The Commonwealth Foundation’s new analysis finds that the nation’s four largest public-sector unions poured nearly $915 million into elections and progressive advocacy during the 2024 cycle, with 86 percent of that money coming from member dues. This piece breaks down the numbers, quotes union critics and the report’s authors, and raises persistent questions about accountability and how dues are being used to shape policy and elections. The data and direct quotes are presented to show why taxpayers and union members deserve clearer lines between member dues and political spending.
The report focuses on the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Service Employees International Union, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Together, these unions spent heavily at both federal and state levels, continuing a trend the foundation first documented in 2022. The sheer scale of spending means that the influence of a relatively small number of powerful officials can sway outcomes across the country.
Critics argue that most of this money is drawn directly from the pockets of workers who may not agree with how their dues are redirected. “What they’re doing when they’re making these political investments, is they’re trying to get people into office that will raise taxes and increase the size and scope of government,” public-sector unions expert Aaron Withe told Fox News Digital. “That’s the way that it’s been working for decades. That’s why you see the government grows every single year, that’s why you see taxes go up most every year as well.”
Withe goes further, contrasting private-sector unions with their public counterparts, and pointing to the incentives at play. “When you look at Union spending in politics, you have to remember that their goal – their primary purpose is a business – so they’re there to grow revenue. They’re there to gain more revenue than the year previously,” Withe pointed out. “The difference with the government union, is that that revenue comes from public employees, and the way that you hire more public employees is by raising taxes on the private sector so that you can hire more bureaucrats.”
David Osborne, who co-authored the report, presses the practical concern straight on by asking whether rank-and-file members know where their dues end up. He says “the big question” is whether ordinary members are aware of how dues are spent, pointing out that union priorities can shift away from bargaining and member services. “Years ago, [union members] could expect union executives to use dues to drive member services, including contract negotiations and grievance processing,” Osborne said. “Now, union members are unwittingly propping up left-leaning candidates and progressive causes like abortion, critical race theory, and defunding the police.”
The report also parses spending categories and finds representational activity, the work most tied to member services, accounted for roughly 25 percent of total spending, or about $642 million. Administrative overhead, including staff benefits and basic operations, made up around 33 percent, roughly $845 million. Yet political spending at the national level and through state affiliates outpaced those categories combined, signaling a major shift in priorities.
According to the foundation’s numbers, the four unions collectively funneled about $755 million into federal elections and national progressive efforts, with an additional $160 million aimed at state races and ideological projects. Of that total political outlay, $650 million, or 86 percent, came from regular membership dues rather than voluntary political contributions. The report notes that federal PACs still exist and supplied about 14 percent of the political dollars, but those voluntary accounts are dwarfed by dues-funded political activity.
FEDERAL PROBE DEMANDS CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION EXPLAIN MISSING FINANCIAL AUDITS SINCE 2020
The Commonwealth Foundation drives home a clear point with blunt language: “Government unions’ heavy use of membership dues money for politics—more than what they collectively spent on representational activities—underlines a disturbing trend: the growing, overt reliance by union officials to spend member dues rather than political action committee funds on their political and ideological agendas.” Those words frame the report as both a financial audit and a wake-up call.
The report warns that many of these political moves are enabled by opaque practices, including routing money through outside committees and super PACs. “Yet, much of this spending is possible only because of the lack of accountability and control over what powerful union executives do with members’ dues. Union dues, not the separately collected PAC funds, are the overwhelming power behind—86 percent—of union political spending. Few members are aware that union leaders launder much of their dues through super PACs and 527s to back political projects. Even fewer members can effect change within their union to stop it.”
MY TEACHERS UNION CALLS IT REPRESENTATION. I SAY THERE ARE $114 MILLION REASONS TO SUE THEM
Efforts to get comment from the unions named in the report were not answered before publication. The findings raise a basic civic question for conservatives and union members alike: if dues are shaping the political landscape and expanding government, shouldn’t there be clearer consent and tighter rules? The data pushes toward reforms that would force transparency and return dues to representational uses rather than political machines.
Darnell Thompkins is a conservative opinion writer from Atlanta, GA, known for his insightful commentary on politics, culture, and community issues. With a passion for championing traditional values and personal responsibility, Darnell brings a thoughtful Southern perspective to the national conversation. His writing aims to inspire meaningful dialogue and advocate for policies that strengthen families and empower individuals.