Department of Labor LM-2 filings reveal that the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers spend nearly four times more on political activities and donations than on directly representing teachers. An OSINT audit of the money trail.
Image directive: Create a stacked bar chart comparing NEA spending categories: Political Activities & Lobbying vs. Contributions/Gifts/Grants vs. Representational Activities vs. Administrative. Search Unsplash for “empty classroom chalkboard” or “school supplies desk.”
The LM-2 Disclosure
Every major labor union in America is required to file an LM-2 financial report with the Department of Labor, disclosing how member dues are spent. For the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions — the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers — these filings reveal a spending pattern that would surprise many of the educators whose paychecks fund the organizations.
Analysis of recent LM-2 filings shows that the NEA directs just 10% of its total spending toward actually representing teachers — the ostensible core mission of the organization. Meanwhile, political activities and lobbying consume a far larger share, with “contributions, gifts, and grants” — a category dominated by political donations — totaling $117 million. Over the 16-year period from 2005 to 2021, the NEA increased its spending on political activities and lobbying by $74 million.
Put simply: the NEA spends nearly four times more on politics and political contributions than on the representational activities that directly benefit classroom teachers.
Following the Money
The specific recipients of NEA political spending tell the story of an organization that functions less as a teachers’ union and more as a Democratic Party funding vehicle. Recent disbursements include $59.275 million to the State Engagement Fund, $34.198 million to For Our Future Action Fund, $1.875 million to Parents Together Action, $933,000 to the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, $735,000 to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, $415,000 to March for Our Lives Action Fund, and $150,000 to One for All Committee.
Additional spending flows to state-level political campaigns: anti-standardized testing ballot measures in Massachusetts, anti-gerrymandering initiatives in Ohio, and electoral campaigns in Arizona and Wisconsin — each receiving $500,000 or more from teacher union coffers.
The Classroom Disconnect
While the NEA channels tens of millions into political organizations, American public school teachers report spending an average of $479 of their own money annually on classroom supplies — a figure that has increased steadily over the past decade. Schools in low-income districts face chronic shortages of basic materials: textbooks, paper, writing instruments, and technology.
The disconnect is not subtle. A teacher in a Title I school buying pencils with her own money might be surprised to learn that her union dues helped fund a $59 million transfer to a political engagement fund, or a $34 million donation to a Democratic-aligned action committee. The dues are mandatory in many states — or were, before the Supreme Court’s Janus decision gave public employees the right to opt out.
The Travel Budget
Union financial reports also reveal significant expenditures on travel, conventions, and administrative overhead. National conventions, held in major cities with high hotel and venue costs, consume millions annually. Executive travel, board meetings, and committee sessions add to the administrative burden. While conventions serve legitimate organizational purposes, the scale of spending — particularly on luxury venues and travel arrangements — raises questions about fiscal stewardship of member dues.
The AFT Mirror
The American Federation of Teachers, led by Randi Weingarten, follows a similar pattern. The AFT’s political spending rivals the NEA’s in both scale and partisan direction, with the organization functioning as one of the Democratic Party’s most reliable institutional donors and organizing partners.
Neither union denies its political spending — both organizations argue that political advocacy is essential to advancing education policy and protecting teacher interests. The question is whether rank-and-file members, many of whom hold diverse political views, would choose to allocate their dues in the same proportions if given the choice.
The Janus Effect
The 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision gave public-sector workers the right to decline union membership and fee payments. Since Janus, both the NEA and AFT have lost members — though the full impact remains disputed. What’s clear is that the unions have responded not by reducing political spending to focus on core representational services, but by intensifying their political operations to protect the policy environment that sustains their revenue model.
For teachers who joined a union expecting it to negotiate their contracts and advocate for classroom resources, the LM-2 filings offer a cold accounting of reality: their dues are more likely to fund a political action committee than a professional development program.
Eduardo Bacci is an investigative journalist at The Investigative Journal. Data sources include Department of Labor LM-2 filings, NEA and AFT financial disclosures, and National Center for Education Statistics survey data.