## Facts

- Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 and three union officers were prosecuted for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 610, which barred labor organizations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections.
- From 1949 to 1962, the union maintained a political fund financed through required contributions from members and others working under the union’s jurisdiction.
- The union later replaced that fund with a “present fund” described as a separate, voluntary organization.
- Union officials retained broad control over the present fund, and contributions were still collected regularly and systematically at a prescribed rate tied to hours worked, often at jobsites on union time.
- The fund’s proceeds were used for multiple purposes, including political contributions connected to federal elections.
- The political contributions were made from accounts strictly segregated from union dues and assessments.
- Although some contributors believed contributions were necessary, the record indicated donations were not actually required for employment or union membership.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 610 prohibits political contributions or expenditures made from a union-related fund that is financed by voluntary contributions and strictly segregated from union dues and assessments.
2. Whether, and how, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 amendment to § 610 (expressly permitting unions to establish, administer, and solicit contributions to political funds subject to anti-coercion limits) affects interpretation of § 610 in this prosecution.
3. Whether the jury instructions and “subterfuge” theory used below applied an erroneous legal standard by treating a union-sponsored political fund as unlawful regardless of voluntariness and segregation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming the convictions.
- The Court held that § 610 does not reach contributions or expenditures from a voluntarily financed union political fund whose monies are strictly segregated from union dues and assessments.
- The Court treated the FECA amendment as confirming that union-sponsored political funds are permissible when financed voluntarily and collected without coercion or reprisals.
- The Court concluded the jury may have convicted under an overbroad standard that effectively criminalized union involvement and control even if the fund was voluntarily financed and segregated.

## Legal Principles

- Section 610 targets political spending from union treasury funds; it does not bar spending from a separate political fund supported by voluntary contributions and kept strictly segregated from union dues and assessments.
- A lawful union political fund may be administered by union officials if: (1) its money is strictly segregated from compulsory union funds, and (2) solicitations clearly communicate the political purpose and the right to refuse to contribute without reprisal.
- Contributions are impermissible if obtained by force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, threats, or if required as a condition of employment or union membership.
- In criminal prosecutions under § 610 (including conspiracy), instructions cannot rest on a broad “subterfuge” concept that treats union sponsorship alone as proof that political spending came from prohibited union funds.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside the conspiracy convictions because § 610, as clarified by Congress’s 1971 amendment, does not prohibit federal-election spending from a union-sponsored political fund that is voluntarily financed, strictly segregated from union dues and assessments, and collected without coercion or reprisals.


Pipefitters Local Union No. 562 v. United States, 407 U.S. 385 (1972)