Category Archives: campaign finance

“Trump’s secret power protection plan”

Axios:

Anyone who thinks President Trump‘s mesmerizing hold over the GOP will slip if his poll numbers slide is missing one of his biggest innovations in American politics:

  • The creation of a cash-flush political operation that has raked in around a half-billion dollars — about the same amount the GOP’s House and Senate campaign arms spent during the entirety of the last midterm campaign.

Why it matters: It’s unheard of for a president not running for reelection to raise that kind of money. But the cash is just one piece of a bigger power play that’s arguably the most powerful, well-funded political apparatus ever.

  • The day after Election Day, Trump — at a time most presidents-elect are scrambling to get their transitions rolling — started calling major donors to start building an enforcement machine for his agenda.
  • “Right now, there’s a huge price to pay by crossing Donald Trump,” said Republican strategist Corry Bliss, who formerly led the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC. “When you combine a 92% approval rating among Republican voters with unlimited money, that equals: ‘Yes, sir.'”

Share this:

“In Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, both sides take aim at the other’s billionaire backers”

NBC News:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court contest is shaping up to be a battle of billionaires, with each side in the race casting the other’s most prominent donors as boogeymen.

Liberal megadonors like George Soros and outside groups with ties to Elon Musk have spent millions in the first major race in a battleground state since the 2024 election that both parties will look to as a barometer of the political environment in the opening weeks of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The technically nonpartisan April 1 election will determine the state Supreme Court’s ideological balance for the second time in two years. Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate and a state judge in Waukesha County who previously served as the state’s Republican attorney general, is facing off against Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate and a state judge in Madison.

Thanks in large part to the involvement of megadonors like Musk and Soros, the race is on track to surpass the state’s 2023 contest as the most expensive state Supreme Court campaign in U.S. history. And like that race, the future of several hot-button issues with both state and national significance — including abortion rights, unions and congressional maps — will again be at stake.

Democrats in particular have trained their sights on Musk, the tech billionaire who’s running the controversial Department of Government Efficiency.

This week, the Wisconsin Democratic Party launched what it’s calling a seven-figure investment to link Schimel to Musk. The spending will be geared toward ads, town hall events and canvassing efforts that specifically take aim at Musk.

One digital spot that started running this week lists off a series of actions DOGE has taken or recommended, before slamming Musk as “out of control” and accusing him of “unloading millions to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

“He knows MAGA politician Brad Schimel is for sale,” the ad’s narrator says….

On the other side, the Wisconsin Republican Party and aligned groups have drawn attention to the cadre of liberal billionaires who have thrown money into the race, including Soros and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.

“Susan Crawford is a vehicle for Democrats, like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, to implement a dangerously unpopular agenda,” Wisconsin GOP spokesperson Anika Rickard said.

House Freedom Action, the political arm of the conservative U.S. House Freedom Caucus, has begun running ads that specifically take aim at Crawford for receiving support from Soros, Hoffman and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker….

Several other ultrawealthy Americans have also gotten involved in the race, particularly on the conservative side.

For example, Elizabeth Uihlein gave $650,000 to the Wisconsin GOP in January, while Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade, chipped in $500,000. Diane Hendricks, the billionaire businesswoman and film producer who owns ABC Supply, also gave the Wisconsin Republican Party $975,000 that month.

Share this:

“Despite Musk, progressives are winning the ad war in Wisconsin”

The Downballot:

Despite Elon Musk’s multi-million dollar spending spree, progressives retain an advantage on the airwaves in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race—and now they’re making an issue of Musk’s involvement, too. At the same time, a rare poll shows liberal Judge Susan Crawford leading her opponent, former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, ahead of their April 1 showdown.

On the advertising front, new data from AdImpact shows that Crawford and her allies have spent $17 million to date versus $12 million for Schimel’s side. Conservatives hold a small edge in future reservations, $6.3 million to $5.8 million, but that gap is a fraction of the $7 million advantage Schimel and his supporters enjoyed just two weeks ago…

Share this:

“ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos”

NYT:

ActBlue, the online fund-raising organization that powers Democratic candidates, has plunged into turmoil, with at least seven senior officials resigning late last month and a remaining lawyer suggesting he faced internal retaliation.

The departures from ActBlue, which helps raise money for Democrats running for office at all levels of government, come as the group is under investigation by congressional Republicans. They have advanced legislation that some Democrats warn could be used to debilitate what is the party’s leading fund-raising operation.

The exodus has set off deep concerns about ActBlue’s future. Last week, two unions representing the group’s workers sent a blistering letter to ActBlue’s board of directors that listed the seven officials who had left. The letter described an “alarming pattern” of departures that was “eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.”

What prompted so many longtime ActBlue officials to leave is not clear — none of the former officials agreed to be interviewed on the record….

The next week, several other senior officials left, including the associate general counsel — who was the highest-ranking legal officer at ActBlue — the assistant research director, a human resources official, the chief revenue officer and an engineer who had spent 16 years building and maintaining the electronic pipes through which the group’s donations flow.

As these people left, Zain Ahmad, who was the last remaining lawyer in the ActBlue general counsel’s office, wrote in an internal Slack message on Feb. 26 that his access to email and other internal platforms had been cut off and that other messages he had posted in Slack had been deleted, according to a screenshot obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Ahmad is now on leave from ActBlue, according to a person briefed on the group’s staffing…

Democrats have for years credited ActBlue with giving them an edge over Republicans by creating a universal and trusted platform for donating. ActBlue, which is based in Somerville, Mass., says it has raised more than $16 billion for Democratic candidates and causes since its founding in 2004.

In recent weeks, congressional Republicans have demanded answers from ActBlue about its security and fraud-prevention measures, as well as how the group prevents certain foreign donors from illegally contributing to candidates. The letter from the ActBlue unions warned that the group was “under increasing scrutiny” and “the target of bad-faith political attacks at the hands of ill-intentioned operators.”

On Feb. 6, ActBlue responded to Republican congressional inquiries with a three-page letter, sent from the law firm Covington & Burling, to “provide an update regarding ActBlue’s security, fraud prevention measures and related procedures.”

Some Democrats fear that Republicans, who now control Congress and the White House, will seek to shut down ActBlue. These Democrats worry that the scrutiny of the fund-raising platform is just an opening salvo in a larger campaign to dismantle and destabilize the broader Democratic infrastructure….

Share this:

“A Kennedy Ally Puts Money Into a Push to Recall Karen Bass”

NYT:

The first serious effort to recall Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles after the city’s devastating fires is taking shape, with financial backing from Nicole Shanahan, who was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate in last year’s presidential election.

Ms. Shanahan’s involvement in the push to remove the mayor was disclosed on the bottom of a website for the Recall Karen Bass Committee, which listed her as the sole donor providing “major funding.” Ms. Shanahan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Shanahan, a onetime Silicon Valley lawyer, could bring financial firepower to the effort: She has a fortune in the realm of $1 billion that stems largely from her divorce settlement with Sergey Brin, the Google co-founder. She has also demonstrated a willingness to pour her wealth into politics, spending more than $15 million to support Mr. Kennedy’s campaign….

Share this:

“People Are Paying Millions to Dine With Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago”

Wired:

Guests are paying millions of dollars to dine and meet with President Donald Trump at special events held at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

Business leaders can secure a one-on-one meeting with the president at Mar-a-Lago for $5 million, according to sources with direct knowledge of the meetings. At a so-called candlelight dinner held as recently as this past Saturday, prospective Mar-a-Lago guests were asked to spend $1 million to reserve a seat, according to an invitation obtained by WIRED.

“You are invited to a candlelight dinner featuring special guest President Donald J. Trump,” the invitation reads, under a “MAGA INC.” header. MAGA Inc., or Make America Great Again Inc., is a super PAC that supported Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. “Additional details provided upon RSVP. RSVPs will be accommodated on a first come, first serve basis. Space is very limited. $1,000,000 per person.”

Invitees were asked to RSVP to Meredith O’Rourke, who served as national finance director and senior adviser at Donald J. Trump for President 2024, a campaign committee, and who is the owner of The O’Rourke Group, which O’Rourke describes on her LinkedIn page as a “Republican political fundraiser.” Invitees were also directed to email Abby Mathis, the finance coordinator at MAGA Inc. Mathis was previously a staff assistant for Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama—a former Auburn University football coach—and also served as an intern at the White House office of the staff secretary, according to LegiStorm, a research organization that posts information on politicians and their staffers….

“It’s everyone else who missed the boat,” a Trumpworld source with knowledge of the meetings says, referring to latecomers to the Trump agenda. The source pointed specifically to the tech sector, where executives have scrambled to show fealty to the new administration. While X owner Elon Musk notably spent at least $260 million to elect Trump, other tech companies and executives collectively donated millions to Trump’s inauguration fund: Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos, Meta, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Uber, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman all donated $1 million each.

The $5 million one-on-one meetings have become a “hot ticket” in the business community, says a source familiar with them.

It’s unclear where the money is going and what it will be used for, but one source with direct knowledge of the dinners said “it’s all going to the library,” as in the presidential library that will ostensibly be built once Trump leaves office. MAGA Inc spent over $450 million to elect Trump in 2024, though Trump is not legally permitted to run for a third presidential term in 2028….

Share this:

“Wisconsin Supreme Court race puts Trump and Musk at center stage”

Patrick Marley for WaPo:

President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk’s policies will get their first major test at the ballot box this spring in an election that will determine who controls the Wisconsin Supreme Court and shape the future of abortion rights and union power in the swing state.

Two years ago, liberals gained a 4-3 majority on the court after 15 years of conservative control. They threw out legislative maps that gave Republicans commanding majorities in the statehouse, reinstated the use of absentee ballot drop boxes and accepted cases that will decide whether abortion remains legal in the state.

But with a liberal justice retiring this year, conservatives now have a shot at regaining the majority. If they do not, liberals are poised to control the court until at least 2028, and interest groups are expected to file redistricting litigation that could give Democrats one or two more seats in Congress….

Candidates and political organizations spent more than $50 million on the last Wisconsin Supreme Court race — the most ever spent on a court race in any state, including those much larger than Wisconsin. This contest could be even more expensive, and both sides are unleashing an onslaught of ads — many of them about the candidates’ handling of child sex offenses — with the help of billionaire donors.

On the left, financier George Soros, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman have poured money into the race. On the right, Musk’s political operation and Republican megadonors Richard Uihlein and Diane Hendricks have joined the fray….

Share this:

“The case of the missing $3M: Eric Adams’ campaign finance woes grow”

Politico:
A mysterious $3 million sitting in Mayor Eric Adams’ reelection account is the latest irregularity giving campaign finance officials cause to deny him crucial public matching funds.

The Campaign Finance Board broadened the criteria it used to deny Adams matching funds in a Feb. 18 letter POLITICO obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request. The board nixed Adams’ ask for $4.5 million in taxpayer-funded campaign dollars in December and has renewed its decision monthly.

“The Campaign is not eligible for payment because the difference between the Campaign’s reported receipts and documented receipts is equal to or greater than [10 percent],” the communique said.

https://3fa0d893bed497ebf46ae80bdee81e7a.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-41/html/container.html

The discrepancy was indeed greater: nearly 65 percent.

In its February update, the CFB cited for the first time a significant difference between money in the campaign’s coffers and what it has disclosed in official reports.

As of Dec. 31, the campaign’s bank records showed receipts totaling $7.5 million, according to the board’s latest review of Adams’ campaign paperwork, which POLITICO obtained via a separate records request. Yet the mayor’s team only reported around $4.6 million in contributions to the board — a number that roughly matches figures posted to the CFB’s public website. That left nearly $3 million unaccounted for.

Share this:

“In Crucial Judicial Race in Wisconsin, G.O.P. Now Has a Financial Edge”

NYT:

The last time Wisconsin held an election for the state’s Supreme Court, Republicans cried foul over the wave of money from out-of-state Democrats that overwhelmed their candidate.

Two years later, Republicans have learned their lesson. It is Democrats who are grappling with a flood of outside money inundating Wisconsin.

A super PAC funded by Elon Musk has in just the past week spent $2.3 million on text messages, digital advertisements and paid canvassers to remind Wisconsin Republicans about the April 1 election, which pits Brad Schimel, a judge in Waukesha County and a former Republican state attorney general, against Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge who represented Planned Parenthood and other liberal causes in her private practice.

The spending by Mr. Musk, the tech billionaire who is leading President Trump’s project to eviscerate large segments of the federal government, comes as Judge Schimel and his Republican allies have spent more money on television ads than Judge Crawford and Democrats have — a remarkable turnaround in a state where Democrats have had a significant financial advantage in recent years….

Now, however, some major Democratic donors are holding on to their wallets. Mr. Hoffman, so generous in 2023, has donated a comparatively meager $250,000 for this year’s Supreme Court race at a time when he is pulling back on his political activity. Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, who gave $1 million for the judicial contest two years ago, has donated $500,000. (George Soros, who gave $1 million in 2023, did so again last month.)

Ben Wikler, the Wisconsin Democratic chairman, said the pace of spending for Judge Crawford was ahead of where spending was for Justice Protasiewicz in the 2023 race, largely thanks to small donations. Judge Crawford has received more individual contributions since Mr. Musk’s initial super PAC contributions last week than she did for the entire campaign up to that point, according to her campaign spokesman, Derrick Honeyman.

“Democrats across the country are wondering, ‘What the hell can I do to fight back against the lawless regime of Donald Trump and Elon Musk?’” Mr. Wikler said. “The answer to that question is to support Susan Crawford beating Brad Schimel.”

For Wisconsin Republicans, Mr. Musk’s funds are effectively granting permission to other right-wing donors to invest in the race, said Mr. Schimming, who lamented that Republicans did not nationalize the 2023 race and allowed Mr. Kelly to get swamped on the TV airwaves.

Share this:

“Venting at Democrats and Fearing Trump, Liberal Donors Pull Back Cash”

NYT:

The demoralization and fear gripping blue America in the early weeks of President Trump’s administration have left liberal groups and their allies struggling for cash, hurting their ability to effectively combat the right-wing transformation of the federal government.

The small-dollar online spigot that powered opposition to the first Trump administration has slowed to a trickle as shaken liberal voters withhold their donations.

Charitable foundations that have long supported causes like voting rights, L.G.B.T.Q. equality and immigrants’ rights are pulling back, devoting time to prepare for expected investigations from the Republican-led Congress.

And some of the country’s biggest liberal donors have paused giving, frustrated with what they see as Democrats’ lack of vision and worried about retaliation from a vengeful president. Some Democrats say a few of their reliable donors are now openly supporting Mr. Trump, or at least looking to curry favor with him.

Fund-raising slowdowns are common after a presidential defeat and before marquee midterm races fully begin. But interviews with more than 50 donors, strategists and leaders of activist organizations show that many Democrats believe this year is different.

While Mr. Trump has not taken action against any liberal groups or lawmakers, Democrats worry his frequent threats of retribution during the campaign have led to a chilling effect on the charitable foundations and nonprofit advocacy groups that have long been pillars of the country’s civil society.

Jeff Skoll, a Silicon Valley billionaire and a longtime friend of Elon Musk’s, said there was “an awful lot of pressure” to side with Mr. Trump.

This month, Mr. Skoll, who has donated tens of millions to Democratic candidates and causes in recent years but said he did not vote in the 2024 presidential election, posted a photo on social media of himself standing with Mr. Trump backstage at the inauguration. On Friday, he had breakfast in Palm Beach, Fla., with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, where they discussed the prospect of Mr. Schumer’s using Mr. Skoll to back-channel ideas to the president, Mr. Skoll said.

Mr. Schumer recalls the conversation differently, according to an aide, Allison Biasotti.

In an interview, Mr. Skoll acknowledged his unique position, saying he had heard from many others who were frightened to fund opposition to the administration.

“There are people who were absolutely against Trump, never Trumpers, who fear that they’ll be retaliated against and they’ll have to leave the country,” Mr. Skoll said. “Folks who wish to oppose him — it may take some time before they gather up the courage.”

The result is a political environment that is strikingly different from 2017, when money poured into Democratic causes, fortifying existing organizations and seeding a flowering of new groups to fight different parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda.

Now, some of those same organizations are struggling to survive, in part because few new major liberal donors have emerged since 2017. Groups that support L.G.B.T.Q. rights, promote gender equity and champion other progressive causes have cut staffing and announced that longtime leaders are leaving.

End Citizens United, a left-leaning group that aims to overhaul campaign finance laws, laid off its six senior staff members last month as part of a restructuring. Run for Something, which works to elect liberal down-ballot candidates, laid off 35 percent of its staff late last year. And GLSEN, a group dedicated to protecting L.G.B.T.Q. students, laid off 25 people last month….

Share this:

“Morning Digest: A Georgia Republican says he alone can raise unlimited sums. His rivals have other ideas”

The Downballot:

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones hasn’t yet announced his long-anticipated campaign for governor of Georgia, but he’s already taking advantage of a state law allowing him to raise unlimited sums of money—something none of his would-be rivals can do. And despite a previous ruling clamping down on this one-sided state of affairs, Jones insists he can spend this windfall in his quest to win next year’s Republican primary—a question that may wind up back in the courts.

Jones, who is one of Donald Trump’s top allies in the state, enjoys this advantageous position thanks to a 2021 law signed by Gov. Brian Kemp authorizing powerful new entities called “leadership committees.”

Candidates for statewide office are limited to accepting $8,400 from individual donors for the primary and the same amount for the general election. They’re also barred from fundraising when the legislature is in session. By contrast, there are no such restrictions for leadership committees. These groups, unlike federal super PACs, are also allowed to coordinate directly with the campaigns they’re supporting.

The law allows the sitting governor, lieutenant governor, and leaders of both parties to create these special committees. Everyone else is out of luck, though nominees for governor and lieutenant governor who don’t currently hold those offices can establish their own leadership committees after they win their party’s nomination.

Kemp took advantage of the law he signed during his fight against former Sen. David Perdue in the 2022 GOP primary. Both Perdue and Democrat Stacey Abrams, who couldn’t yet form leadership committees, argued that Kemp had an unfair advantage. Federal Judge Mark Cohen barred the governor’s committee from spending money until he won the primary, but he did not invalidate the law.

Kemp went on to beat both Perdue and Abrams, and he’s continued to utilize his leadership committee to advocate for allied candidates—including Trump. State Democrats sued to strike down the law last year, but they dropped their suit after Cohen ruled they lacked standing to bring a challenge.

Jones’s committee, called the WBJ Leadership Committee, finished January with $2.6 million in the bank. (The lieutenant governor’s full name is William Burton Jones.) Cohen’s ruling against Kemp in 2022 would seemingly bar his allies from spending that money on his behalf in the upcoming primary to succeed Kemp, but unsurprisingly, he and his rivals sharply disagree on whether it still applies.

Attorney General Chris Carr, who launched his own campaign for the GOP nod in November, believes the answer is no. A strategist for Carr—who does not have access to a leadership committee—told the Associated Press that Cohen’s earlier decision means that cash raised by WBJ “cannot be spent on anything that furthers his Republican primary campaign for governor.”

Carr, it so happens, defended the law in his capacity as attorney general against the challenge brought by Perdue and Abrams, calling their attempt to restrict leadership committees a “nakedly political effort.”…

Share this:

“The Rise of America’s Broligarchy and What to Do About It”

Larry Norden and Dan Weiner in Time:

While the corrupting influence of big money over our government is not new, the specifics of this danger are different today than perhaps at any other time in our nation’s history. Tech billionaires, who already had enormous power, helped underwrite a winning presidential campaign in ways that would have been illegal just a few elections ago. And there are now fewer restraints than ever before on their ability, or the president they helped elect, to break through the checks and balances of our political system. This system, President Joseph Biden recently warned, can best be described as an “oligarchy.” Or, as others have dubbed, a “broligarchy.”

None of this means the situation is hopeless. Musk’s depredations are already encountering legal and political resistance, and it’s likely that the political pendulum will eventually swing back. When it does, those who care about the security of American democracy will need to be ready with fresh, bold solutions that meet the political moment, to ensure that our political system can actually respond to the needs of regular Americans.

Still, the question remains: How did we get to the point of having a tech billionaire campaign donor openly running huge parts of the federal government? And where do we go from here?

Share this: