The California Teachers Association is having one of its best sessions in years, winning support for a crackdown on charter schools and unusual direct state assistance for districts to pay for ballooning pension costs – freeing up money for teacher raises. But a long-percolating push by the CTA and its allies to renew the reading wars of the 1980s and 1990s by weakening requirements that prospective reading teachers demonstrate mastery of phonics education has quickly stalled.

A gut-and-amend had turned Senate Bill 614 from a measure that would promote early childhood education into an attempt to decrease the qualifications needed to teach reading. But the revised measure was put on hold after the Oakland branch of the NAACP blasted the bill for making it even more likely that students in poor neighborhoods would have unqualified teachers.

The sponsor of SB614 – Sen. Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park – rewrote the measure so it would remove language in the Education Code that requires prospective reading teachers to pay for and pass a test demonstrating their knowledge of how phonics work. 

In phonics, students are taught reading by learning the sounds that groups of letters make when spoken. This approach was dropped by California in the late 1980s in favor of “whole language” instruction in which students are expected to figure out the correlation between letters and pronunciation through experimentation. In 1994, the Legislature and Gov. Pete Wilson went back to phonics after concluding that “whole language” had hurt test scores.

Union cited difficulty of phonics requirement

But the latest attempt to undermine phonics training isn’t driven by unhappiness with phonics per se. According to teacher-blogger Rachel Hurd, a 13-year CTA member, in internal communications, the union cited two primary motivations for seeking changes.

1) “The pathway to becoming a teacher in California loses a significant share of candidates at each testing juncture. … Given that candidates also reported that the tests are a financial hurdle and a logistical challenge, there is no doubt that they have a noticeable impact on the pipeline for becoming a teacher in the state.”

2) “The abysmal first-time pass rates for native Spanish speakers, African Americans, and male teacher candidates.”

These rationales outraged George Holland Sr., president of the Oakland branch of the NAACP.

NAACP, reading experts were highly critical

“We must better prepare educators to meet the bar – not eliminate it. Passing SB614 would disregard the science of reading, data about the causes of teacher turnover, the National Reading Project findings, … the California Guidelines for Dyslexia, and the California Constitution,” he wrote on July 5.

Three dozen reading experts from across the nation also issued a letter the same week saying there was overwhelming evidence that phonics worked best.

Rubio’s bill was supposed to be heard by the Senate Education Committee this month. Instead, it was pulled at Rubio’s request before Senate staffers had even finished an analysis of its new content.

It could possibly resurface later in the session.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in the Janus v. AFSCME case that public employees couldn’t be compelled to pay union dues was widely seen as a game-changing moment in U.S. politics.

The coverage on The Atlantic website was typical. It called the decision, which stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Illinois state employee Mark Janus, a “huge blow” to public sector unions and suggested the decision had the potential to “end” such unions in America.

But five months later, the experience of the most powerful public employee union in the nation’s largest state undercuts the assumption that Janus would take a quick toll on unions’ clout. In supporting Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, for state superintendent of public education against Marshall Tuck, the California Teachers Association spent $16 million as of Oct. 31 – $5 million more than it did in the entire 2014 superintendent election, where the union supported incumbent Tom Torlakson over Tuck, a former Los Angeles school executive with deep support from charter school advocates and a loose coalition of tech billionaires.

Torlakson narrowly defeated Tuck. This election, Tuck and Thurmond have been trading the lead in recent days. With millions of votes yet to be counted, no journalism organization has called the race.

The CTA does not issue regular updates on its membership status. But a recent Sacramento Bee analysis suggested that the union, as in previous years, had 90 percent membership among the 325,000 teachers it represented. So while it’s lost dues from the 10 percent of teachers who reject union membership, the CTA still collects more than $150 million in dues annually – making it the most powerful force in the California Democratic Party.

Union clout to be tested in coming fight over funding

The extent of the CTA’s clout is likely to be tested soon – whether Thurmond or Tuck is elected. That’s because both have said they oppose one of Torlakson’s most controversial, union-favoring decisions: His 2015 announcement that the extra funding going to schools with disproportionate numbers of English learners, foster children and impoverished students could be spent on general needs, such as raises for teachers.

Torlakson’s decision, which overrode a directive from a lower-ranking official in the state Department of Education, spurred outrage in education reform circles. The Local Control Funding Formula – the 2013 state law changing how districts were allocated state dollars – had been pitched as creating a lock-box of dollars that would be spent only on helping underachieving students.

But Torlakson’s decision had the effect of turning the local-control funding into a de facto block grant. Many districts have used the funds for employee raises.

If Thurmond or Tuck revive the lock-box theory of how the funds can be spent, that’s likely to create huge headaches for most school districts, which have received an average of $8 billion a year in local-control dollars since the law took effect.

Newsom close with both teachers unions and reformers

A key factor in the coming fight over funding is the position taken by Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, who was strongly backed by the CTA but is also friends with the tech tycoons who want education reform. The governor’s control over parts of the Department of Education’s budget gives him a powerful lever to use on the state superintendent.

On the campaign trail, Newsom said teachers are underpaid and schools are underfunded. But he’s also rejected Gov. Jerry Brown’s claim that education reform is a “siren song” in which trends come and go but schools never get better. In interviews, Newsom has noted the success of education reform in union states like Massachusetts and New Jersey.

It’s unclear when the count of the Thurmond-Tuck vote will be complete. But the recent statewide election with the most parallels to the race offers encouragement for Thurmond, a former social worker.

In the 2010 attorney general’s race, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, a Republican, took such a substantial early lead over San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris that the San Francisco Chronicle pronounced him the winner on election night. But as millions of provisional and late ballots were counted, the tide turned steadily toward the union-backed Democrat. Three weeks later, Cooley conceded when Harris’ lead topped 50,000 votes. Harris ended up winning by more than 74,000 votes – about 1 percent of total voters.

The 2018 race for state superintendent of public instruction may not have an incumbent but is likely to feel like an encore of the 2014 race, pitting a Democrat aligned with the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers against a Democrat who backs reforms opposed by the unions.

In 2014, Tom Torlakson – a former teacher and state lawmaker – won a second term, touting higher graduation rates and somewhat better test scores. He defeated former Los Angeles charter school executive Marshall Tuck 52 percent to 48 percent in a race in which $30 million was reportedly spent, triple the campaign spending in that year’s quiet governor’s race.

With the strong support of wealthy Los Angeles area Democrats who have been fighting for changes in L.A. Unified and who remember the job he did running Green Dot charters, Tuck is running again.

Subbing for termed-out Torlakson is Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, who has worked closely with teachers unions on many fronts – most notably joining in maneuvering last summer that helped kill a tenure reform bill that had gotten off to a strong start in the Legislature. He has also opposed efforts to more closely monitor how education dollars are being spent under the Local Control Funding Formula. The law was supposed to be used specifically to help districts with high numbers of English language learners, students in foster care and students from impoverished families to improve their academic performance. But civil rights groups say the extra dollars often have been used for general spending, including for teacher raises.

Thurmond was also among lawmakers who expressed interest in helping teachers deal with California’s high housing costs, proposing legislation to award $100 million in rental grants to teachers in need. It didn’t advance.

Tuck may have better shot than when he challenged incumbent

The conventional wisdom is that Tuck has a better chance than in 2014 because Thurmond has much lower name recognition than Torlakson. But that could be erased with a heavy television ad run by the teachers unions using the same anti-Tuck themes as in 2014: Making the argument that the charter schools he led are part of a corporate scheme to take over public education. 

If Tuck, 44, gets his way, the debate will focus on his reform agenda – the idea that charters serve as healthy competition for regular schools; the need for much better oversight of how the Local Control Funding Formula is used; adopting teacher tenure reform; and accountability standards that make it easier to judge whether a school is improving.

Thurmond’s website emphasizes his view of California educators doing battle with President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos over what he describes as their intent to “gut” and “defund our public schools.” Thurmond, 49, a military veteran who was a social worker before running for office, also said teachers need “bonuses and other incentives” to address the shortage of qualified instructors.

Complicating the Tuck-Thurmond race is the likelihood that for the first time in the 21st century, a prominent Democratic gubernatorial candidate is running as an anti-union reformer – which could make schools a more prominent issue in the 2018 election cycle than is normal.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who repeatedly tangled with the United Teachers Los Angeles while seeking authority over L.A. Unified, has already won the endorsement of the state Democratic lawmaker recognized as the leader of education reform efforts: Assemblywoman Shirley Weber of San Diego.

The CTA endorsed Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom in the governor’s race and Thurmond for superintendent in October. The CFT did as well in December.

A hospital association just pumped $12.5 million into an effort to extend a tax on top earners — a tax that’s provided billions of dollars in education funding since 2012.

In fact, the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems quadrupled its investment from four years ago when Prop. 30 passed. So why do hospitals care so much about education funding?

Because there’s billions of dollars per year in health care funding at stake.

Health care funding

Since Prop. 30 passed — during an economic downturn when the state was confronted with sharp budget cuts — it has largely funded education with some money bolstering the general fund, which includes some health care programs.

But the 12-year extension vying for a spot on the November ballot — two years prior to the expiration date — would add up to $2 billion in funding per year for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. The contributions to Medi-Cal would come once other funding requirements have been met (the Prop. 2 rainy-day fund requirement and the Prop. 98 minimum education funding requirement).

Prop. 30

Prop. 30 imposed a “temporary,” seven-year personal income tax increase on earnings of more than $250,000, and a quarter cent sales tax increase for four years.

Some of the revenue went to help balance the state budget, but most went to education funding — 89 percent to K-12 and 11 percent to community colleges.

The extension

The proposed extension allows the quarter cent sales tax to expire, but extends the income tax increase until 2030, securing funding far enough into the future “to provide long-term stability for our schools,” said Jennifer Wonnacott, spokeswoman for the “Yes” campaign.

“We still need this investment,” said Wonnacott. “This is about asking those who can afford to pay a little bit more to keep doing so for a little while longer.”

Big money

With the heavy early investment from the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems — which only spent $2 million to help Prop. 30 pass in 2012 — this is shaping up to be one of the costliest battles this cycle.

Prop. 30 was a $135 million issue, one largely supported by the California Teachers Association ($11.4 million), Service Employees International Union ($10.7 million), Democratic State Central Committee of California ($5 million) and the American Federation of Teachers ($4.1 million).

In total, proponents spent $65.6 million to pass the measure. It has generated $13.1 billion in education funding since its passage, according to the state controller’s office.

The extension measure is again supported by the California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union, which — along with the hospitals — forms a formidable alliance. The California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union has already given $1.2 million on the effort.

While it won’t take a formal position unless the measure qualifies for the ballot, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will make this a top target if it does qualify — the measure has reached the 25 percent mark for required signatures as of Sunday.

Many political donors will also fight this measure. In 2012, Charles Munger Jr. contributed $35 million to the “No on 30” campaign in opposition to Prop. 30, according to Ballotpedia.

Timing

Instead of waiting until the next cycle when the Prop. 30 income tax provision expires, proponents are banking on a favorable turnout, as Democrats vote in larger percentages in presidential cycles than they do in midterms.

There had been competing Prop 30 extension proposals, but the efforts consolidated around this measure, said Wonnacott.

But not all teachers want to pay that much; 12,212 teachers in 2014 opted for “fee payer” status, which docks them around $650 a year.

The fees are supposed to cover only non-political activities, like hammering out contract agreements. Those opting out of the union, despite paying the fee, are ineligible to vote in union matters.

Wherever it goes, the money represents an estimated $7.8 million annually for the California Teachers Association, and many feel that it is being extracted from the unwilling.  

Which means that a victory in the legal crusade of teacher Rebecca Friedrichs to overturn the mandatory assessments would inflict a heavy hit on the union, which collects and uses the money. Given the choice, some teachers currently paying the $1,000 a year would forego any payment if it were not mandatory, diminishing the union’s power.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Jan. 11, has drawn 57 amicus filings, or documents in support of one of the two parties. Most of the filings offer legal opinion or expertise, and the originators break down along the lines of conservative and liberal.

The filers in favor of Friedrichs include 17 Republican attorneys general led by Michigan’s Bill Schuette, the Goldwater Institute and former California Gov. Pete Wilson.

Those supporting the teachers association include the state of California, the California School Employees Association and the Obama administration.

What’s at Stake

The plaintiffs seek to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allows the fees to be taken against the will of the employee.

“Abood failed to recognize the full extent to which teachers unions advocate positions during collective bargaining on intensely divisive public-policy issues, some of which — from the perspective of nonmember teachers — are harmful to both teachers and students,” reads the filing on behalf of Wilson.

The state’s school employees association contends in its amicus filing that “the essence of exclusive representation is that the union represents, and speaks for, all unit employees on employment issues pertaining to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment (hence the term “collective bargaining”) … the characterization of union representational activity as per se ‘political advocacy’ or ‘influencing public policy’ is so far outside the real world of public school employment and labor relations as to be ludicrous.”

RELATED: Read the transcript of the oral arguments here and listen to the arguments here.

According to one analysis, .08 percent of CTA political money went to Republicans between 2003 and 2012.

Since 1997, the association has donated $184 million to 583 filers, 50 of them Republicans, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The top individual recipient is Gov. Jerry Brown, who has taken $3.25 million from the association. The union group also spent $3 million to help Brown defeat Meg Whitman in the 2010 gubernatorial race.

It spent $21 million in 2012 to defeat the unsuccessful Alliance for a Better California ballot measure, which would have ended payroll deductions for political activism.

It has also given money to other unions, including the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and a Nevada measure backed by teachers unions to require additional funding for public schools.

The union also receives money from offshoot groups, including the California Teachers Association for Better Citizens, which donated $1.5 million in 2010 to its independent expenditure arm, and Teachers and Families Supporting O’Donnell for Assembly 2014, which backed the successful campaign of Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell, D-Long Beach,  a public school teacher seen as a political ally of the union.

The union has 65 paid staffers, including two staffers working full time on political issues – one at a gross salary of $138,087 and another at $105,004 – and three others who spent 80 percent of their time on political activities, the union’s most recent federal filing shows.

“Every year, petitioners are required to provide significant support to a group that advocates an ideological viewpoint which they oppose and do not wish to subsidize,” Michael Carvin, an attorney representing Friedrichs and her co-plaintiffs told the Supreme Court justices in his argument Jan. 11. He said the problem was not that the union was the sole representative of the workers, but that the workers were forced to subsidize the union’s political positions.

In his argument, Edward DuMont, representing the state, said that the union had to be funded and not by the state. “It’s very important that we do not fund it directly and that we not be perceived as controlling the speech of that representative.”

Union Influence Under Pressure

The decision by the Supreme Court “may mark a sea change in the way in which we understand labor law going forward,” Richard Epstein, a law professor at New York University School of Law, said in a post-argument podcast.

Epstein’s analysis explains that the five conservative justices regarded the plaintiffs  as “‘compelled riders’ who are obligated to pay fees to a union even if they felt they were better off without a union “even if the union offered them membership for free.”

It’s the opposite of what the union has referred to as free riders, who reap the benefits of a union without paying a full price, he said.

Epstein predicts that Abood will be overwritten in a 5-4 ruling with the conservative justices prevailing, and “the agency shop will be ended on constitutional grounds.”

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

As the court hears oral arguments, the challenge has made “unions which represent government workers deeply fearful for their financial future and their public stature,” SCOTUSblog noted. “A significant blow to their treasuries could come if non-union workers are able to turn broad hints by the Supreme Court into final victory in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.”

In the case, California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs sued the California Teachers Association over fees she must pay even though she is not a member of the union. “Teachers who, like Friedrichs, have opted out of the union are still represented by it in various contract negotiations, which is why they are required to pay a fee,” the Atlantic noted. “In California, members pay annual dues that average about $1,000 a year, while non-members pay about $600 to $650 for the agency fee alone.”

A landmark challenge

At stake is whether unions are constitutionally permitted to extract dues spent on speech opposed by dues-paying members like the plaintiffs in Friedrichs. “Here is their logic: because unions cannot charge non-members for political activity and since non-members argue that everything a public-sector union does — even bargaining — is political in nature, it follows that any fees violate their First Amendment right not to pay for activity to which they object,” according to the website.

If the court rules in their favor, they will have overturned a 1977 decision allowing the collection of what were deemed “fair share” fees. “Twenty-three states authorize collecting these fees from those who don’t join the union but benefit from a contract that covers them,” NPR reported. Currently 9 percent of teachers have not joined the CTA, the station added. According to state law, however, “any union contract must cover them too, and so they are required to pay an amount that covers the costs of negotiating the contract and administering it. The idea is that they reap the bread-and-butter benefits covered by the contract — wages, leave policies, grievance procedures, etc. — so they should bear some of the cost of negotiating that contract. They do not, however, have to pay for the union’s lobbying or political activities; they can opt out of that by signing a one-page form.”

Political posturing

In one of the arcane twists now familiar to watchers of the court, where sharply divided justices sometimes rule in atypical ways for idiosyncratic reasons, union hopes have been pegged on Justice Antonin Scalia, the resident conservative firebrand. Justice Samuel Alito, whose legal reasoning conservatives often find more reliably conventional, has been viewed as the linchpin of a ruling against the CTA. “A majority opinion by Alito in 2012 suggested the fees were constitutionally vulnerable, and another decision in 2014 stopped just short of overturning the 1977 decision — a ruling that rests on ‘questionable foundations,’ Alito said for a 5-4 majority,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Perhaps predictably, unions and their liberal or progressive supporters have cast the case as the latest and most audacious effort by a wide-ranging alliance of monied interests, spearheaded by the Center for Individual Rights, to break the back of organized labor. For decades, conservatives and libertarians have arrayed themselves broadly against labor unions, which have grown more narrowly partisan in their support of Democrats and the open-ended expansion of public benefits for members and themselves. “Still, unlike the Koch political network and its plans to shape the presidential campaign, it is difficult to find evidence of a single coordinating body that has directed money toward the Center for Individual Rights and its legal campaign to allow public employees to opt out of union fees,” the New York Times observed.

In recent months, sponsors of tax increases have filed the necessary paperwork to obtain a ballot title and summary for multiple tax increases, including two versions of a Prop. 30 tax extension. Critics of higher taxes say that an extension of Prop. 30 violates the promise made in 2012.

“Prop. 30 was creatively advertised and sold to the voters by a union, the California Teachers Association, which depicted it as a ‘temporary’ tax to support public schools,” contends former Democratic State Senator Gloria Romero. “But even while Prop. 30 was being pitched to voters as a temporary tax increase, no one in the political world actually believed it. In fact, discussions were already underway before its passage about extending Prop. 30 tax increases beyond the two expiration dates.”

Version 1: Prop. 30 Tax Extension

In September, attorneys on behalf of the Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of education unions, organized labor and health care providers, introduced the “School Funding and Budget Stability Act,” which would impose higher income taxes on high-wealth earners for the next 12 years. The $9 billion in anticipated higher tax proceeds would go towards schools. That also explains why the California Teachers Association is among the proposal’s biggest supporters.

“Temporarily extending these critical revenues will help keep our state budget balanced, and prevent devastating cuts to programs affecting students, seniors, working families and health care,” Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic strategist and representative of the coalition, told the Educator, the CTA’s monthly magazine.

Under the plan, California residents earning more than a half-million dollars per year would continue to pay Prop. 30’s higher income taxes until 2030. The quarter-cent sales tax increase would expire next year as scheduled.

Version 2: Prop. 30 Tax Extension

Not content with one tax hike, the same group introduced a second Prop. 30 tax extension in December. The measure would impose Prop. 30’s higher tax rates on those earning more than $250,000 per year — with the proceeds allocated in a slightly different manner.

In an apparent bid to gain support from California’s hospitals, “The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016” would allocate up to $2 billion towards Medi-Cal spending.

“Whether this version truly represents a joint teachers union/health care effort remains to be seen,” explains Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education. “The health care union has not indicated its position on this approach; indeed, in a bizarre twist, it recently sued the CHA for entering into negotiations with CTA in the first place.”

“Amid this uncertainty, one fact remains unassailable: the CTA has a measure ‘on the street’ for which they can begin collecting signatures. Everything else for now is speculation,” he added.

Sponsors of the tax increase say it is desperately needed to avoid catastrophic cuts to schools and other public services.

“Unless we act now to temporarily extend the current income tax rates on the wealthiest Californians, our public schools will soon face another devastating round of cuts due to lost revenue of billions of dollars a year,” the sponsors of the ballot measure wrote in a draft initiative. “We can let the temporary sales tax increase expire to help working families, but this is not the time to be giving the wealthiest people in California a tax cut that they don’t need and that our schools can’t afford.”

Prop. 30 Tax Extension Could Backfire

Many economists fear that any Prop. 30 income tax extension could backfire and further drive high-income earners out-of-state. California’s $115 billion General Fund budget has become increasingly dependent on income tax revenue, which frequently fluctuates based on the stock market.

“(T)he initiative to extend Prop. 30 taxes, rather than solving a problem, creates a worse one,” writes Jerry Nickelsburg, a senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast. “Our current greater dependence on high-income earners to balance the state budget makes us more vulnerable.”

Nevertheless, many state political observers say that a tax extension, which could generate upwards of $11 billion in revenue, is likely to pass in 2016. At a recent economic summit, “Controller Betty Yee predicted that a Proposition 30 extension and a cigarette tax will be on the 2016 ballot and both would pass.”

That assessment comes even as one-time supporters of Prop. 30 question the rationale for its extension.

“In a time of financial crisis, Prop. 30 made sense,” the Los Angeles Daily News recently editorialized. “But the state is no longer in crisis, and any ballot measure playing off the fear of a return to dark days should be seen for the political ploy it is by unionists seeking to protect their own interests.”

Rebecca Friedrichs

Faced with the greatest legal challenge to their core source of revenue, California unions have braced for defeat and scrambled for alternatives.

Some time after its new term begins this month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which challenges the union’s collection of mandatory fees from members. The case’s stakes have been raised as high as possible by plaintiffs’ supporters. “We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation,” said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, according to the Sacramento Bee.

“Since 1997, the Supreme Court has held that requiring non-union members to pay the cost of collective bargaining prevents ‘free riders,’ meaning workers who get the benefits of a union contract without paying for it,” as NBC News noted. “But in subsequent rulings, several of the court’s conservatives have suggested that the decision should be overruled.” Legal analysts suggested the track record implies a victory for California’s plaintiffs. Erin Murphy, a federal appeals lawyer, told NBC News she “would not feel very good about my prospects if I were the unions.”

Crisis mode

At the end of the Legislature’s final session, pro-union Democrats attempted an unusual “gut and amend” maneuver, wherein a bill’s contents are wiped out and completely replaced without revisiting the standard hearing process. The new language would have required one-on-one, union-sponsored “public employee orientation” for existing and new employees. The content of the orientation “would be the sole domain of the union and not open to negotiation,” with employees “required to attend in person during work hours. Taxpayers would pick up the tab,” the Heartland Institute added in a critical summary.

Although the effort failed, it was a notable reflection of state unions’ concern that they can’t rely on the Supreme Court to protect their current practices. “Public employee unions haven’t had mandated orientations because they don’t need them,” U-T San Diego’s Steven Greenhut observed, calling the last-minute gut and amend a “pre-emptive strike” on the court’s hearing of Friedrichs. “Newly hired workers must already pay dues to the recognized union.”

Not all union supporters have framed the impending decision as a crisis, however. “Even some pro-union voices have argued the Friedrichs case doesn’t portend the end of the world for public-sector unions, in that it might force them to become more responsive and democratic,” Greenhut suggested.

But the court’s decision is likely to hinge on more fundamental questions pertaining to the very definition of a union.

What’s a union?

One element of the problem has been that unions fear members just won’t pay dues if they can get away with it — the so-called “free rider” problem, familiar from the idea that many fewer Americans would pay taxes were they merely voluntary. “No one knows how many would, with annual dues in the CTA, for example, often topping $1,000,” according to the Los Angeles Daily News. “That makes this a life-and-death case for the unions,” which fear the political power of their main adversaries — certain large corporations and high-net-worth individuals — would go undiminished. It would be very difficult, in other words, for the court to successfully separate the question of unions’ political power from the question of their existence.

That has led analysts to focus on a second aspect of the problem of what a union really is. One Justice, Antonin Scalia, has indicated in the past that the existence of unions within the American system of law depends on their ability to generalize the burdens of keeping them running. “In a 1991 case, he wrote that because public sector unions have a legal duty to represent all employees, it’s reasonable to expect all workers to share the costs,” the Daily News noted.

For that reason, the question of what counts as political expenditures would likely come to the fore before the court. But the plaintiffs in Friedrichs have anticipated the controversy, because they see it as the foundation of their entire case. “All union fees, they argue, are in some way used for political activities and since they don’t always agree with the union’s stance, having to pay any fees is an infringement on their first amendment rights,” the Guardian reported.

Donations to special interests on behalf of statewide officeholders have grown from $250,000 in 2000 to $4.9 million so far

The donations, which can be solicited by the charity or the officeholder, are unlimited and need only be reported when they top $5,000 in a single year.

And no one has used them more than Gov. Jerry Brown, whose most favored charities, the Oakland Military Institute and the Oakland School for the Arts, have received $19.8 million from various donors who gave on behalf of Brown since 2009, records through the first week of September show.

The institute has prospered over that time frame; tax forms show its total revenue jumped from $7.8 million in the 2010 fiscal year to $9.6 million in 2013, the most recent year available. The academy’s assets – land, equipment and buildings – have also increased from $3.4 million to $9.3 million.

The donations, known as behested payments, sometimes go to a candidate’s own inaugural committee. Attorney General Kamala Harris has raised $195,900 for her inaugural committee, although she is currently running to be the Democratic nominee in a bid for the seat of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is retiring next year.

Some of those making donations at Harris’s behest are connected to donors to her Senate campaign, which reported more than $4.1 million in contributions through June.

Microsoft in January donated $5,000 to Harris’s inaugural fund, while 14 Microsoft employees donated a total of $15,050 to her Senate campaign so far this year.

Universal Music Group gave $1,000 to the inaugural fund while Ron Meyer, president of Universal Studios, gave $5,400 to her Senate campaign.

And the Lisa and John Pritzker Family Fund gave $9,700 in May to Harris’ fund. Mary Pritzker, using the address of the family’s Pritzker Group Private Capital in Chicago, donated $2,700 in June to the Harris for Senate campaign.

Legally Avoiding State Campaign Finance Law Limits

Behested payments have allowed donors to give to candidates in a fashion that legally avoids the limits in state campaign finance law. In 2014, state Sen. Ricardo Lara had $199,250 in behested payments donated to the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit 501(c)(3). Lara was CFO of the group in 2013. While Lara’s campaign, and that of the other caucus members, must adhere to state contribution limits – for example, $4,200 from an individual per election – donations to the nonprofit foundations are unrestricted.

Perhaps a larger version of helping your interests is that of Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, whose behested payments to the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board totaled $549,000 for the last two years.

De Leon in 2012 sponsored Senate Bill 1234, which is aimed at requiring all businesses with five or more employees to offer a retirement plan. The plan’s manager? The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board.

Donors included the California Teachers Association, the Service Employees International Union California State Council and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, a funder of research on public pension reform.

And then there is California Public Utilities Commissioner Michael Picker, under whose name $65,000 was donated for a February dinner honoring his predecessor, Michael Peevey.

Donors included several workman’s unions. The money was supposed to go to the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. But the school refused $30,000 of the money, and Picker distanced himself from the funding.

Peevey is being investigated for emails that show he may have made backroom deals with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Picker, an official sponsor of the Feb. 12 dinner, later told an assembly subcommittee that the behested funding was not his doing.

“I wish I could say that I could raise $50,000, I actually, because I intend to be as transparent and as ethical as I can be, and because my name was mentioned on the flyer as a sponsor,” Picker explained. ”I simply made the determination that I could not know who was contributing or why. And rather than guess whether somebody made a contribution, based on the fact that I was going there, I just disclosed it.”

Bill Increases Threshold for Conflicts of Interest

A bill passed last month in Sacramento has all the markings of a measure under which the public loses. Assembly Bill 10 increases the conflict of interest threshold for property holdings from $2,000 to $10,000 and in business holdings from $2,000 to $5,000.

But attached to the bill initially was redemption: a provision that would make behested payments made in the name of a departing officeholder subject to reporting in the same year. That is, if you are removed from office, you can’t just petition friends to give to your favorite charity without reporting it on the way out.

It was a step in the direction of reform, the idea that those leaving the public fold cannot direct money that might help them in their private sector endeavors.

The provision, though, was removed in the late stages of the bill.

Full-time teachers are paid six-figure salaries to work for their union while keeping their school district seniority and pensions afloat. The dual work arrangements are built into union contracts.

“This has been going on for years, and it’s hard to know how widespread it is,” said Larry Sand, who has spotlighted the arrangements at unionwatch.org and heads the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network. “It varies district by district and each contract has to be looked into. … A lot of the time, school board members don’t even know, or they are pressured by the unions to keep a policy in place.”

Built into the contract

As included in the teaching contract at the San Diego Unified School District, “when negotiations with the District are scheduled during working hours, association representatives will be released from work without loss of pay.”

The contract in the Bakersfield City School District provides a full-time leave of absence for the teachers union president to tend to association business: “The president shall be paid in the usual manner as if he/she were a regular employee of the District and shall suffer no reduction in salary.”

And in the Fountain Valley School District in Orange County, the union president can devote one day per week to union business, costing taxpayers up to $22,230 per year, according to unionwatch.org.

A union official who has received dual salaries said the arrangements are helpful.

“There is a lot of mutual benefit there,” said Michela Cichoki. “Some are teaching partners, and so there is a period of release for officers. And a lot of the time they are in meetings with the district, and they are teacher representatives on those committees, representing the teachers.”

In 2012, Cichoki received a pay package worth $242,754 for service as secretary-treasurer of the California Teachers Association. The same year, Cichoki was paid a package worth $118,818 from the San Bernardino City Unified School District for her work as a “hearing panel member.”

Cichoki’s case illustrates the complicated formula of reimbursement at the upper levels of the union/school district entanglement.

The union reimbursed the district for her package, although she was allowed to maintain her pension while gone by paying her share from her pocket.

“I was released from the school district while I was at CTA,” Cichoki said. “It’s in the [education] code that we can be released for union work, and the district can ask for reimbursement, and that comes from the union so that no taxpayer funds are paying for it.”

Dean Vogel, past president of the California Teachers Association, received a pay package worth $277,356 in 2012, the last year records are available. In 2013, while serving as president of the state’s teacher union, public records show he received $97,542 for working on “special assignment” in the Vacaville Unified School District.

The union may have reimbursed the district for Vogel’s pay package, as in the case of Cichoki. A spokeswoman for the CTA did not return calls.

Union work should be kept separate

Sand blames the local school board members for allowing teachers who should be in the classroom to instead conduct union work on taxpayer time.

“The school boards should be serving the public instead of serving the union,” Sand said.

The dual salary arrangements have drawn legal complaints in other states, similar to the noise being made by the teachers who contend they shouldn’t have to pay union dues that go to efforts they don’t support.

Some teachers also believe their union-connected colleagues shouldn’t be allowed to spend time outside the classroom when their job is to teach.

A lawsuit in Pennsylvania challenges the arrangement in the Philadelphia School District, where up to 63 teachers are allowed to gain seniority, accrue pension benefits and receive insurance, just as they would as teachers, while engaging in union activities.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com