Tens of millions of Americans deal with differing levels of fraud every year, so many that, in Oregon, Attorney General Dan Rayfield has made consumer protection one of his top priorities.
When Oregon Democrats introduced House Bill 3789 and called it the Workers’ Fraud Protection Act, proclaiming to protect public employees from bad actors falsely impersonating their union representatives, it sounded good. According to the proponents, Oregon has no existing laws to prevent such behavior, so the bill creates one and “allows the union to file a lawsuit against a person who breaks the law.”
If true, that sounds fair enough. If individuals or organizations are truly impersonating unions and union representatives, that should be a crime. But you know what? It already is. Existing Oregon criminal laws, such as the ones Rayfield is currently using to crack down on such crimes, already prohibit the false impersonation of any individual or business, including unions and their representatives.
The only problem is that HB 3789’s supporters and Democratic sponsors failed to mention this. And their Workers’ Fraud Protection Act isn’t actually supported by any workers.
So, who supports the bill, and why do they want it? The answer is nobody except union leaders, and it became clear during the bill’s committee meetings that they intend to use the legislation as a basis for waging legal warfare against the Freedom Foundation, a think tank that helps public employees exercise their First Amendment right to opt out of paying union dues, which was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.
During the bill’s public hearing, the unions behind HB 3789 singled out the Freedom Foundation multiple times by name. They rattled off a long list of accusations that the Freedom Foundation tricks public employees into unknowingly resigning their union membership by visiting their homes wearing union T-shirts, falsely claiming to work for the union, and sending mail that falsely impersonates the union with union logos and branding.
To the average person listening, those allegations indeed sound very alarming.
However, when asked, HB 3789’s supporters couldn’t provide any actual evidence to support these claims. On the contrary, the only example of “impersonation” they provided for the committee record was a Freedom Foundation mailer that contained no union logos or branding whatsoever, which had been edited to remove sections that identified the Freedom Foundation’s opt-out project, and didn’t include the mailer’s envelope that clearly identified the Freedom Foundation as its sender.
Moreover, an opinion from the legislature’s non-partisan lawyers recently confirmed that, contrary to what HB 3789’s supporters have claimed, Oregon’s existing statutes would indeed protect unions from the false impersonation they’ve alleged.
That’s assuming it happens, of course. And so far, HB 3789’s supporters haven’t shown proof of actual “false impersonation.” Ironically, it appears they’ve grossly misrepresented the truth themselves.
Therein lies the issue. While existing Oregon laws already protect unions from legitimate false impersonation— what they say is the intent of the bill — they don’t allow unions to sue their biggest political opponents. As the record shows so far, the Freedom Foundation doesn’t falsely impersonate unions. But with HB 3789, they’ve written new rules that could blow open the floodgates of lawfare.
As the legislature’s attorneys have confirmed, HB 3789 gives unions an automatic payout, with no burden of actually proving damages if they can convince a judge that a Freedom Foundation mailer somehow impersonated the union under HB 3789’s newly invented meaning of the phrase.
The result of the bill would be nothing more than state-sanctioned lawfare for government union leaders.
Sadly, the development in Oregon is hardly surprising.
For decades, government unions have been among the largest political donors in the country. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, unions admitted to spending more than $1.6 billion in the 2022 election cycle, and the number is likely much higher.
However, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, government unions across the nation have been bleeding members. In Oregon, for example, the Freedom Foundation has directly helped more than 30,000 public employees cancel their union membership and dues payments, while helping over 214,000 public employees nationwide do the same.
For America’s largest union bosses, who, prior to Janus v. AFSCME, used to be able to force government workers to pay up or be fired, the growing exodus of dues-paying members has cost over $600 million in lost revenue. And since government unions’ political donations overwhelmingly support Democrats, they expect something in return.
WHY DOES UNION MEMBERSHIP KEEP DECLINING?
For government unions in Oregon, their ask is clear and simple: help stop the bleeding, even if it means using legislation as a political weapon to tie their opponent up in court with millions of dollars in legal fees.
If their scheme is successful in Oregon, expect to see it replicated in blue states across America. Oregonians and all Americans should be alarmed at the weaponization of our courts against a private organization. They should be even more alarmed by a legislature that allows it to happen.
Lucetta Elmer is the State Representative for Oregon House District 24 and the Vice Chair of the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards.
Jason Dudash is the West Coast Director of the Freedom Foundation.