Dr. Helen has an excellent piece about a systematic practice -- in which professional organizations force their members to fund politically correct causes by way of required dues:

Are you a doctor, lawyer, or other professional who belongs to an organization that you resent sending money to every year? I was until this year, when I decided it was better to quit the organization than spend money (hundreds of dollars at that) on one that promoted knee-jerk politically correct activity that I did not believe in.

I had belonged to the American Psychological Association (APA) since 1994 but did not rejoin this year. Why? Because their pet political projects are nothing I wish to fund.

Back in 1990, this issue was litigated in a case called Keller v. State Bar of California, in which the State Bar extracted "mandatory dues payments to advance political and ideological causes to which [plaintiffs] do not subscribe, in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association." (The causes included blatantly partisan positions on gun control, a victim's bill of rights, a nuclear weapons freeze initiative, federal-court jurisdiction over abortions, public school prayer, and busing.)

While the California Supreme Court had upheld the right of the California bar to force attorneys (including yours truly) to fund these things, fortunately the U.S. Supreme Court reversed:

Petitioners' complaint also alleges that the conference of delegates funded and sponsored by the State Bar endorsed a gun control initiative, disapproved statements of a United States senatorial candidate regarding court review of a victim's bill of rights, endorsed a nuclear weapons freeze initiative, and opposed federal legislation limiting federal-court jurisdiction over abortions, public school prayer, and busing. See n. 2, supra.

Precisely where the line falls between those State Bar activities in which the officials and members of the Bar are acting essentially as professional advisers to those ultimately charged with the regulation of the legal profession, on the one hand, and those activities having political or ideological coloration which are not reasonably related to the advancement of such goals, on the other, will not always be easy to discern. But the extreme ends of the spectrum are clear: [496 U.S. 1, 16] Compulsory dues may not be expended to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative; at the other end of the spectrum petitioners have no valid constitutional objection to their compulsory dues being spent for activities connected with disciplining members of the Bar or proposing ethical codes for the profession. (Emphasis added.)

that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.'" (Emphasis added.)

But I'm thinking that the APA would most likely consider his words to be little more than the rantings of a dead white male slaveholder...