Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger campaigned as a centrist fixated on one theme: affordability. Voters were told she would govern as a level-headed moderate, skeptical of ideological excesses and focused squarely on cost-of-living relief.
But as Market Institute Senior Fellow Norm Singleton writes in RealClearMarkets, Spanberger’s record in Congress tells a very different story — one that should give Virginians pause as she prepares to take office.
A Congressional Record That Fails the “Moderate” Test
Spanberger gained national attention after the 2020 elections, warning fellow Democrats that the party’s flirtation with socialism and “defund the police” rhetoric was politically toxic. But the voting record behind the rhetoric is anything but moderate.
“Spanberger received an F from the National Taxpayer Union’s ranking for her entire congressional voting record.”
— Norm Singleton, RCM
Over six years in Congress, Spanberger earned failing grades across issues like taxes, spending, and debt — performing worse than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on fiscal responsibility. That is not the profile of a centrist Democrat dedicated to affordability.
The PRO Act: A Direct Attack on Worker Freedom
Spanberger twice voted for the PRO Act, one of labor unions’ top federal priorities — and one of the most aggressive attacks on worker choice in decades.
“This legislation would repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act… like the one adopted in Virginia in 1947.”
Repealing Section 14(b) would invalidate Virginia’s Right to Work law, a foundational protection ensuring no worker is forced to join or pay a union as a condition of employment.
Even more concerning, the PRO Act endorses card check — replacing secret-ballot elections with a system where workers sign union cards in front of union organizers and coworkers. The opportunity for coercion is obvious.
Campaigning One Way, Legislating Another
During her gubernatorial campaign, Spanberger said she opposed the “full repeal” of Virginia’s Right to Work law — even after voting to eliminate it federally. Instead, she said she supported “reform.”
But as Singleton notes:
“It is hard to see how such laws could be ‘reformed’ unless Spanberger favors forcing workers who choose not to join a union to nevertheless pay a fee.”
That “fee” — often called forced “representation fees” — would effectively gut Right to Work while keeping the name intact. Workers would still have to pay unions or risk losing their jobs, whether they wanted representation or not.
Right to Work Is an Affordability Issue
Spanberger has built her brand on reducing costs for Virginians. But undermining Right to Work would do the opposite.
According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research:
Virginia’s per capita disposable income is $66,772 — far higher than the $59,403 average in non-Right to Work states.
Employment in Virginia has increased 5%, compared to a 0.2% decrease in non-Right to Work states.
Right to Work attracts businesses, expands employment, and raises household incomes. Weakening it would make Virginia less competitive and more expensive — the exact opposite of what voters were promised.
A Test of Spanberger’s Commitments
Norm Singleton concludes with a straightforward challenge:
“Governor-elect Spanberger should reassure Virginians that she opposes any legislation weakening her citizens’ Right to Work because she understands that protecting worker freedom is central to her abundance agenda.”
If affordability is truly Spanberger’s north star, she should reject any effort — explicit or disguised — to undermine Virginia’s Right to Work protections. Worker freedom isn’t just a labor issue. It’s an economic-growth issue, a household-income issue, and a competitiveness issue.
And it will be one of the first real tests of whether Abigail Spanberger governs as the moderate she claims to be — or the big-government progressive her record strongly suggests.
Read the full article in RealClearMarkets by clicking here.
