Amid all the confusion in the Missouri Legislature about the right-to-work issue, one key fact must not be forgotten: Right to work has less to do with workers' freedom not to pay union dues, or creating jobs, than it does with suppressing Democratic votes. That fact, borne out in recent academic research, provides context for several recent developments:
_ The successful effort by the GOP-dominated Legislature to move a statewide referendum to repeal the right-to-work law, which passed last year, from the November general election ballot to the lower-turnout August primary election.
_ The 11th-hour rush by legislative Republicans to put a constitutional amendment affirming right to work on the November ballot. Gov. Eric Greitens could still move it to the August ballot as well. Right-to-work supporters would have to vote "yes" and opponents "no" on two separate measures.
_ The staggering amount of secret "dark money" pumped into an abortive effort to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot via the initiative-petition route. Greitens' secretive organization, A New Missouri, donated at least $1.15 million to the effort, money that resulted in zero signatures being turned in but that enriched lawyers and consultants tied to Greitens.
A New Missouri is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit under the IRS code and does not have to disclose its donors, but that could change. James Klahr, executive director of the Missouri Ethics Commission, issued an opinion May 10 saying that any nonprofit taking in more than $500 a year in political contributions, or more than $250 from any single individual, must register with the ethics commission as a political committee and file reports that include names of donors and amounts.
Dark money committees are legal in federal elections, but in general, Missouri elections are governed by Missouri law. Given the money at stake, Klahr's opinion could be challenged in court.
Research into the claimed economic benefits or negative effect on wages caused by right-to-work laws is generally inconclusive. But a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research last winter by James Feigenbaum of Boston University, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez of Columbia University and Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institution said such laws have a definite political effect.
"When right-to-work laws are in place, Democrats up and down the ballot do worse," they wrote in The New York Times. "In presidential elections, we estimate that these laws cost Democratic candidates two to five percentage points in right-to-work counties. Voter turnout also dropped by approximately two points."
As union membership has declined, so have union dues-financed contributions to Democratic candidates, as have get-out-the-vote and organizational efforts. Fewer dues-paying union members in right-to-work states would have the same effect.
GOP protectionism is the entire point; every other argument is camouflage.
