To Mr. Capper, Please Read

Last week, the CEO of Rite Hite, a Wisconsin company wrote an e-mail to his employees about some possible consequences if President Obama was re-elected:.http://lasvegasbadger.blogspot.com/2012/10/ceo-lets-employees-know-consequences-of.html
Mind you, the guy never told the employees how to vote, who to vote for, threatened them or any other sanctions.  He just wanted to let the employees what might happen if Obama is elected and his policies are enacted.
From a law professor at Marquette Law School in Milwaukee, WI, Rick Esenberg:

But I am going to weigh in on the notion that sending such an e-mail should be regarded as illegal. I would write the post had any other company been involved.

Let’s go to the law. Sec. 12.07(3) of the statutes provides:

No employer or agent of an employer may distribute to any employee printed matter containing any threat, notice or information that if a particular ticket of a political party or organization or candidate is elected or any referendum question is adopted or rejected, work in the employer's place or establishment will cease, in whole or in part, or the place or establishment will be closed, or the salaries or wages of the employees will be reduced, or other threats intended to influence the political opinions or actions of the employees. (Emphasis supplied)

By its own terms, the statute does not apply to the Rite Hite e-mail. The law is expressly limited to unqualified commitments (statements that something "will" happen) and comparable statements ("other threats"). The e-mail did not say that the anything "will" happen or make any other "threat." It outlined the ways in which potential Obama policies might affect the company and how those impacts could harm its employees. In fact, the e-mail made clear that no employee would be prejudiced by the way in which he or she voted.

I appreciate that some will argue that the statute should be read broadly to "implied" threats or statements of probability. That won't happen. Criminal statutes are to be narrowly construed and, as we have seen, the this law simply doesn't apply here.

But even the law could be stretched to cover the mere communication of political opinion, it would be unconstitutional.

In our country, we have a very strong presumption against punishing speech. We allow for very few - and quite limited - exceptions. Courts are especially protective of core political speech, i.e., statements about issues and candidates. They are rigorously suspicious of any restrictions based on the content of speech. Restrictions on the content of core political speech are almost never upheld and, if they are to survive, must be narrowly tailored to serve the most compelling of state interests.

A statement of opinion from an employer to an employee where the employer will have no way of knowing how any employee voted doesn’t even come close to the type of thing that would justify the suppression of political speech.  http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-first-amendment-applies-to-employees.html

But, hey, the Rite Hite CEO is a conservative so the the constitution really doesn't apply to him, does it?

So, to my friend capper, please read this and we will wait for your apology.