Arizona — A review of federal and state campaign finance records reveals extensive political activity by labor unions, teachers associations, and nonprofit organizations across the United States, with millions of dollars flowing into campaigns supporting Democratic candidates and opposing Republican contenders.
From Arizona’s battle over school choice to California’s gubernatorial election and a developing election investigation in Alaska, financial disclosures show how organized labor participates in political campaigns well beyond traditional workplace representation.
National data from OpenSecrets reveals that labor-sector political activity totaled approximately $288 million during the 2024 federal election cycle. Of the contributions attributed to federal candidates and political parties, approximately 87.3% went to Democrats, compared with 11.8% to Republicans.
The findings raise questions about political spending, union membership representation, nonprofit financial transparency, and the influence of outside organizations in American elections.
Arizona: Teachers Union Money and the Fight Over School Choice
Arizona provides one example of the intersection between education policy and union political activity.
In April 2026, financial disclosures showed that the Protect Education campaign had raised approximately $4.6 million while pursuing changes to Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program.
According to reporting by Arizona Public Media and KJZZ, approximately $4.5 million came from the National Education Association (NEA), one of the nation’s largest teachers unions.
The proposed reforms included limiting certain ESA eligibility to households earning $150,000 or less annually and imposing additional restrictions on program spending.
Supporters of the changes argued they would improve financial accountability and preserve resources for public education. Opponents maintained that the restrictions would reduce parental choice and limit educational opportunities for Arizona families.
The NEA’s financial involvement illustrates how national education unions can influence state policy debates through campaign funding.
The organization’s Arizona affiliate, the Arizona Education Association (AEA), also endorsed Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs for reelection in February 2026.
The Arizona AFL-CIO separately endorsed Hobbs in its 2026 general election recommendations.
Hobbs is facing Republican challenger Andy Biggs.
Union organizations have also participated in campaign canvassing and voter outreach supporting Hobbs and other candidates.
These activities establish that education and labor organizations are participating in both Arizona’s education-policy debates and statewide elections.
However, the NEA’s $4.5 million contribution to the ESA campaign should not be confused with a direct contribution to Hobbs. Those are separate political activities.
California: Unions Finance Political Committees Opposing Steve Hilton
In California, official campaign finance records provide direct evidence of union money supporting political efforts against Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton.
According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, a political committee named Greater Golden State, Opposing Hilton for Governor 2026, received substantial contributions from labor-related organizations.
The California Nurses Association Political Action Committee contributed $500,000.
The SEIU California State Council for Working People contributed another $250,000.
Together, those two organizations provided $750,000 to the committee.
Other contributors included a Democratic Governors Association-sponsored political committee and businessman Bill Bloomfield.
Separate records also identify labor-related contributions to a committee supporting Hilton’s Democratic opponent, Xavier Becerra.
The Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition PAC contributed approximately $2.45 million, while the California State Association of Electrical Workers contributed $1 million.
Those reported contributions total $3.45 million.
The records document labor financing of political committees supporting and opposing candidates. They do not establish that every advertisement purchased by those committees was paid for exclusively with union money.
The Spencer Pratt Connection
Union-sponsored campaign advertising has also appeared in the Los Angeles mayoral election.
In May, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, reported spending approximately $221,000 in connection with an advertisement opposing mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the advertisement criticized Pratt’s positions on policing, public-sector unions, and homelessness.
Some political analysts questioned whether the advertisement’s messaging might actually increase Pratt’s appeal among conservative voters, potentially influencing which candidates advanced to the runoff.
That interpretation remains disputed.
What is documented is that an AFL-CIO-affiliated labor federation financed political advertising connected to the mayoral contest.
The California records demonstrate how labor organizations can participate in multiple elections through endorsements, political committees, and independent advertising.
Alaska: Union Support for Mary Peltola Amid Election Investigation
Alaska’s U.S. Senate race has attracted national attention following allegations that Democratic political operatives helped recruit a candidate whose name closely resembles that of the Republican incumbent.
Sen. Dan S. Sullivan is seeking reelection against Democrat Mary Peltola.
A second candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., also qualified for the ballot.
An October 28 report by The New York Times alleged that Democratic operatives, including individuals associated with Peltola’s campaign, participated in efforts to recruit candidates who could potentially draw votes away from the incumbent senator.
Peltola’s campaign and national Democratic officials have denied involvement in the alleged operation.
The Alaska Supreme Court previously allowed the second Sullivan to remain on the ballot.
The Justice Department subsequently pursued legal action concerning possible voter confusion and issued subpoenas and document-preservation requests as part of its investigation.
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy also ordered a state investigation.
As of October 30, no criminal charges had been announced against participants in the alleged recruitment operation, and the investigation had not established that fraudulent ballots were counted.
AFL-CIO and NEA Endorsements
Separate from the election investigation, organized labor has documented political connections to Peltola’s campaign.
The Alaska AFL-CIO officially endorsed Peltola on June 17, 2026.
Its then-president, Joelle Hall, publicly supported the endorsement and emphasized the federation’s intention to help elect candidates it considered supportive of workers.
Hall later disputed reporting concerning Peltola campaign involvement in the alleged recruitment effort and defended the legality of candidate recruitment.
NEA-Alaska also endorsed Peltola.
On October 16, Peltola attended the NEA-Alaska Solidarity Summit in Anchorage, where she discussed education funding and workplace concerns with educators.
The American Federation of Government Employees has also endorsed her.
These endorsements establish political support from labor organizations, but they do not establish union involvement in the alleged candidate-recruitment operation.
AFL-CIO Affiliate Reports Advertising Expenditure
Federal campaign finance records provide another connection.
Working America, the AFL-CIO’s community affiliate, reported spending $33,525 on digital advertising opposing Daniel J. Sullivan on October 21.
The filing listed Meta as the payee.
Importantly, the candidate named in the expenditure was Daniel J. Sullivan, the second candidate, rather than incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
Additional Working America expenditure entries appear in federal campaign finance tracking records.
The reported spending establishes that an AFL-CIO affiliate participated financially in advertising concerning the second Sullivan.
It does not establish that Working America recruited him, financed his candidacy, or participated in an unlawful election scheme.
The actual advertising content and any relationship to the alleged recruitment strategy require further examination.
OpenSecrets: Nearly $288 Million in Labor-Sector Political Activity
The state-level examples are part of a broader national picture.
According to OpenSecrets, labor-sector political money during the 2023–2024 federal election cycle totaled $288,026,850.
The organization’s records divide that money into three major categories:
- $212.78 million in soft or outside money.
- $69.19 million in political action committee contributions.
- $6.05 million in individual contributions associated with the labor sector.
The soft or outside-money category represented nearly 74% of the total.
This category includes money directed toward outside political groups and other political activities, rather than simply contributions directly to candidates.
OpenSecrets also reported that approximately $67.4 million in labor-sector candidate and party contributions went to Democrats, while approximately $9.13 million went to Republicans.
That represents roughly $7.38 to Democrats for every $1 to Republicans within those contribution categories.
The percentages do not apply to all $288 million, because outside spending is excluded from the party-split calculation.
The organization’s records show that total reported labor-sector political money increased from approximately $250.1 million in the 2022 cycle to $288 million in 2024.
The increase occurred between a midterm and presidential election cycle, which can affect spending patterns.
Among the largest labor-sector contributors identified by OpenSecrets in 2024 were the Carpenters & Joiners Union, National Education Association, Laborers Union, and Communications Workers of America.
OpenSecrets attributed approximately $32.5 million in political activity to the NEA alone.
Of that total, approximately $3.31 million was attributed to Democratic candidates and parties, compared with about $58,000 to Republicans. Substantial additional activity was classified as funding to liberal-aligned outside organizations.
These figures document organizational political spending. They do not establish the political preferences of individual union members or show that every dollar originated from membership dues.
Although labor political contributions nationally favored Democrats in the 2024 federal cycle, some unions support Republicans in particular state and local elections.
Nonprofits and the Growing Influence of Dark Money
Beyond labor unions, nonprofit organizations also play a substantial role in federal elections.
A May 2025 report by the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that more than $1.9 billion in dark money influenced the 2024 federal election cycle.
According to the report, approximately $1.2 billion benefited Democratic-aligned election efforts, while approximately $664 million benefited Republican-aligned efforts.
The Brennan Center defined dark money as election-related spending involving nonprofits and shell companies that do not publicly disclose their original donors.
Among the organizations identified in its research were Future Forward USA Action, Majority Forward, One Nation, American Action Network, and House Majority Forward.
These organizations participated in election activity through advertising, transfers to super PACs, and other political expenditures.
The report found that approximately $1.3 billion in dark money was contributed to super PACs during the 2024 cycle.
Such financial arrangements can make it difficult for voters to determine the original source of funding behind political advertising.
However, undisclosed donors do not automatically mean illegal spending.
The Legal Difference Between Charities and Political Nonprofits
The distinction between nonprofit classifications is critical.
Under Internal Revenue Service rules, 501(c)(3) charitable organizations are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates.
Certain nonpartisan activities, including voter education and voter registration, may be permitted.
By contrast, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations may engage in certain political campaign activities, provided those activities are not their primary function.
Labor organizations generally operate under another tax classification, 501(c)(5), which also permits political activity subject to applicable laws.
The movement of money among charities, advocacy organizations, and political committees can raise questions about funding restrictions and compliance.
But shared leadership, financial relationships, or similar political priorities do not automatically establish illegal conduct.
Determining whether charitable resources were improperly used for partisan campaigning requires examining grants, financial records, expenditure disclosures, and the purposes for which money was transferred.
Following the Money Across State Lines
The financial disclosures examined across Arizona, California, and Alaska reveal a consistent feature of modern American elections: labor organizations and politically active nonprofits participate in campaigns through several different methods.
In Arizona, the NEA funded an education-policy initiative while affiliated labor organizations endorsed candidates for statewide office.
In California, union political committees financed efforts supporting and opposing gubernatorial candidates and participated in local campaign advertising.
In Alaska, union organizations endorsed Mary Peltola, while Working America reported independent advertising expenditures involving one of the candidates named Sullivan.
Nationally, OpenSecrets documents substantial labor-sector political spending, much of it benefiting Democratic candidates and aligned organizations.
The Brennan Center separately identifies billions of dollars in nonprofit-linked and other dark money influencing federal elections, benefiting both major political parties.
Together, these records establish that political influence extends far beyond contributions made directly to individual campaigns.
They do not establish that the organizations participated in one coordinated national operation or that the unions and nonprofits identified engaged in illegal campaign activity.
The unresolved questions concern the original sources of political funding, how union members influence organizational priorities, how outside committees spend their resources, and whether nonprofits comply with restrictions governing charitable funds.
As the November 3 midterm elections approach, campaign finance disclosures and ongoing investigations are likely to remain central to understanding the organizations financing America’s political campaigns.
For voters seeking greater transparency, the financial records offer a starting point: identifying who contributed, who received the money, how it was spent, and what activities the public records can actually substantiate.
Original article
Comments