In 2000, California enacted, with strong union support, a law that prohibits employers that receive state-funded grants of more than $10,000 from using any portion of these funds to “assist, promote, or deter” union-organizing campaigns. Companies that accept state funds are permitted to use their own money for labor-oriented speech, but they must keep careful records to document that they segregated the public money. Violators face suits by private taxpayers and the state attorney general, and they are liable for treble damages. Led by the Chamber of Commerce, a number of employer groups sued to enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that it was preempted by Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which provides that companies’ antilabor speech cannot be considered evidence of an unfair labor practice, so long as it does not threaten or coerce workers. California defended the statute as a necessary measure to prevent taxpayer money from influencing workers’ decisions to organize. The law does not alter the rights of companies to discourage unionizing, but merely guarantees that such efforts will be privately funded. Which party should prevail? [Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 128 S. Ct. 2408 (2008).]