From a $60 million California campaign to union-funded political fights in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts, organized labor is spending big. But how much do rank-and-file workers know about where the money comes from?
With Election Day just two weeks away, public-sector unions are emerging as major financial players in some of the nation’s highest-stakes ballot measures and local elections.
Teachers unions are pouring millions into tax measures. Government employee unions are helping finance redistricting campaigns. And in Chicago, the teachers union is spending to help elect the very school board it negotiates with.
The common thread? Workers deserve to know where their money is going, who is spending it and whether they have a meaningful say.
Here’s what the latest campaign disclosures and our AFFT reporting reveal.
🚨 LEAD STORY: California Teachers Union Pours $43.8 Million Into Tax Campaign
California’s Proposition 3 has become a showcase for the political spending power of organized labor.
According to California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, the ten largest contributors to the principal Yes on Proposition 3 committee have provided more than $60 million, including:
- $43.8 million from the California Teachers Association’s Issues PAC.
- $7.5 million from the National Education Association.
- $2.6 million from a California School Employees Association political committee.
- $1.75 million from a California Federation of Teachers committee.
Proposition 3 would make permanent an existing income tax increase on higher earners that is currently scheduled to expire in 2031. State officials estimate the tax generates $5 billion to $15 billion annually, primarily for public education.
Supporters argue the revenue is essential for schools and other public services. Opponents question whether a temporary tax should become permanent.
Why it matters: Regardless of where workers stand on Proposition 3, the scale of union political spending raises an accountability question. How clearly can members determine whether their dues, voluntary political contributions or other union-controlled funds are supporting the campaign?
💰 FOLLOW THE MONEY: Washington Teachers Union Tops $5 Million in Political Spending
The Washington Education Association has spent more than $5 million on state politics this year, according to an October 16 analysis of Public Disclosure Commission filings by The Washington Observer.
Among the spending:
- $3 million opposing Initiative 645, which would repeal the state’s recently enacted income tax on income above $1 million.
- $450,000 to New Direction, a political committee supporting Democratic legislative candidates.
- $350,000 to the union’s Strong Schools PAC, which is supporting candidates in contested Democratic legislative races.
The report says WEA’s political funds come from a combination of voluntary PAC contributions and its regular treasury, which is supported by member dues.
Why it matters: Washington illustrates why those funding streams must be distinguished. Workers should be able to see which political campaigns are funded through voluntary contributions and which receive money from their union’s general treasury.
🗳️ BEYOND THE WORKPLACE: Union Money Enters Redistricting and Gun-Law Battles
Two additional states illustrate the wide range of political issues receiving public-sector union support.
Maryland — $500,000 for redistricting.
The AFSCME Working Families Fund transferred $500,000 to Fight Back MD, the committee supporting Question 3, a constitutional amendment involving congressional redistricting standards.
That contribution represented approximately 73% of the committee’s reported funding through October 4. Newer disclosures show additional major support arriving in October, meaning the percentage is no longer a current measure of the campaign’s funding.
Massachusetts — $500,000 to defend a gun law.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association provided $500,000 to the campaign supporting Question 9, accounting for roughly two-thirds of the $738,540 raised by the committee in reports analyzed through October 17.
Question 9 would retain a 2024 state firearms law. The teachers union has publicly endorsed keeping the law.
Why it matters: Union members may hold very different views about taxes, redistricting and firearms regulations. Financial transparency helps ensure they understand when their union is participating in debates beyond traditional collective bargaining.
🏫 INSIDE THE UNION: Chicago Teachers Spend $2.2 Million on School Board Elections
The Chicago Teachers Union has spent approximately $2.2 million through its political organization and a related PAC to influence school board elections, according to WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times.
The stakes are unusual. The elected board helps oversee the school district that negotiates with CTU!
The union’s leadership says its preferred candidates reflect members’ values. But the political spending comes after members rejected a proposed dues increase earlier this year.
Outside groups have also poured money into the elections, outspending CTU-backed organizations by roughly five to one at the time of the report.
Why it matters: When a union helps elect the officials sitting across the bargaining table, transparency and accountability become especially important.
⚠️ POLITICAL SPENDING BACKFIRES: Kentucky Teachers PAC Funds Group Now Attacking Its Candidates
A political contribution in Kentucky has taken an unexpected turn.
The Jefferson County Teachers Association’s PAC contributed $200,000 to the Republican-aligned Commonwealth Conservative Coalition during the primary election season.
Now the same coalition is spending money opposing Democratic candidates endorsed by the teachers’ PAC, according to the Kentucky Lantern.
The association says its political organization is nonpartisan and focused on teachers and public education.
Why it matters: Political alliances can shift quickly. Members deserve to understand not only where contributions go, but also whether the eventual use of those funds advances the interests they were intended to support.
⚖️ UNION CORRUPTION WATCH: More Than $350,000 Stolen in Two Cases
Political spending isn’t the only area where union finances are drawing scrutiny.
October 20 — Former AFT-affiliated union president faces sentencing.
Kye Carbone, the former president of United Federation of College Teachers Local 1460, pleaded guilty to stealing more than $290,000 from the union over a 12-year period. Federal prosecutors say the money paid for personal expenses, restaurants and travel. Sentencing is scheduled for October 20 in Albany, New York.
Former federal union treasurer admits stealing more than $60,000.
Carol Aguja, formerly treasurer of AFGE Local 38, pleaded guilty to wire fraud. Federal prosecutors say she used union funds for personal expenses, including clothing, restaurants and dance lessons, and made 128 cash withdrawals totaling more than $23,700. Sentencing is scheduled for January 7, 2027.
October 27 — Another sentencing scheduled in Boilermakers corruption case.
Former Boilermakers vice president Warren Fairley is scheduled for sentencing October 27 in a federal racketeering case involving union funds. Another former executive, Tyler Brown, has already been sentenced to 16 months in prison. Additional defendants are scheduled for sentencing later this year.
📊 BY THE NUMBERS
- $43.8 million: California Teachers Association Issues PAC contributions to the main Proposition 3 campaign.
- $5 million+: Washington Education Association political spending this year.
- $500,000: AFSCME-affiliated fund contribution to Maryland’s redistricting campaign.
- $2.2 million: Chicago Teachers Union political spending on school board contests.
- $350,000+: Combined amount stolen in the two union fraud cases described above.
THE BOTTOM LINE: POLITICAL POWER DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY
Unions have a legal right to participate in elections, support ballot measures and advocate for policies they believe benefit workers.
But that right does not eliminate the need for transparency.
When millions of dollars move from union organizations into political campaigns, members deserve understandable information about where that money originated, how decisions were made and whether contributions were voluntary.
The question isn’t whether unions should have a political voice. It’s whether the workers whose money supports these organizations have an informed voice, too.
That’s what the Union Accountability Center will continue investigating.
Workers deserve transparency. Workers deserve accountability. Workers deserve choice.
Have a tip about union political spending or financial misconduct? Contact us!