Billionaire Michael Bloomberg was no fan of Andrew Cuomo when the two served overlapping tenures as mayor and governor. But on Friday all appeared forgiven, with Bloomberg’s $5 million donation to a super PAC boosting Cuomo’s mayoral bid.
It’s the largest cash infusion yet to the entity and comes in the final 10 days of the Democratic primary to oust Mayor Eric Adams, once a Bloomberg ally. The former mayor — a party hopscotcher who is now a Democrat — is jumping in as Cuomo faces a threat from democratic socialist challenger Zohran Mamdani, whose views on hiking taxes on the rich and criticisms of Israel are anathema to Bloomberg….
Category Archives: campaign finance
“Ex-New York Assembly Candidate Charged With Campaign Finance Fraud”
A former New York State Assembly candidate used fake donations and forged signatures to fraudulently inflate the share of public matching funds he received in last year’s election, federal prosecutors said on Friday.
The former candidate, Dao Yin, was charged with wire fraud in a federal criminal complaint. He was scheduled to make his initial appearance before a magistrate judge in Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Friday afternoon.
The charging of Mr. Yin, a Democrat who ran for a State Assembly seat in Queens, came a year after The New York Times published an investigation that found he appeared to have listed dozens of fake donors to increase his allotment of money under a new state matching-funds program meant to increase the power of donors making small political contributions.
Prosecutors said Mr. Yin, 62, had abused the system by using a scheme that The Times found yielded him $162,000 in matching funds. It was one of the largest sums received by an Assembly candidate last year, despite Mr. Yin’s relatively unheralded status….
Mr. Yin’s campaign filings contained glaring red flags, The Times found. Half of the money he raised directly from individuals came in cash, the least traceable form of donation. It was a much higher proportion than the 5.2 percent average for all other Assembly candidates who participated in the matching program.
Only nine of 300 contribution cards he turned in contained the required contact information for the donors, including phone numbers and email addresses. Even so, the state Public Campaign Finance Board granted him matching public funds, records show….
“Trump lawyers ask appeals court to move his hush money case to federal court”
One year after his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, Donald Trump is still fighting to shed his felon status.
The president’s personal lawyers appeared before a federal appeals court Wednesday, urging a three-judge panel to transfer his state criminal case to federal court. Such a move would pave the way for him to eventually ask the Supreme Court to erase his criminal record by throwing out his conviction on presidential immunity grounds.
The arguments continue Trump’s long-running attempt to take the case out of state court, including two previous efforts both denied by a federal judge.
Trump suffered few consequences for his conviction last May of 34 counts of business fraud for his effort to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels: He won reelection in November and was subsequently sentenced to no punishment in January. But he returned to the White House a convicted felon despite evading the three other criminal cases brought against him.
Trump’s lawyer, Jeff Wall, argued the case should be considered in federal court because the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, issued more than a month after a New York jury convicted Trump in the hush money case, gave Trump the ability to invoke a law that allows federal officials to move a prosecution out of state court if it involves official conduct….
Kim, “Restoring Public Trust in Elections: An Empirical Study of How Campaign Finance Reform Can Restore Public Trust in Elections”
New publication from Matthew D. Kim in the Texas A&M Law Review:
The American public has become deeply distrustful of elections. This distrust is partly due to Supreme Court decisions curtailing campaign finance restrictions, on First Amendment grounds, to spending that creates an appearance of quid pro quo corruption. The Court’s reasoning assumes that, although the government has an interest in protecting the public’s trust in elections, campaign spending does not pose a threat to the public’s trust absent the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. However, it is unclear if campaign spending undermines the public’s trust in elections through means other than the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. If it does, the Court’s narrow focus on quid pro quo corruption as the only mechanism through which campaign spending can undermine public trust would be unfounded and paradoxically reduce public trust in elections. Rather than accepting, at face value, the Court’s assumption that quid pro quo corruption is the only mechanism through which campaign spending can reduce public trust and solely focusing on whether campaign spending decreases public trust in elections through quid pro quo corruption, this Article tests the Court’s assumption.
The Article analyzes four original survey experiments involving 1,974 respondents and provides new empirical evidence that, even in the absence of quid pro quo corruption, campaign spending consistently undermines public trust in elections by creating concerns among members of the public about unequal access to voters, outsized influence over elections, dissemination of misinformation, and inefficiency. What’s more, this Article provides empirical evidence that campaign spending may reduce public willingness to vote in and contribute to elections, even in the absence of quid pro quo corruption. Given the demonstrated loss of public trust and reduced willingness to participate in elections, this Article argues that the Court should return to the original, underlying reason motivating its campaign finance jurisprudence—namely, the government’s compelling interest in protecting the public’s trust in elections—rather than focusing on the derivative goal of preventing the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Doing so will allow campaign finance regulations to better safeguard American elections.
“Trump says Elon Musk will face ‘very serious consequences’ if he funds Democratic candidates”
President Donald Trump on Saturday said there would be “serious consequences” if tech mogul Elon Musk funds Democratic candidates to run against Republicans who vote in favor of the GOP’s sweeping budget bill.
“If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that,” Trump told NBC News in a phone interview, but declined to share what those consequences would be.
“He’ll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,” he added.
The president also said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after a feud between the two men erupted into public view earlier this week.
“No,” Trump said when asked if he had any wish to do so.
Asked if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, “I would assume so, yeah.”
Trump’s comments were the most extensive since he and Musk exchanged threats and attacks on X and Truth Social earlier this week. He added that he thought the Republican Party was more unified than ever after the two men fell out in front of the world.
“A Super PAC Is Encroaching on the DCCC’s Territory”
A super PAC with close ties to House Democratic leadership is taking a more active role with House candidates ahead of next year’s elections, expanding its political operation into the realm traditionally occupied by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
While many Democratic strategists and elected officials welcome the new hands-on approach from House Majority PAC, some question whether it excessively overlaps with the DCCC, reducing the committee’s role and ceding some responsibility for candidate management to the outside group.
Elon Musk, GOP, and the challenges of Super PACs
And a reason why political parties are trying to get more control of campaigns. From Politico:
The top two congressional Republicans rebutted Elon Musk’s criticism of their “big, beautiful bill” Wednesday as the tech mogul and former Trump administration cost-cutter continued attacking the GOP legislation overnight.
Speaker Mike Johnson spent several minutes during a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Wednesday morning pushing back on Musk and trying to reassure Republicans after Musk signaled that he thinks lawmakers who support the megabill should be ousted next year, according to three people in the room granted anonymity to describe the private meeting. . . .
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also downplayed Musk’s potential threats to GOP members in a brief interview, saying that the party is “continuing to see fundraising goals get exceeded” ahead next year’s midterms.
“Judge tosses Democratic Party challenge to Trump order’s impact on FEC”
A federal judge has dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit claiming an executive order issued by President Donald Trump was intruding on the independence of the Federal Election Commission.
In a ruling Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party groups’ case was simply too speculative to justify emergency intervention from the court. The FEC had pledged to remain independent, had received no directive from the White House to change its practices and vowed to abide by the law. Without evidence undermining those promises, Ali said he was compelled to dismiss the suit.
The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed the suit in February after Trump issued an executive order that sought to assert greater control over executive branch agencies that have traditionally operated with considerable independence from the White House.
From the court’s opinion, which finds the executive order to be more bark than bite (so far):
The possibility that the President and Attorney General would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury. . . .
Here, the committees do not allege that the President or Attorney General has applied section seven of the executive order to the FEC or its Commissioners by purporting to issue an “authoritative” or “controlling” interpretation of FECA despite the FEC and its Commissioners’ statutorily protected independence. Exec. Order No. 14215 § 7. Nor do the committees plausibly allege the President or Attorney General plans to do so. And the Court cannot conclude from the text of section seven alone, which refers to executive employees generally and does not mention the FEC, that this type of extraordinary step by the President or Attorney General is certainly impending or a “substantial risk.”
“Some of Trump’s Biggest Inaugural Donors Benefit From Early Government Actions”
The biggest contributor to President Trump’s inauguration was chicken processor Pilgrim’s Pride, which gave $5 million. In April, its Brazilian parent company, JBS, received government approval for a U.S. stock listing that it had long sought.
The second largest donor was the cryptocurrency company Ripple, which gave about $4.9 million. In May it reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve a long-running lawsuit, sending its coin soaring.
Trump’s record inaugural fundraising of nearly $250 million totaled almost as much money as the last four combined. That was built in part on big political spending by companies that had little track record of giving outsize sums, recently released campaign finance records show.
Some of those companies are benefiting from favorable government actions early in Trump’s second term.
Four of the top 10 donors, all of whom gave north of $1 million, were nominated to prominent posts in the administration. One, Elon Musk associate Jared Isaacman, had his nomination to be National Aeronautics and Space Administration administrator pulled Saturday, after Musk announced that he was leaving the White House. Oil companies, several of which gave $1 million or more, were able to avoid tariffs after meeting with Trump early in the administration.
“Judicial Candidates Try TikTok and Tinder in Mexico’s Sprawling Elections”
I mentioned Mexico’s historic upcoming judicial elections a few days ago, but hadn’t then focused on the campaign finance regime. Now the NYT digs a little deeper:
They weren’t allowed to buy ads on television, radio, billboards or online. Mexico barred them from public funding or receiving campaign contributions. National debates were difficult, if not impossible, to mount.
So people running to be judges across Mexico were largely left with social media.
In one widely seen video, one Supreme Court candidate argued that he was as well seasoned as the fried pork sold on the streets. Another Supreme Court candidate styled herself Dora the Transformer, a spin on the cartoon character Dora the Explorer. Another Supreme Court candidate used dating apps so that, in his words, prospective voters could match with justice and then chat about the issues.
The strict campaign limits, in contrast to traditional rules for presidential or congressional elections, are part of Mexico’s sprawling, first-ever elections on Sunday. Voters will choose nearly 2,700 federal and state judicial positions at every level of the courts, with federal seats, like those on the Supreme Court, chosen at the national level and a host of officials elected locally.
“Trump’s flurry of pardons include some to campaign contributors”
An ABC analysis:
Of Trump’s 60 pardons or commutations unrelated to Jan. 6, about one in five of them have gone to those who have some sort of financial or political connection to him. Here is a list of those dozen recipients.
“Cuomo Loses Another $675,000 Over Suspected Super PAC Coordination”
The NYT reports on the NYC campaign finance board’s decision, which turns on “redboxing” – the practice of campaigns issuing public documents that sure look like very-thinly-veiled instructions to SuperPAC allies, in an attempt to skirt local prohibitions on coordination.
Here’s the page the NYT identifies as the culprit. You be the judge.
Democratic Party, in Marc Elias Brief, Seeks to Intervene in NRSC Case at Supreme Court to Defend Limits on Coordinated Spending by Parties
Well this is a very interesting development in the case I’ve been tracking closely and expect the Supreme Court to hear, especially given that Marc Elias has not been one to generally defend campaign finance limits applied to political parties.
From the brief’s introduction:
The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party
expenditures that are coordinated with candidates’ campaigns. See Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 623 (1996) (“Colorado I”); FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (“Colorado II”); In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc); Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. FEC, 117 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (“NRSC”). To date, those efforts have failed at every turn, thanks to this Court’s careful
analysis of the First Amendment in Colorado II, the courts of appeals’ faithful application of that precedent, and the FEC’s steadfast defense of Congress’s regulatory prerogatives. Since this Court first recognized the constitutionality of coordinated expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 46– 47 (1976) (per curiam), settled law has been respected as settled law, ensuring a stable, predictable campaign finance regime for party committees and political candidates across the country.
Two weeks ago, that equilibrium was severely disrupted. With the FEC lacking a quorum, the Solicitor General’s May 19 response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“Resp. Br.”) abandoned the U.S. Government’s heretofore consistent defense of the challenged statute and took the side of Petitioners in urging the Court to blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates through party committees’ coordinated expenditures.That extraordinary departure has resulted in an extraordinary situation: every brief on this Court’s docket—from Petitioners, Respondents, and six amici curiae—echoes the same mistaken attack on the judgment below. No one has defended the handiwork of Congress or this Court, stifling the “lively conflict between antagonistic demands” that is essential to our system of justice. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 503 (1961). This total lack of adversity requires correction, as Respondents concede in requesting a Court appointed amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. See Resp. Br. 20.
But this Court has better options. For one, the Court can and should deny certiorari, rather than grant review in the absence of adversity. This case was already a poor candidate for review before the Solicitor General’s decision to change position. The Court resolved the precise issues raised here in Colorado II, and stare decisis principles apply in full force. The First Amendment has not changed since 2001, the anti-circumvention and corruption concerns justifying the statute remain the same, and both en banc courts of appeals presented with Petitioners’
arguments have rejected them. Candidates, political parties, and Congress in amending campaign finance law have all relied on Colorado II in the two-and-ahalf decades since that case was decided. And there has certainly been no lack of robust campaign speech in that time. There is no need or reason for the Court to revisit Colorado II now.If this Court does grant certiorari, however, it should not appoint a disinterested amicus with no stake in the matter. Instead, it should grant intervention to Movants Democratic National Committee, DSCC, and DCCC (collectively, the “Democratic Party Committees”). The Democratic Party Committees are subject-matter experts, include the mirror-image entities of two Petitioners, and possess a direct stake in vindicating their reliance interests in the existing regulatory regime. As Intervenor-Respondents, they will cure the lack of adversity and provide a vigorous and informed defense of the coordinated expenditure limits now under attack.
Alternatively, if the Court grants certiorari and denies intervention, the Democratic Party Committees request leave to participate in any oral argument as amici curiae.
I have no idea if the Court would grant leave for the Democratic Party to intervene. Ordinarily I’d say no, that the Court would just let the party file an amicus brief. But the lack of adversity here is severe, and as the brief argues, this does create real adversity with someone with skin in the game.
“Watchdog links Florida Dem to more potential House rules violations”
From Politico:
A congressional watchdog office has found reason to believe that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick requested community project funding, also known as earmarks, on behalf of a for-profit entity — a potential violation of House rules.
The findings of a new report made public Thursday by the Office of Congressional Conduct — which reviews outside ethics complaints against House members, investigates complaints and recommends further action to the House Ethics Committee — builds on the allegations the Florida Democrat has been facing since 2023.
That same office is the subject of an NYT story today, reporting that House Speaker Mike Johnson “waited more than four months to constitute the Office of Congressional Conduct, preventing it from investigating lawmakers. He has yet to name enough members to allow it to operate at full strength.”