The dust has settled on the primaries in the 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial race, leaving a glaring spotlight on the state’s largest teachers’ union and its audacious attempt to install its president, Sean Spiller, as governor. This saga exemplifies the perils of unchecked union influence in politics, with the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) pouring an unprecedented $40 million into Spiller’s campaign—a move that backfired spectacularly. The race, culminating in the June 10 primaries leading up to the November 4 general election, offers a cautionary tale about the limits of union power when it clashes with voter priorities, especially in a state increasingly wary of special-interest dominance.
The NJEA’s gamble began with a super PAC, Working New Jersey, channeling dues from its 200,000 members to fund an aggressive campaign for Spiller, a former Montclair mayor and union leader. This $40 million war chest dwarfed the spending of other candidates, with the union betting that its financial muscle could propel Spiller to the Democratic nomination. The strategy included extensive advertising, canvassing 661,000 homes, and internal polling to gauge his standing. Yet, Spiller’s campaign raised only $183,000 independently, failing to qualify for state matching funds or debate participation, highlighting his reliance on union largesse rather than grassroots support.
This dependence became his Achilles’ heel.
The primary results were a resounding rebuke. Spiller finished fifth among six Democratic candidates, securing just 10.7% of the vote, while Representative Mikie Sherrill won the nomination with 34%. The union’s investment yielded a mere 30,000 more votes than former Senate President Steve Sweeney, a rival with minimal union backing, exposing a disconnect between the NJEA’s spending and member sentiment. Posts found on X reflect growing frustration, with some suggesting teachers themselves rejected Spiller, questioning the use of their dues for a personal political bid. The general election matchup is now Democrat Sherrill against Republican Jack Ciattarelli, but the union’s focus remained on its internal fallout rather than the outcome.
This fiasco underscores the dangers of union bosses prioritizing power over public interest. The NJEA’s spending, the largest by any special interest in state history, aimed to shield education policies from President Trump’s second-term agenda, including potential Department of Education cuts. Spiller’s platform emphasized affordable housing and schools, but his tenure as Montclair mayor—marked by a $1.25 million settlement in a workplace lawsuit—raised doubts about his leadership. Critics argue the union’s move was less about education and more about preserving its political clout, a tactic that backfired as voters favored candidates with broader appeal.The establishment narrative may defend the union’s right to engage in politics, citing its role in advocating for workers. However, the scale of this expenditure—outpacing the $13.4 million spent by all super PACs in the 2021 primary—suggests a troubling overreach, especially when Spiller’s fifth-place finish indicates limited member buy-in. Some state lawmakers and union members now question the NJEA’s influence, with reports of discontent among teachers who feel their dues were misappropriated. The union’s next steps, including its general election endorsement, remain unclear, but the damage to its credibility is evident.
This race serves as a wake-up call. Common sense holds that unions should represent their members, not bankroll vanity campaigns for leadership. New Jersey’s voters, by rejecting Spiller, signaled a preference for accountability over entrenched interests. As the state moves forward under a new governor, the NJEA’s misadventure may prompt reforms to curb such spending, ensuring future races reflect the will of the people, not the wallets of union elites.