A government union bill accusing the Freedom Foundation and its employees of fraud is headed for the Oregon Senate, after House Democrats shrugged off a world-class trouncing by their Republican colleagues in an hour-long floor debate over the merits of the measure last week and voted to pass it along party lines anyway.

The legislation, HB 3789, is being billed by its proponents as the latest protection for public employees — and by “protection,” they mean a statutory blessing for government unions to wage legal warfare against their political enemy, the Freedom Foundation.

It should come as no surprise, then, that “proponents” doesn’t mean public employees. HB 3789 isn’t actually supported by any — only government union bosses and the bill’s Democrat sponsors.

This is probably because, at least so far, the unions and Democrats haven’t been able to find any actual public employees who are as comfortable lying through their teeth as they are.

First, a little background:

During the bill’s first committee hearing in early March, HB 3789’s chief sponsor, Rep. Hai Pham (D-Hillsboro), introduced the measure as the “Workers’ Fraud Protection Act” and proceeded to describe a supposedly widespread problem — across Oregon, shadowy “third-party entities” and their staff were illegally impersonating union representatives by visiting public employees’ homes dressed in union clothing, claiming to work for the union and sending mailers that mimic union mail by appropriating union logos, branding and even the “actual signatures of the union leaders.”

The nefarious goal of these bad actors, he claimed, is to convince public employees to “opt out of union representation” under false pretenses.

HB 3789 would therefore make it illegal to “falsely impersonate a union representative” — a term that includes unions themselves — and allow unions to take alleged violators to court for automatic monetary damages.

Pham was joined by one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Tom Andersen (D-South Salem), who bizarrely attempted to justify the legislation with an unrelated story about his past efforts to form an attorneys’ union at his old private-sector job, only to have a majority of his colleagues vote against unionization after going through the perfectly normal and legitimate process of “unit clarification” with the National Labor Relations Board to determine which employees were considered managerial.

Andersen’s non-sequitur aside, the rest of HB 3789’s supporters — meaning union leaders and nobody else — knew what the bill was about. And it quickly became clear that the only thing it was about was shamelessly and without a shred of evidence accusing the Freedom Foundation and its staff of impersonating unions through its grassroots campaign to help public employees exercise their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues.

For the record, yes. It’s as absurd as it sounds.

As the Freedom Foundation’s written testimony later pointed out, HB 3789’s supporters failed to provide the committee with a single piece of evidence to substantiate their claims, and no public employees actually testified in support of the bill — let alone to having the experience described by its supporters.

To the contrary, several public employees went on record opposing HB 3789.

None of that mattered to the government union officials behind the bill, however, who simply lied their way through the initial committee hearing with vague, nondescript stories about organizations and individuals that visit public employees’ doorsteps disguised as union organizers to trick them into opting out of union membership, or that send mailers fraudulently impersonating union mail for that same purpose.

They told lawmakers there was “no legal protection” against such behavior and promised to furnish “examples of how that has happened.”

And while most made a conspicuous effort not to name the particular organization they had in mind — instead hiding behind phrases like “conservative think tanks” — they ultimately couldn’t help but identify the Freedom Foundation as the one and only target of their accusations.

But when asked by Rep. Anna Scharf (R-Dallas) to provide the committee with examples of Freedom Foundation materials or activity that HB 3789’s supporters claimed “falsely impersonated” their unions, the Oregon Education Association (OEA) responded by uploading only one document to the committee record — a photocopy of a Freedom Foundation mailer thatnot only didn’t contain any union logos or branding whatsoever, but was also incomplete and had been badly edited to hide the fact that it clearly identified the Freedom Foundation and its “Opt Out Today” project.

This damning fact was promptly pointed out by the Freedom Foundation, which also provided the committee with a complete copy of the mailer.

And as the Freedom Foundation later explained during subsequent committee meetings and with extensive follow-up analysis, the entire legal premise of HB 3789 was built on lies, too.

Contrary to what its supporters claimed, Oregon’s criminal laws already protect unions and their representatives from false impersonation to the same extent as every other individual and business — a fact which has since been confirmed by the legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys.

So, if false impersonation is already a crime and HB 3789’s supporters haven’t shown any evidence that the Freedom Foundation falsely impersonates anyone, what’s the point of the bill?

Easy. Government union leaders want a new law that allows them to claim false impersonation under terms of their own design and file civil lawsuits against the Freedom Foundation. The problem is that Oregon’s existing criminal laws against false impersonation are appropriate and fair, and that simply won’t work for union leaders desperate to reverse their declining membership and dues revenue as public employees continue to freely exercise their constitutional right to opt-out with the Freedom Foundation’s assistance.

Fast forward to last Thursday, and HB 3789 became a flashpoint of controversy during the floor debate in the Oregon House of Representatives, as numerous GOP lawmakers lined up to condemn the self-serving legislation, seek further explanation from their colleagues about HB 3789’s path through the committee process, and express strong ethical concerns about the motivation and handling of the bill by its union and Democrat proponents.

Rep. Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville), vice-chair of the House Labor and Workplace Standards committee through which HB 3789 traveled, spent much of the hour-long debate fielding an array of questions from her fellow lawmakers about the bill’s targeting of the Freedom Foundation, the lack of any evidence or support it received from public employees and the confirmation she obtained from the legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Counsel that existing Oregon laws already prohibit false impersonation.

Meanwhile, the committee’s two other Republican members, Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis (R-Albany) and Rep. Anna Scharf (R-Dallas), didn’t mince words about the bill’s true purpose and the bad-faith intent of the unions behind it.

Boshart Davis, calling HB 3789 “unnecessary” and “deeply troubling in its motivations,” roundly criticized union leaders’ bogus accusations of false impersonation against the Freedom Foundation, informing the chamber’s 60 representatives that the only examples provided to her committee had been tampered with — and even then, proved the opposite:

“…the proponents of House Bill 3789 have failed to provide any credible evidence to support their claims of fraudulent behavior by organizations allegedly impersonating unions. During committee hearings, no public employees testified in favor of this bill. Instead, public employees opposed it. The only examples presented, such as mailers allegedly impersonating unions, were incomplete and doctored to obscure the sender’s identity. The Freedom Foundation’s mailers clearly identified themselves and their ‘Opt Out Today’ project, providing contact information and directing recipients to their website. These materials did not use union logos or branding, nor did they falsely represent themselves as unions.”

“If proponents cannot substantiate their accusations with clear evidence,” Boshart Davis continued, “How can we justify legislating on this basis?”

Boshart Davis also noted “serious ethical concerns” with HB 3789, including “potential violations” of Oregon’s legislative ethics laws prohibiting false statements or misrepresentations by lobbyists or public officials. “When proponents obscure evidence or make unsubstantiated claims against or about organizations,” she concluded, “they undermine the integrity of this legislative process.”

Scharf, vocalizing what everybody in the chamber already knew, went on to summarize union leaders’ real motivation for attacking the Freedom Foundation:

“I believe House Bill 3789 is designed for one purpose only — to stop the bleeding of the union dues since the Supreme Court ruling of Janus v. AFSCME in 2018. This bill invents a new definition of false impersonation specifically for the unions … that will give unions themselves an avenue they need to file civil lawsuits against their political opponent, the Freedom Foundation. This bill is a hit piece intended to stop the union dues from bleeding out of the pockets of the unions … It isn’t supported by evidence, and it does not benefit the individual public employees. It only opens the door for union lawfare against the Freedom Foundation, which works to help public employees exercise their Supreme Court-validated constitutional right to opt out of union dues…”

Other Republicans who took to the House floor against HB 3789 included:

• Rep. Ed Diehl (R-Stayton), who expressed his belief that the bill was unconstitutional for specifically targeting the Freedom Foundation’s political speech;
• Rep. Court Boice (R-Gold Beach), who called the bill “discriminatory” and an attempt by union leaders to wage “legislatively sanctioned lawfare against their political opponent, the Freedom Foundation”;
• Rep. Bobby Levy (R-Echo), who characterized HB 3789’s true purpose as “not fraud prevention but retaliation against organizations that … help workers exercise their First Amendment freedoms (to) opt out of union membership”; and,
• even former Freedom Foundation staffer and now-State Rep. Alek Skarlatos (R-Canyonville), who noted the irony of union leaders’ unsubstantiated claims against the Freedom Foundation given their own documented track record of imposing arbitrary restrictions on public employees’ constitutional right to cancel dues deductions, denying or ignoring their opt-out requests and even apparently forging public employees’ signatures on union membership applications.

“There is indeed fraud and misrepresentation happening in this space,” said Skarlatos, “But it’s not being done by the Freedom Foundation.”

Elmer and Boshart Davis also highlighted the restrictions union leaders place on public employees’ First Amendment rights during a broader exchange about the misinformation being peddled by HB 3789’s proponents:

Boshart Davis

“Representative, are you aware that public employees have a constitutional right to opt out of union dues (that was affirmed by) the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME?

Elmer

“Yes.”

Boshart Davis

“Representative, are you aware that at least two of the unions supporting House Bill 3789 — AFSCME and SEIU — have inserted terms and conditions into their membership cards that prevent public employees from canceling their dues deductions except during a 10- or 15-day window that comes around once per year?”

Elmer

“Yes, that is correct.”

Like Skarlatos, the irony was not lost on Boshart Davis, who laid bare the hypocrisy of the unions supporting HB 3789:

“…Proponents have claimed that workers are tricked into opting out of union membership or representation. However, public employees must submit written requests directly to unions to cancel membership and dues deductions. There is no automatic or inadvertent process for opting out. Ironically, some unions supporting House Bill 3789 impose restrictive conditions on their members that limit their ability to exercise constitutional rights established by Janus v. AFSCME. Membership cards often include terms preventing cancellation of dues except during narrow annual windows. How can these unions claim their members are being tricked into opting out when their own policies make it nearly impossible for workers to do so freely?”

Predictably, Democrats offered virtually no pushback to Republicans’ evisceration of the bill, instead sticking to a few boilerplate speeches that avoided mentioning the Freedom Foundation altogether and completely failed — or rather, didn’t even try — to refute any of the facts presented by their GOP colleagues.

The lone exception was Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-Southwest Portland), who, in an impromptu moment, made the laughable insinuation that the Freedom Foundation’s ‘Opt Out Today’ webpage for the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA) deceptively resembled the OSEA’s own website — a comparison she had also previously made during the bill’s committee meetings.

After two last-ditch motions by Elmer to send HB 3789 back to its policy committee or the House Committee on Rules, the bill ultimately passed the House floor along party lines.

When it came time to vote on the bill’s final passage, several Republican lawmakers appeared to purposefully refrain from casting their vote using the chamber’s electronic voting system in order to get a vocal “no” on the record.

HB 3789 is on its way to the Oregon Senate, though it now carries with it a troubling legislative record and a reputation as one of the session’s most unnecessary bills.