A major transportation union representing nearly 230,000 rail, bus and transit workers funneled more than $35 million into political advocacy between 2017 and 2024, with the overwhelming share flowing to Democratic candidates and left-leaning organizations, even as its rank-and-file membership shifted decisively toward Republican politics, a new report alleges.
The American Accountability Foundation released the findings in a report obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, detailing spending by SMART-TD, the transportation division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. The report draws on federal filings from the Office of Labor-Management Standards and the Federal Election Commission to build its case that union leadership has drifted far from the workers it claims to represent.
SMART-TD did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation's requests for comment.
The AAF report paints a stark picture of where SMART-TD's political money went. The union's PAC gave more than $2.3 million to Democratic party committees and just $72,500 to Republican committees over the period reviewed. Democratic federal candidates received nearly $1.9 million. Republican federal candidates got $194,500.
That's a ratio of roughly 32-to-1 on party committee donations and nearly 10-to-1 on candidate contributions, all while the union endorsed Democratic presidential nominees Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris in successive cycles.
Beyond the PAC spending, the report found that SMART spent more than $35 million on political advocacy from 2017 to 2024. It claims none of that advocacy spending went to Republican-aligned groups, while over a million dollars flowed to Democratic Party organizations and additional money went to what the report describes as left-wing interest groups.
The total political spending footprint was even larger. The report notes $136 million in overall political expenditures, alongside substantial outlays on legal expenses, hotels, conferences, merchandise, entertainment, travel, and food. The scope of the spending raises a basic question that union members are entitled to ask: where, exactly, is the money going?
Perhaps the most eye-catching line items involve spending that has nothing to do with collective bargaining or workplace safety. The AAF report highlights $10 million spent on casinos and resorts, plus an additional $1 million on theme parks.
The report does not specify which casinos, resorts, or theme parks received the money, nor does it detail the stated justification for those expenditures. But for union members paying dues out of blue-collar paychecks, the optics are difficult to defend. Workers who load freight cars and drive buses might reasonably wonder why their dues subsidized resort stays.
This is hardly the first time union political spending has drawn scrutiny for appearing to serve leadership's preferences rather than the membership's interests.
AAF President Tom Jones framed the findings as evidence of a fundamental disconnect between union bosses and the workers they represent. He told the Daily Caller News Foundation:
"While the SMART union claims to champion blue-collar Americans, its leaders stay busy blowing millions on left-wing causes, despite the overwhelming majority of their members voting Republican."
Jones went further, claiming the misalignment extends beyond spending patterns into the union's public posture on cultural and immigration issues:
"In the last few years alone, SMART has funneled over $35 million to woke groups and even defended an alleged MS-13 gang member on CNN. How long will it take before union leadership learns American workers are sick of being sold out?"
The report argues that SMART-TD's blue-collar membership has "broad support for the Trump-Vance agenda," making the union's consistent backing of Democratic nominees a case study in institutional capture, leadership pursuing one political agenda while the people it serves hold another.
That tension between union leadership and rank-and-file workers has surfaced repeatedly in recent years. A separate watchdog report made similar allegations about another major rail union funneling member dues toward Democrats despite grassroots support for Trump.
The AAF report also flagged a troubling biographical detail about SMART senior vice chairman Zachary Nagy. It highlights what it describes as 30-year-old hate crime charges, stating that Nagy served prison time for burning a cross outside a Black family's home in 1996.
The report does not include Nagy's response or any statement from SMART-TD addressing his criminal history. The specific court records underlying the claim are not detailed in the report as described by the Daily Caller. But the allegation raises obvious questions about the vetting standards for union leadership, and whether rank-and-file members were ever told about this history before Nagy rose to a senior position.
The broader pattern of Democratic-aligned institutions facing internal friction with their own base is not limited to unions. Even Democratic elected officials have publicly clashed with party allies over labor priorities, revealing fractures that union spending alone cannot paper over.
The AAF report's spending figures are sourced from two sets of federal records. LM-2 forms, the annual financial disclosures that unions are required to file with the Office of Labor-Management Standards, provided the operational spending data, including the casino, resort, and theme park outlays. PAC contributions and independent expenditures came from Federal Election Commission filings.
These are public records, which means the underlying data is verifiable. What remains unclear is the full methodology AAF used to categorize spending as "Democratic-aligned" versus other categories, and which specific candidates, committees, and organizations received the money beyond the aggregate totals provided.
The absence of a SMART-TD response leaves a significant gap. Union officials may argue that political spending reflects strategic decisions made through democratic internal processes, or that resort and casino spending relates to conferences and events. Without their side, the numbers speak for themselves, and they speak loudly.
The disconnect between labor leadership and working-class voters has become a recurring theme. Recent disputes over rail labor, including sharp criticism of Democratic leadership during the LIRR strike, have underscored how often the institutional left fails the workers it claims to champion.
SMART-TD represents nearly 230,000 workers across the rail, bus, and transit industries. These are the people who move freight, run commuter trains, and keep public transit operating. Their dues fund the union's operations, its political arm, and, if the AAF report is accurate, its casino visits.
The political realignment of blue-collar America is one of the defining stories of the last decade. Working-class voters, including union members, have moved toward the Republican Party in large numbers. Union leadership, by contrast, has largely stayed put, continuing to endorse Democrats, fund Democratic campaigns, and align with progressive advocacy groups.
That gap creates a legitimacy problem. A union exists to serve its members. When leadership spends member money on political causes those members oppose, the institution stops being a representative body and starts being a political operation wearing a hard hat. The AAF report puts specific dollar figures on what many union members have long suspected.
The pattern extends well beyond labor politics. Across institutions, from unions to universities to federal agencies, Democratic leaders have repeatedly faced pressure from a base that feels ignored or taken for granted.
SMART-TD's silence is telling. When a union representing a quarter-million workers won't answer questions about $10 million in casino spending and a 32-to-1 ratio of Democratic-to-Republican party donations, the membership deserves more than a non-response.
Workers who pay union dues have a right to know whether their money is building their bargaining power, or bankrolling someone else's political agenda. Based on these numbers, the answer looks like it was never really in doubt.
