Union officials say losing the revenue from compelled payments would weaken their negotiating power. But they also fear losing, yes, political power. AFSCME’s Naomi Walker has warned that a loss in this case “could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party” and damage “the progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations.” But why should the needs of union-aligned groups take precedence over Janus’ right to decide which causes to financially support? What if Illinois law required certain workers to contribute to groups that provide useful services but also donate heavily to Republican causes?