Opinion ID: 1087888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: drowning out the voice of dissent.

Text: This objection can be stated in either of two ways. First: The requirement of dues payments to be spent to further views to which the payor is opposed tends to increase the volume of the arguments he opposes and thereby to drown out his own voice in opposition, in violation of his Constitutional right to be heard. Second: The United States Constitution creates a scheme of federal and state governments each of which is to be elected on a one-man-one-vote basis and on a one-man-one-political-voice basis. Of course several persons may voluntarily cumulate their political voices, but no governmental force can require a single individual to contribute money to support views to be adopted by a democratically organized group even if the individual is also free to say what he pleases separately. It seems to me these arguments have little force. In the first place, their supposition is that the voice of a dissenter is less effective if he speaks it first in an attempt to influence the action of a democratically organized group and then, if necessary, in dissent to the recommendations of that group. This is not at all convincing. The dissenter is not being made to contribute funds to the furtherance of views he opposes but is rather being made to contribute funds to a group expenditure about which he will have something to say. To the extent that his voice of dissent can convince his lawyer associates, it will later be heard by the State Legislature with a magnified voice. In short, I think it begs the question to approach the Constitutional issue with the assumption that the majority of the Bar has a permanently formulated position which the dissenting dues payor is being required to support, thus increasing the difficulty of effective opposition to it. Moreover, I do not think it can be said with any assurance that being required to contribute to the dispersion of views one opposes has a substantial limiting effect on one's right to speak and be heard. Certainly these rights would be limited if state action substantially reduced one's ability to reach his audience. But are these rights substantially affected by increasing the opposition's ability to reach the same audience? I can conceive of instances involving limited facilities, such as television time, which may go to the highest bidder, wherein increasing the resources of the opposition may tend to reduce a dissident's access to his audience. But before the Constitution comes into play, there should surely be some showing of a relationship between required financial support of the opposition and reduced ability to communicate, a showing I think hardly possible in the case of the legislative recommendations of the Wisconsin Bar. And, aside from the considerations of freedom from compelled affirmations of belief to be discussed later, I can find little basis for a right not to have one's opposition heard. Beyond all this, the argument under discussion is contradicted in the everyday operation of our society. Of course it is disagreeable to see a group, to which one has been required to contribute, decide to spend its money for purposes the contributor opposes. But the Constitution does not protect against the mere play of personal emotions. We recognized in Hanson that an employee can be required to contribute to the propagation of personally repugnant views on working conditions or retirement benefits that are expressed on union picket signs or in union handbills. A federal taxpayer obtains no refund if he is offended by what is put out by the United States Information Agency. Such examples could be multiplied. For me, this drowning out argument falls apart upon analysis.