller). In the 1930s two acts were passed, the Public Utilities Holding Act in 1935 and the Hatch Act in 1939. The former of the two prohibits utility companies from making contributions in federal campaigns, while the latter bans most federal employees from making contributions to a candidate in national elections and from participating in political campaigns (Rowan). The Smith Connelly Act was passed in 1943, which bans labor unions from making direct contributions to federal campaigns. However, unions create political action committees, or PACs, to make campaign contributions. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947. This Act bans corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in federal political campaigns (Rowan).

Congress retains a number of special powers. It can act as a judicial body to impeach and try a president or other civil officer for misconduct. For example, the House of Representatives impeaches the official and Senate does a trial. Congress is also empowered to create and use administrative agencies and boards, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to determine facts and to enforce its

Following the Watergate scandal, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 was amended to create the regulatory agency, known as the Federal Elections Commission, in 1975. The duties of the FEC consist largely of enforcing regulation, limitation, and prohibition on financial contributions to federal campaigns, candidates, political parties, and political action committees. The Act has thoroughly set limits on the amount of money a person or committee may donate to the previously mentioned situations. For example, an individual can donate no more than $2,600 to any federal campaign per election, and a combined limit of $10,000 to local and state parties every calendar year. The case at hand involves Shaun McCutcheon challenging the aggregate limits as a violation of the First Amendment right of expression. An Alabaman Conservative businessman, McCutcheon expressed that he wished to donate more than the contributions he was able to make in the last election cycle. He wanted to contribute an amount that would stay within base limits but surpass aggregate limits set by the FEC.

Another definition is a person’s moral principle. Workplace ethics is a big problem within the United States today. What one may think as being right may be wrong for someone else. This act was signed to be a law by President Jimmy Carter. Another name for this act was the Independent Counsel Act. In 1988 there was a Supreme Court case named Morrison v. Olson, to determine whether or not the act was constitutional. The United States Supreme Court determined on a 7-1 vote, that the act is constitutional. According to Title IV, an appointed official under this act can only be removed from their office by impeachment or by action of the attorney general, which must be done under good intent. Impeachment is when a government official is accused of doing illegal things, which will lead them to being removed from office as well as an additional punishment. Good intent is having a reason to take a certain action against somebody for the good of the country. It is also to avoid any legal action against that