"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

This sentiment, written more than two centuries ago by Thomas Jefferson, is more applicable than ever today in the case of public-sector unions that collect mandatory dues from their membership to engage in liberal, big-spending, highly partisan politics antipathetical to many of their members who foot the bill.

In 2005, the National Tax Limitation Committee spearheaded Proposition 75, the "Paycheck Protection Initiative," to require written consent of public employee union members before union dues could be taken from their salaries for political purposes. The unions outspent us 10-1 and only narrowly defeated Proposition 75.

In 2010, the outcome can be different ---- for several reasons:

-- The "Paycheck Protection Initiative" currently gathering signatures is crafted differently. It prohibits the government employer (state or local) from acting as the agent for the public employee union in collecting political dues from public employees. I think it is stronger protection than Proposition 75.

-- During the intervening years, public-employee unions have grown more arrogant and politically demanding and have taken positions on issues and ballot measures with which many of their own members disagree (such as the California Teachers Association's endorsement and funding of opposition to Proposition 8 -- the marriage initiative.)

-- Polling data reveals that public support for protecting public employees from forced union political dues has grown significantly since the Proposition 75 vote.

Despite the fact that California's electorate splits almost exactly three ways, with about 35 percent usually voting Democrat, 33 percent claiming they are Independent and 29 percent identifying themselves as Republican, public-sector unions overwhelmingly pursue a big-government agenda. In practice, this means public-sector unions have backed Democratic candidates to the point where California's Legislature is on the verge of having a new tax-enabling two-thirds Democratic majority.

Removed from the necessity to please customers and sell products and make profits ---- market realities that compel unions in the private sector to exercise restraint in their demands on management ---- public-sector union monopolies have pursued an agenda of government expansion that has now left every public entity in California teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Private-sector workers in California have been slow to awaken to the financial disaster wrought by powerful public-sector unions. The financial clout of public-sector unions is unparalleled, with hundreds of thousands of members who are each required to pay hundreds of dollars per year in union dues used for political purposes.

Recent polls indicate the level of understanding of the overreach of public-sector unions is much higher among voters today compared with 2005. Public employees themselves realize the unfairness of having their dues diverted to serve the agenda of union leaders, instead of the broader interests of society and their own values. For example, the California Teachers Association has consistently opposed efforts to expand charter schools despite the fact they deliver outstanding education results.

In November, there are likely to be several reform initiatives on California's ballot in addition to the one that will limit state and local governments from acting as a political-dues-collection agent for public-employee unions. Ironically, public-employee union bosses will oppose these measures with millions of dollars of union dues coerced from members who favor these initiatives. Hopefully, this will be the last time California's public employees and taxpayers face such injustice.

LEWIS K. UHLER is founder and president of the National Tax Limitation Committee in Roseville. Contact him at www.limittaxes.org.