Employee Free Choice is turning into the new "gay," the issue around which the right is organizing.

The memo produced by Ron Gettelfinger at his press conference indicates that the plantation caucus senators considered the auto industry rescue bill little more than a first shot across the Employee Free Choice bow. And Alex Koppelman, writing in Salon, said Mitch McConnell opposed the bridge loan (despite the fact that he has Ford and GM plants in his state and is fifth on the list of recipients of auto manufacturing money this cycle) because he "is keenly aware that the conservative base is revved up to fight labor."

The right is currently organizing circles around labor and the left on this issue, because they understand what is at stake — if it’s easier to unionize, the ranks of the Democratic Party will swell. Unions do a great job about educating their members, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. It also means more boots on the ground for GOTV efforts and money going into Democratic coffers.

When I spoke to Chuck Schumer in Denver, he confirmed that he had received a pledge from all Democrats running for the Senate in 2008 to support Employee Free Choice. He knows what it means to the party.

But it’s salient that the major talking point of the anti-Employee Free Choice forces is a lie. We hear it over and over again, "Employee Free Choice will end the secret ballot." It’s a message that has obviously been focus grouped and tests very well. Due to the fact that Employee Free Choice advocates have done such a poor job of organizing themselves and mounting a coordinated effort across the progressive infrastructure to get their message out, it goes mostly without rebuttal and is now accepted as conventional wisdom.

To his credit, Mark Ambinder has recognized how important this issue is on the political horizon and is covering it when others aren’t, but he seems to be getting consistently bad information from somewhere. The fact that he uses the right wing PR term of choice, "card check" — rather than Employee Free Choice — is some indication of who may be working him.

There was this:

Card check would allow workers to "show cards" at a union-sponsored event; if more than 50% of them did, then the union would be recognized as the bargaining agent for the workers. Alternatively, employees could ask for a secret ballot election, but employers would have to recognize its results. Labor unions have been salivating for card check elections, as their ranks would significantly expand because of it; Obama has promised to sign it.

Workers don’t "show cards," they sign petition cards requesting representation — and can do so anywhere. He gets the "secret ballot" part right, though.

He also mis-characterizes Blanche Lincoln’s position:

That’s…. 57 votes in favor of cloture now. In-cycle Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas formally opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. She says it’s "not necessary" right now.

From the very piece he links to:

But in an interview with The Associated Press today, Lincoln gave herself room to support the measure if it’s brought up later.

So Lincoln is officially wobbly and understandably anxious about being worked over by Rick Berman and the Chamber for her 2010 bid. But Ambinder’s piece traveled like wingnut wildfire. Here’s The Weekly Standard:

Marc Ambinder reports that Arkansas’s Blanche Lincoln — who faces re-election in 2010 — has declared her opposition to Card Check.

Ambinder’s count — and his conclusions — are off. Specter voted for cloture on Employee Free Choice last time it came up, and he announced that he has "questions" now. But Specter is no doubt dealing, and would like very much to keep the unions off his back in 2010. My guess is a deal where Specter hold strong and the unions won’t show up for any Democratic candidate in labor-heavy Pennsylvania in exchange for his vote would be pretty sweet to both sides (which is why I advised Matthews to bone up quickly on the matter).

Meanwhile, Voinovich — who is up in 2010 — is getting worked over in union heavy Ohio.

There’s a lot of misinformation being put out there by people like Rick Berman, who regularly take money to run smear campaigns against organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and The American Humane Society.

Journalists concerned about their credibility ought to treat it with appropriate skepticism.

Update:  Greg Sargent has more on Berman.