This morning the New York Times published a story called “A Teachers’ Union Is Spending Millions to Elect Its Boss Governor” about the “unconventional strategy” undertaken by the New Jersey Education Association to put the president of the union, Sean Spiller, in the governor’s seat during “the most volatile contest in recent history.” For those of you without a subscription, here are the highlights:

Spiller has not raised enough for matching campaign funds, has no paid campaign manager, and “limited political support.” (Spiller raised  $183,000, less than any other candidate; all the others have raised $1 million or more.) Where is he getting his funding? “A $35 million blank check from a group with close ties to the labor union he leads,” writes journalist Tracey Tully, which comes from “Working New Jersey, a super PAC funded largely with public schoolteachers’ union dues.” The super PAC has “already spent $8.3 million on television, digital and streaming ads,” which began running a year before the November 2025 election, funded by NJEA. As a result of that publicity he is (according to an NJEA poll) running right behind Representative Mikie Sherrill (along with Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop).

From the article:

“Since July, I.R.S. records show that a political arm of the teachers’ union has sent at least $17.25 million to Working New Jersey. The super PAC, in turn, has reported that it was prepared to spend as much as $35 million on behalf of Mr. Spiller, a science teacher by trade who draws a roughly $370,000 salary as president of the N.J.E.A.”

Here is the problem: Campaign finance law prohibits super PACs like Working New Jersey from explicitly coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. Is the president of NJEA coordinating with NJEA’s super PAC to elect him to the governor’s office? Spiller and NJEA say “no” (although Mike Lilley of Sunlight Policy Institute begs to differ.) Certainly, there is less oversight due to the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, which places no cap on how much PACs (and unions) can spend on political campaigns.

In a question from the NY Times, Spiller “refused to directly address questions about whether he considered it a conflict of interest that he was benefiting so significantly from dues contributed by members of a union that employs him as president.” A spokesman for Working New Jersey denied any coordination between Spiller’s campaign and PAC spending decisions.

Daniel Weiner, an election law expert at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, says that this is what now-President Donald Trump did by “relying heavily on super PACs for core campaign responsibilities….The theory was that these groups would not be interchangeable with candidates’ campaigns,” Mr. Weiner said. “Instead, the way they often work is they’re just sort of the alter ego of the campaign.”

The article concludes,

“Should he lose, Mr. Spiller is likely to face questions about the wisdom of investing teacher dues so heavily in a single political campaign.”

Note: There are many comments on the piece, most critical of Spiller, including some from NJEA members. One reader writes

“Win or lose, the teachers’ union should face tough questions about investing dues in a president’s second political campaign. And Spiller should stop pretending he’s a man of the people. He’s clearly a man of the teachers union. While those two obligations may sometimes align, there is an ongoing and inherent conflict of duties to the public and to his dues paying members. This appears to be why he struggles to generate support beyond people obligated to support him. Not a good look. Not a sound precedent.”

Journalist Tracey Tully replies,

“One thing I wasn’t able to figure out is how the union, with apparent approval from its members, gets around its own rules for political advocacy. In a FAQ on the NJEA’s website, when discussing a PAC it at some point asked members to contribute to, the union gives this explanation about how union dues may be used: “By law, dues money cannot be used for partisan political campaigns.” It might be an apples/oranges comparison, but I didn’t get an answer about that yet.”