$60.3 million. That’s how much the California Teachers Association’s Issues PAC contributed to the main campaign to make an existing state income tax increase permanent, according to California campaign finance disclosures available October 29.
The National Education Association added $7.5 million. The California School Employees Association’s issues committee contributed $2.6 million, and a California Federation of Teachers ballot committee gave $1.85 million.
Together, the ten largest donors—including union organizations and the California Democratic Party—have contributed more than $77 million to the principal Yes on Proposition 3 committee, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Proposition 3 would make permanent an income tax increase on high earners that otherwise expires in 2031. The state’s official voter guide estimates it would preserve $5 billion to $15 billion in annual revenue. Supporters say it protects public education and essential services. Opponents object to turning a temporary tax into a permanent one.
Whatever their position on the tax, union members deserve a clear answer to a basic question. How much of my money is involved, and who decided where it would go?
From Taxes to Gun Laws to the School Board
In Washington state, the Washington Education Association had spent more than $5 million on politics in 2026, including $3 million opposing Initiative 645, according to an October 16 analysis of state filings. The initiative would repeal the state’s newly enacted income tax on income above $1 million. The analysis describes funding from both voluntary political contributions and the union’s regular treasury, which is supported by dues.
In Maryland, the AFSCME Working Families Fund transferred $500,000 on September 28 to Fight Back MD, the committee promoting Question 3, a constitutional amendment concerning congressional redistricting, Maryland Bay News reports.
In Massachusetts, the teachers association contributed $500,000 to the campaign supporting Question 9, which would retain the state’s 2024 firearms law, according to reporting based on campaign finance disclosures.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association says its annual meeting delegates voted in May to authorize that funding. That is an approval process members should know about. It also raises a further question. Should a delegate vote be sufficient to commit money from members who disagree, or should each member decide whether their dues finance a ballot campaign?
And in Chicago, the teachers union and its affiliated political organizations are supporting candidates for the school board, WBEZ reports. Other groups have spent even more. Still, there is an obvious accountability question when a union helps elect the very board that oversees its contract.
Union members can disagree about taxes, redistricting, firearms policy and school governance. They deserve to understand how their money enters those debates.
Where the Money Comes From Matters
Unions have a right to engage in politics. Their members deserve to understand how that political activity is funded and how spending decisions are made.
Some union political funds collect extra contributions that members voluntarily make for politics. For example, federal separate segregated funds must receive voluntary contributions. Other political spending can come from a union’s general budget, which includes regular membership dues. The letters “PAC” alone do not tell a teacher which funding source was used.
Choosing to make an extra political contribution is a deliberate decision to finance political activity. Paying membership dues does not establish that a worker supports a particular ballot measure or personally approved the amount spent on it.
A disclosure naming the union organization that wrote a campaign check may not explain whether the money originated as dues, separate political donations or a mix of both. Workers should not need a forensic accountant to find out whether their dues helped pay for an ad asking them to vote a certain way.
In its 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, the Supreme Court held that public employees who decline union membership cannot be forced to pay union agency fees. The ruling did not require existing members to approve every political expenditure, but unions can and should choose a higher standard of transparency and consent.
Give Every Member a Political Spending Receipt
Every union should send members a plain-language annual accounting of political spending. Show how much went to each candidate or ballot campaign, whether the money came from voluntary political contributions, the general treasury or both, and who approved it.
Before using membership dues for ballot-measure campaigns, union leaders should obtain affirmative consent from the individual members whose dues would be used. Tell workers what the campaign would cost and what it would support. Give them a meaningful opportunity to say yes or no.
Members can support a union’s representation at work while disagreeing with its politics. Their membership should never be treated as blanket approval for a political agenda.
Before union leaders try to win over voters, they should earn the consent of the workers whose dues they want to spend.
A paycheck should never be treated as a blank check for someone else’s political agenda.