← Back to All Petitions
Labor
Initiative 25-0021A1
Restrict Political Spending by Health Care Unions
Initiative Statute
What This Does in Plain English
Large healthcare unions — like SEIU-UHW — spend millions of dollars on political campaigns each election cycle. This measure would require those unions to get their members' explicit consent before spending dues on politics. Unions that violate the rules could face penalties of up to $50 million.
The Problem It's Solving
- Healthcare workers pay dues that go into union funds — some of which are used for political spending on candidates and ballot measures.
- Members may disagree with how their money is spent politically but have limited ability to opt out.
- Supporters argue workers should have direct say over whether their dues fund political activity.
What Changes
- Consent required: Large healthcare unions must get affirmative consent from individual members before using their dues for political purposes.
- Spending limits: Restrictions on how much can be spent without following consent procedures.
- Penalties: Violations can result in fines up to $50,000,000 — one of the largest union penalties ever proposed.
- Targeted scope: Applies to large healthcare unions specifically, not all unions.
Who Is Behind It
Funded by the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems (CAHHS) — the lobbying group for California hospitals. Critics note this is a direct industry attack on the unions that represent healthcare workers and frequently oppose hospital industry priorities.
Who It Affects
- Healthcare unions like SEIU-UHW, which represent nurses, hospital workers, and patient care staff
- Individual healthcare union members across California
- Political campaigns and ballot measure efforts that rely on union funding
- Hospital industry groups who would face less organized political opposition
Arguments For
- Workers deserve control over how their dues are used, especially for political causes they may not support.
- Increases transparency and individual rights within large unions.
- Prevents union leadership from making large political bets without member buy-in.
Arguments Against
- Designed by hospital industry to weaken unions that fight for workers and patients — not to protect workers.
- Consent requirements are administratively burdensome and can effectively silence union political activity.
- No equivalent restrictions are proposed for hospital industry political spending.
- Could shift political power dramatically in favor of corporate healthcare interests.
Fiscal Impact
No direct state fiscal impact. Would affect the internal finances and political capacity of large healthcare unions in California.