This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 1, 2013 - An email campaign against state Sens. Paul LeVota, D-Independence, and Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis, may have resulted in unintended consequences.
The Missouri chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative organization, targeted LeVota and Nasheed for slowing down state Sen. Dan Brown’s bill to stop public sector unions from automatically deducting dues.
During a recent debate, LeVota read aloud some e-mails he received, including a message asking him to “stop the shenanigans” and allow a vote. (LeVota has been known to accuse GOP legislators of "shenanigans.")
But the email campaign has encouraged LeVota to speak out even more against the measure -- and sparked what looks to be an email campaign from opponents of the bill, making the bill's prospects more uncertain.
“Just because a senator is trying to do his job on a bill he doesn’t like doesn’t mean he’s blocking something,” said LeVota.
Brown's bill has been dubbed “paycheck protection” by proponents and “paycheck deception” by opponents.
The bill would bar payroll deduction of union dues, so union officials would have to collect the dues from each member. It also would require that each member give permission before any part of their dues could be used for political purposes. The law currently allows individual union members to sign a statement barring any portion of their dues from being used for political purposes.
Proponents say Brown's bill gives union members a more direct say on how their dues are spent. But opponents – including many Democratic lawmakers – contend the measure is aimed at weakening the power of labor unions. Most public and private employers with union agreements have payroll deduction of dues.
LeVota noted that he has received e-mails from residents in his district asking him to oppose Brown’s legislation.
“I received 235 e-mails from constituents in my district who were against the bill. Now my guess is they were alerted by their union,” he said. “But still. They put their address.”
For his part, Patrick Werner, AFP's executive director, said LeVota and Nasheed were targeted because they were on the committee considering Brown’s bill. He conceded that the missive probably didn’t dissuade LeVota, who faced no Democratic or Republican opposition when he was elected to his Democratic-leaning district last year. (Nasheed’s St. Louis-based district is arguably the most Democratic in the state.)
“I think it was just more of ‘hey this bill is stalled. The bill went through their committee. They have the most experience in terms of the hearing process,’” said Werner.
He said his membership tagged Brown’s bill and “right to work” legislation barring unions and employers from requiring all workers to pay union dues as priorities before the legislative session began.
“From a national perspective, our group supports these sort of ‘worker freedom’ bills,” Werner said. “And we wanted to put them on our general legislative initiatives for this legislative session.”
For LeVota, the episode perhaps showed how his experience of rough-and-tumble House debate could be a potent weapon in the Senate. But it also underscored the challenge that proponents of curbing union rights have in getting their agenda through the Missouri Senate.
As state Sen. Ryan McKenna, D-Crystal City, noted earlier this week when the bill was up for debate, Brown’s legislation would almost certainly prompt at least 10, 12 or 14 senators to filibuster. That’s significant because a double-digit bloc of senators can delay bills they oppose indefinitely.
McKenna -- a construction marketing representative for Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust – also doubted that 109 House members would override a potential veto. And unlike other controversial bills that ended up passing the Senate despite long periods of discussion, LeVota doesn’t see much room to compromise.
“As I’m learning the Senate, there seems to be a lot of work – and the [Senate Minority Leader Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City] does a good job of this – of trying to get the bill passed with some compromises in it. This one I don’t see how that is, because I think it’s just purely political,” LeVota said. “But I’m certainly open to try and pass the best legislation as possible and trying to compromise on those things.
“I think we did that with the tax credit bill. We did that with the Second Injury Fund,” he added. “But this one is so political, it’s hard to come up with a compromise that does that.”
