The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is gearing up to take a major role in the 1996 elections. This paper aims to provide some understanding of the political and legislative goals of the AFT through analysis of its PAC contributions to Congressional campaigns ($452,742 through the first quarter of 1996) as well as through examination of policy resolutions of the union.
 

Key findings include:

• The AFT is supporting Members of Congress who have voted to expand the size of government and opposing Members who have voted to cut the size of government.
• The AFT is more partisan in their PAC contributions than even the highly-partisan National Education Association. This extreme partisanship of union leadership runs counter to union membership which is much less monolithic in their party loyalties.
• The AFT is funding the most liberal Members of the House and Senate. The Members they are backing are more liberal than those backed by the NEA.
• The AFT's overall policy agenda would expand government. By opposing entitlement reform, their agenda is clearly contrary to the interests of children.
• Like the NEA, they are strongly opposed to education reform proposals such as vouchers/scholarships, as well as more generic government reform ideas such as privatization.
• At this year's AFT convention, of the 76 proposed resolutions, not one would lead to a reduction in government spending, while 43% would increase spending. Only about one third of the resolutions have anything to do with kids, education, or schools.

"The interests of employees are the raison d'être of the American Federation of Teachers."

The role of unions in the 1996 elections has been much remarked upon. Observers as well as union members should be most interested in understanding union objectives. This paper attempts to shed some light on the legislative and political objectives of one of the largest unions: the 830,000-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

This paper first profiles the Members of Congress that the AFT is supporting and opposing through their PAC contributions. To do this, this paper looks at all AFT Congressional campaign contributions for the 1996 election cycle and matches these up with figures on how supported and opposed Members voted during the first session of the 104^th Congress to change the budget. The AFT makes all campaign contributions through the AFT Committee on Political Education (AFT-COPE).

The campaign contribution figures come from AFT-COPE's Federal Election Commission reports, covering all contributions made from January 1995 through the end of the first quarter of 1996. Over this entire period, AFT-COPE has contributed $452,742 to Congressional candidates.⁽²⁾From January 1995 through the end of May 1996, the NEA's Political Action Committee (NEA-PAC) contributed $643,030 to Congressional candidates. This means that combined, the two major education unions in America have contributed $1.1 million in PAC money to congressional candidates a half year before the 1996 elections.

The tool used for analysis of these Members' votes is the VoteTally database of the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation. VoteTally tracks every vote by Members to increase or decrease the size of government (using mostly Congressional Budget Office cost estimates). VoteTally's most recent release, which is used for this report, covers the entire first session of the 104^th Congress.

All Members of the 104^th Congress who are running for election in 1996 are included in this study.⁽³⁾

After analysis of the PAC contributions of the AFT, this paper will examine some policy resolutions adopted by the AFT at their last convention in 1994 as well as some that are pending before the delegates at the 1996 convention. These resolutions will shed further light on the policy goals of the AFT.
 

The AFT's PAC contributions show a clear pattern of support for larger government (see Table 1). The AFT is funding Members who want to expand government and working to defeat Members who want to cut government. The Senate candidates they are supporting voted during the first session of the 104^th Congress to increase the size of government by $34.6 billion. The House candidates they are supporting voted for increases of $32.2 billion per year. The Senate and House candidates they are opposing voted to cut annual federal spending by an average of $25.5 and $32.3 billion respectively.
 

Two further points should be made about this spending data. First, there is a striking similarity between the size of the cuts voted for by AFT-opposed Members and the size of the increases voted for by AFT-backed Members. Thus, if the cutters have been "radical," the AFT-backed Members have been just as radical in their record of support for larger government.

Second, in comparison to the NEA, the AFT is backing candidates who have worked for even bigger government. Table 2 provides the details.
 

III. A More Partisan Voice

While the NEA has been criticized for the sharp partisanship of its PAC contributions and activities, little notice has been given to the AFT. However, the AFT has historically been very partisan in their patterns of support and 1996 is no exception.⁽⁴⁾ Again, as a point of comparison, the AFT is found to be even more partisan than the NEA. Table 3 outlines AFT and NEA giving patterns over the 1995-1996 period.⁽⁵⁾
 

It is crucial to point out that while NEA and AFT union leadership is extremely monolithic in its partisanship, union membership is decidedly not. In the case of the NEA, their internal polls show that 40 percent of union members are Democrats, with the rest split between Republicans and Independents. In fact, a majority of NEA members voted for Ronald Reagan both in 1980 and 1984.

Among the AFT's 830,000 members, support appears to be stronger for the Democratic party -- an internal 1994 AFT poll of members found that 54% said they would look favorably upon a congressional candidate supportive of the Clinton administration and 26% would support a congressional candidate who opposes the Clinton administration.⁽⁶⁾While not a pure partisan measure, this 2-1 ratio of support for pro-Clinton candidates is probably far closer to a true measure of union party loyalties than the 49-1 ratio of PAC support for Democrats over Republicans.

While the AFT has been extremely partisan in its campaign contributions, this does not fully explain the previously-noted large discrepancies in fiscal voting behavior between those who they are supporting and those who they are opposing. While Democrats voted for increases in government and Republicans for cuts in government, the AFT has funded the most liberal Members, thereby exacerbating the gulf between the spending average of the group they support and the spending average of the group they oppose.

Among incumbents, the average Democrat running for Senate in 1996 voted for $28.6 billion in higher spending during the first session of the 104^th Congress. The average Democrat running for the Senate being financially backed by the AFT voted for $34.6 billion in higher spending. The average Democrat running for the House in 1996 voted for $31.3 billion in higher spending. The average AFT-backed Democrat running for the House voted for $33.2 billion.
 

The AFT's PAC is thus funding a group of Democratic Members that are more liberal than the Democratic average. In the Senate, the AFT-supported Democrats voted for an increase in spending 21% greater than the average Democrat. In the House, the AFT-supported Democrats voted for an increase in spending 6% greater than average Democrats.
 

In one sense, it is not surprising to find AFT-COPE contributing to Members who have been voting to expand government -- the union is on record as supporting expansions in government spending. While the AFT legislative wish list is not as comprehensive as that of the NEA's,⁽⁷⁾ in many senses it is very similar. Although the AFT supports increased spending in many areas, proposed spending cuts or reforms are scarce to non-existent. And in some cases, their anti-reform positions are clearly detrimental to the interests of children.
 

Highlights of Resolutions Adopted in 1994

• A resolution to "actively and aggressively" oppose government privatization.⁽⁸⁾
• A resolution calling for "national legislation" for "national health care reform" along the lines of the Clinton Administration and McDermott-Wellstone (single-payer) proposals.⁽⁹⁾ During 1993, the AFT secretary-treasurer had regularly met with the Clinton administration's health care adviser to confer on health care reform.⁽¹⁰⁾

• A resolution in giving "very high priority to work on ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment."⁽¹¹⁾

 

• Of the 76 proposed resolutions for the AFT convention, not one would lead to a reduction in government spending, while 43% (33 out of 76) would increase spending.
• Only about a third (28) of the resolutions that will be considered have anything to do with kids, education, or schools.
• The AFT will consider resolutions in opposition to government cost-saving reforms such as privatization, contracting out,⁽¹²⁾ and block grants.⁽¹³⁾
• One of the proposed resolutions for the 1996 convention is to "work vigorously" to defeat the "drastic cuts" in Medicare that have been proposed in Congress.⁽¹⁴⁾ Given recent projections about the implications of failure to reform our major entitlement programs,⁽¹⁵⁾AFT's position of opposing Congressional efforts at reform (and offering no alternative ideas for reform in its place) is antithetical to the interests of children.

Thus, by opposing Medicare reform, the AFT is supporting a status quo that will a have devastating effect on today's children (who will be tomorrow's workers).

• The AFT will consider a resolution calling for a "major increase" in spending on "critical" federal education programs.⁽¹⁷⁾

• The AFT will look at a resolution to continue to support affirmative action programs.⁽¹⁸⁾The union will also consider a resolution that its Executive Council "move toward reflecting the gender and ethnic composition" of the AFT membership.⁽¹⁹⁾

• The AFT will evaluate a resolution terming the Congressionally-proposed cuts in Medicaid "drastic"and therefore opposing these cuts as well as efforts to block-grant the program.⁽²⁰⁾

• The AFT will consider a resolution calling on companies which are downsizing to notify employees about layoff plans one year in advance.⁽²¹⁾

• The AFT will look at a resolution endorsing using "labor community capital" such as public pension funds to "effect positive change in the corporate attitude toward working men and women."⁽²²⁾

 

• An overall education policy agenda of opposition to reforms such as vouchers/scholarships. Instead, the AFT has consistently advocated more spending on education.⁽²³⁾
• The AFT has fought against adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution because it would force cuts in domestic programs.⁽²⁴⁾ The AFT felt so strongly about the BBA that it made it one of the 11 critical votes upon which it rated Members of the 103^rd Congress.⁽²⁵⁾

 

In its PAC contributions and policy resolutions the American Federation of Teachers is advocating a substantial change in government. They would like to reverse the efforts of the 104^thCongress to trim the size of government and instead see it grow.

Relative to the NEA, the AFT is often perceived as less liberal and more open to educational reform.⁽²⁶⁾ This study shows, however, that the AFT has an agenda to significantly expand government, is more partisan than the NEA, and is funding the most liberal of candidates -- more liberal than those backed by the NEA. The AFT also shares the NEA's dim view of educational reforms such as school vouchers/scholarships.

This paper is fourth in a series of AdTI reports on the labor unions' fiscal, legislative, and political agendas. Other titles include:

• "A Fiscal Analysis of NEA and AFL-CIO Contributions to 1996 Congressional Races," AdTI Issue Brief Number 126, June 1996.
• "Judging an Interest Group by the Politicians It Keeps: An Analysis of NEA-PAC Contributions to House Races," AdTI Issue Brief Number 120, May 1996.
• "The Fiscal Impact of the NEA's Legislative Agenda," March 1996.

1. "Resolution on the Protection of Retirement Funds," 1994 AFT Convention Report, Page 101. 

2. These PAC contributions are sometimes referred to as "hard money." In addition to these funds, the AFT can use "soft money" in support of its political objectives. Examples of soft money being used for political activity include using union treasury funds to raise money for AFT-COPE or to communicate candidate information to union members. 

3. Members of the House who are running for the Senate are included in the totals for the Senate.

4. This extreme partisanship comes despite warnings from a pollster who advised the AFT that they should adopt a different course. "Inside AFT," an AFT publication, reports on a January 1996 Washington meeting where, "Staffers also heard from pollster Geoff Garin, who polled AFT members in November 1995. Garin noted that in the political arena, the AFT at all levels need to 'make endorsements on candidates' stands on issues,' not necessarily party affiliation." "Inside AFT," Week of January 29, 1996. 

5. Unlike other tables in this paper, this table includes contributions to Members of Congress who are not running in 1996 (for example, Members of the Senate not up until a later cycle or Members of the House who are retiring). 

6. Politics and Issues: AFT Members Speak Out, a publication of AFT-COPE, Page 4. 

7. See John Berthoud, "The Fiscal Impact of the NEA's Legislative Agenda," Arlington, VA: The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, March 1996. This study concludes that if every item in the NEA's legislative wish list were enacted, federal spending would increase by at least $702 billion per year. 

8. "Resolution on Privatization of Public Services," 1994 AFT Convention Report, Page 101. 

9. "Resolution on Health Care," Ibid., Page 102. 

10. Charlene Haar, Myron Lieberman, and Leo Troy, The NEA and AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics, Rockport, MA: Pro>Active Publications, 1994, Page 64. 

11. "Resolution on the Equal Rights Amendment," 1994 AFT Convention Report, Page 106. 

12. "Privatization and Contracting Out," Resolution 56, 1996 Proposed Convention Resolutions, Pages 68-70. See also "Privatization of Public Services," Resolution 59, Pages 74-75. 

13. "Block Grants," Resolution 62, Ibid., Pages 79-80. 

14. "Oppose Medicare Cuts," Resolution 20, Ibid., Pages 31-32. 

15. See John Berthoud, "Failure to Reform Medicare: A Recipe For Huge Tax Increases," Arlington, VA: The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, AdTI Issue Brief Number 112, September 1995. 

16. Neil Howe, "Why the Graying of the Welfare State Threatens to Flatten the American Dream -- or Worse," Washington, DC: The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, December 1994. 

17. "Increased Federal Funding of Schools," Resolution 13, 1996 Proposed Convention Resolutions, Pages 25-26. 

18. "Affirmative Action," Resolution 1, Ibid., Page 1. 

19. "AFT Executive Council Reflecting Membership," Resolution 40, Ibid., Page 54. 

20. "Preserve Adequate Medicaid Funding," Resolution 15, Ibid., Pages 27-28. 

21. "Downsizing Through Humane Notification," Resolution 45, Ibid., Page 59. 

22. "Capital Strategies Investing," Resolution 67, Ibid., Pages 84-85. 

23. Politics and Issues: AFT Members Speak Out, a publication of AFT-COPE, Page 4. 

24. AFT Rates Congress: Voting Record and Legislative Report of the 103^rd Congress, Page 1. 

25. Ibid, Page 2. 

26. Charlene Haar, Myron Lieberman, and Leo Troy write, "Generally speaking, the NEA is perceived as the more conservative in terms of teacher militancy but the more liberal in terms of social policy generally. In our view, this perception is unwarranted, or at least requires significant modification." (The NEA and AFT: Teacher Unions in Power and Politics, Pages 7-8).