The Supreme Court's decision in Knox v. Service Employees International Union highlighted a basic First Amendment question: when a public-sector union wants to use money deducted from employees' paychecks for political purposes, should employees have to opt out, or should the union have to obtain affirmative consent?

The Court's reasoning placed the constitutional risk on the union rather than on dissenting employees. That principle supports an opt-in system in which political deductions occur only after a worker chooses them.

The issue also connects to the unusual incentives surrounding public-sector bargaining. Unlike private firms, government employers do not face the same market constraints, and politically active unions can help elect the officials with whom they later negotiate. Taxpayers ultimately fund the resulting agreements.

Missouri therefore had both constitutional and fiscal reasons to reinforce limits on public-sector union power. Employees who want to support a union's political activity should remain free to do so, but the state should presume that a worker's speech-related dollars belong to the worker unless the worker affirmatively directs otherwise.