One of the fundamental principles of political involvement is that it should be voluntary. Unlike some countries, voting and registering to vote in America is voluntary, not mandatory. Financially supporting candidates should also be voluntary, but for too many Californians, it's not.

We continue to witness Californians who happen to belong to labor unions being required to fund political activity as a condition of their union membership. While dues are charged to members ostensibly to pay for the costs of the union serving as a collective bargaining representative, substantial sums are instead diverted to political activity in one form or another. Sometimes the diversion takes place directly, while in other instances sums are sent to national affiliates only to come back in the form of some political activity.

The question here is not whether unions should be able to participate in the political process - of course they should. The issue is whether union members who do not support the union officials' political agenda should be required to fund that agenda, regardless of their own political views. The answer there is, of course they should not. Political involvement, again, should be voluntary.

California voters have twice narrowly rejected "paycheck protection" proposals aimed at protecting union members from being forced to fund political speech they do not support. Yet, the defeat of those past initiatives can be attributed to the incredible disinformation campaign waged against them, which included twisted claims that workers already have the rights the initiative would embody.

Proponents are now circulating a new paycheck protection initiative with the help of many in the tea party movement. I signed the petition last week to help place the measure on the ballot. If you're interested in helping make sure that no one in California is forced to fund political speech they disagree with, you can download a petition here.