On July 14, Education Next posted an article by Mike Antonucci, teacher union watchdog and the man behind the Education Intelligence Agency (EIA), that must be read by everyone who has an interest in education and the future of our country – which is to say, hopefully, everybody. The Long Reach of Teachers Unions  describes the amazing power and political influence of the country’s largest union. 

Regarding political spending, we learn that,

The largest political campaign spender in Americais not a megacorporation, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or ExxonMobil. It isn’t an industry association, like the American Bankers Association or the National Association of Realtors. It’s not even a labor federation, like the AFL-CIO. If you combine the campaign spending of all those entities it does not match the amount spent by the National Education Association….

How much do they spend?

The Center for Responsive Politics and the National Institute on Money in State Politics joined forces last year to produce the first comprehensive database of political campaign spending at both the state and national levels. The results should open the eyes of policymakers and educators alike, as well as those involved in the wider world of domestic politics. In the 2007–08 election cycle, total spending on state and federal campaigns, political parties, and ballot measures exceeded $5.8 billion. The first-place NEA spent more than $56.3 million, $12.5 million ahead of the second-place group.

And as if their direct political spending isn’t staggering enough –

NEA and AFT (note – AFT is the American Federation of Teachers – the other national teachers union) apply their influence directly, through lobbying and election campaigns, but also indirectly via a network of friendly organizations made friendlier through substantial contributions. NEA’s “community outreach” efforts are particularly formidable, gaining the union allies in the fields of research, advocacy, and the media. Through the use of front groups, the teachers unions are able to disguise their role in funding these activities and thus their self-interest in a host of political issues.

The national teachers unions provide generous funding for research that supports their positions on education ($150,000 to FairTest) as well as budgetary issues ($650,000 to the Economic Policy Institute) and social policy ($165,000 to People For the American Way).

Since teacher union spending goes only in one direction – leftward, one might assume that teachers tend to be much more liberal than the average American. Not so. According to Antonucci,

NEA members lean no further to the left than any other large group of Americans. The national union conducts periodic internal surveys to ascertain member attitudes on a host of issues. These surveys are never made public, and results are tightly controlled, even within the organization. The 2005 NEA survey, consistent with previous results, found that members “are slightly more conservative (50%) than liberal (43%) in political philosophy.”

At this point, you might ask, “If teachers are more conservative than liberal, how come their union’s political spending goes to liberal-left candidates and causes? The answer is very simply that,

NEA’s decisions are made by union leaders, most of whom identify themselves as liberal.

And what does the rank and file have to say about this? Sadly, we learn that,

It may be that the rank-and-file members don’t know anything about NEA’s expenditures. Thirty-six percent of respondents to the NEA survey admitted they were “not at all” involved with the union at any level. The organization has a vast and unending supply of funds from its rank-and-file membership. If members are largely ignorant of or apathetic to where that money is spent, it’s a paradise for a cadre of political activists.

Ignorance and apathy: a perfect storm for the activists.  So, the bottom line is that a small union elite has millions of dollars in dues, forked over by their compliant members, which they can and do spend as they wish, while most teachers either don’t know or don’t care.

While joining the union in 28 states and Washington D.C. is a condition of employment as a teacher, there is a way for them to opt out of that portion of their dues which is spent on politics. Unless that 50 percent of right-leaning teachers – and others who don’t think the union should be spending their dues on politics at all -- start taking advantage of this “opt-out” opportunity, they should be seen as partners with the union. As such, those polls that show teachers being amongst the most trusted Americans and union leaders the least trusted, will change. By continuing to willingly supply their union with money to fund their political agenda, these teachers will be less deserving of the public’s support and respect.