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…
Category Archives: campaigns
“Democrats Fume Over a Data Disaster Averted: ‘This Can’t Happen Again'”
NYT:
Problems with a huge database of voter information that effectively functions as the central nervous system of the Democratic Party grew so worrisome last summer that top Democrats staged an extraordinary intervention to keep it running through the November election, according to multiple people involved.
Had it collapsed, the party’s entire get-out-the-vote operation could have been temporarily crippled, forcing canvassers to work with pen and paper instead of smartphones, and leaving campaigns effectively blind — unaware of which doors to knock on and which phones to call.
To avoid such a catastrophe, a handful of engineers from the Democratic National Committee and the Kamala Harris campaign scrubbed in, spending months to ensure the database stayed afloat, the people said.
The private company that runs the database warned some Democratic groups that it could not handle the large volume of data being uploaded and downloaded. An outside entity raced to install a workaround, while a wealthy Democratic financier, Allen Blue, was asked to fund an emergency engineering operation to keep data flowing.
“This can’t happen again,” said Mr. Blue, a founder of LinkedIn, who warned that an overhaul of the party’s technological infrastructure needed to be part of any broader Democratic rebuilding efforts. “Technology and data are the foundations for how modern campaigns are run.”
The episode, which has not been previously reported, has deepened concerns at the party’s highest levels about its singular dependency on a for-profit company whose majority owner, a private equity firm, has imposed layoffs in recent years to slash costs.
The company insists the database worked fine.
This week, as a group of Democratic tech operatives gathered in Puerto Rico to discuss the future of data and technology for the party, the fate of the database system, called NGP VAN, was on the agenda….
“Venting at Democrats and Fearing Trump, Liberal Donors Pull Back Cash”
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….
“Is it finally time to end the ‘blessed’ super PAC?; Last year, Democrats funneled nearly all of their resources into one billion dollar entity. Why did they put all of their eggs in one basket?”
“‘Everyone’s trying to kiss the ring’: Trump’s inauguration devours corporate cash, smashing records”
Donald Trump’s first White House victory caught corporate America flat-footed. This time around, industries that his administration will soon oversee are showering his inaugural committee with record-breaking donations — and making sure both the president-elect and the public notice their largesse.
Not only are companies giving far larger amounts than they did to Trump’s first inauguration — when they didn’t have a firm grasp of how to handle misgivings about the mercurial politician — they’re doing so in a far more public fashion, announcing the donations months before they have to be reported to federal regulators….
It’s also a far cry from as recently as four years ago, when much of corporate America made a show of cutting ties with Trump over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Since then, Trump’s subsequent felony convictions, promises to pardon members of the mob who stormed the Capitol or seek revenge on those who prosecuted him have done little to dull the corporate quest for Trump’s approval.
A party at the Beaux-Arts mansion of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel. A blowout organized by hosts of the popular tech podcast “All-In” at a brand-new members-only club. A viewing ceremony hosted by an ascendant, Silicon Valley-inflected network of wealthy donors.
Some of the most coveted parties during President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inaugural weekend will be hosted by the Silicon Valley donors who are flush with power at the dawn of his second administration. The tech industry that has embraced Mr. Trump over the last year or so is set to revel in its clout over days of festivities that will make the tech donors the stars of the show.
Inaugurations attract deep-pocketed corporations and donors seeking access to an incoming administration that will oversee their industries and interests. Mr. Trump’s official inaugural committee has shattered fund-raising records.
Companies have poured in $1 million or more, including Fortune 500 stalwarts like Ford and General Motors; tech giants like Amazon and Google; cryptocurrency upstarts like Ripple and Robinhood; and traditional G.O.P. megadonors, including the coal billionaires Joseph W. Craft III and Kelly Knight Craft, who gave $1 million, according to a person with knowledge of their donation. In exchange, donors have been given tickets to exclusive official events, including intimate dinners with Mr. Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, and V.I.P. access to the swearing-in ceremony on Monday….
“Nonprofit Founded by Stacey Abrams Admits Secretly Aiding Her 2018 Campaign”
A nonprofit founded by Stacey Abrams, a Georgia Democrat, admitted on Wednesday that it had violated state law by concealing the fact that it had campaigned for her during her 2018 run for governor.
At the time of that campaign, the group was led by Raphael Warnock, who was later elected to the Senate as a Democrat from Georgia.
At a meeting of the state’s ethics commission, the nonprofit New Georgia Project conceded that it had paid for fliers and door-to-door canvassers telling voters to support Ms. Abrams and other Democrats.
Under federal law, tax-exempt charities like this one are forbidden to campaign for candidates, but this case was about a violation of state law.
The nonprofit conceded that, because of its campaign work for Ms. Abrams, it should have registered with the state as a political committee, but it did not. A related nonprofit, the New Georgia Project Action Fund, admitted the same.
As a result, the two nonprofits agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty. David Emadi, the executive director of the commission, said it was the largest fine in its 38-year history….
A spokesman for Ms. Abrams said in a statement that “Stacey hasn’t been involved in the organization’s work since she departed in 2017.” Mr. Warnock’s Senate staff issued a statement saying that, while he was the leader of the New Georgia Project in 2018, “compliance decisions were not a part of that work.”…
“Scoop: Trump’s $500 million post-election windfall”
President-elect Trump is being inundated with so much money from corporations and wealthy donors that his team expects to raise about $500 million by summer — even though he can’t run again, sources in his operation tell Axios.
Why it matters: By stockpiling so much cash, Trump is signaling he doesn’t want to be seen as a lame duck in his second term, and is ready to help political allies, punish opponents and help Republicans keep full control of Congress in 2026.
- “The money is just pouring in at Mar-a-Lago. Trump doesn’t have to lift a finger. Everyone’s coming to him,” said a Trump adviser who was among five insiders to speak with Axios anonymously to describe the inner workings of Trump’s operation.
- “We’re looking at half a billion [dollars] by June, and we’re on track,” this adviser said. “It’s sort of a target but it’s just a realistic projection of what’s happening.”
Zoom in: Trump’s donors are giving to a variety of accounts.
- They include the president-elect’s inauguration account, the MAGA Inc. super PAC, a political nonprofit called Securing American Greatness, the Republican National Committee and Trump’s presidential library fund.
“Trump Inauguration, Awash in Cash, Runs Out of Perks for Big Donors”
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s inaugural committee is no longer selling tickets for major donors to attend his swearing-in and accompanying private events in Washington, according to five people briefed on the conversations.
The committee has raised over $170 million, according to the people, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to share internal financial information. The haul is so big that some seven-figure donors have been placed on wait lists or have been told they probably will not receive V.I.P. tickets at all because the events are at capacity.
Mr. Trump often talks privately about who has supported him, and the frenzy to donate to his inauguration — even if it comes without the usual exclusive access — underscores the degree to which deep-pocketed donors and corporations are seeking to curry favor with him. Far more than in early 2017 at the start of his first term, corporate America has largely embraced Mr. Trump during his transition, partly out of a desire to get on his good side.
Prospective donors began to be told early this week that no more seats were available for certain events around Washington, according to the people briefed on the conversations. The personalized donation link that fund-raisers had circulated to their networks of major contributors no longer worked on Tuesday and Wednesday. The packages offered to corporate and individual donors had originally been marketed as available through Friday, but they ended early given the extraordinary demand….
On remand, divided Michigan Court of Appeals allows 2020 political robocall prosecution to proceed
Back in June, the Michigan Supreme Court narrowed the construction of its “voter intimidation statute.” Five justices agreed the case should be remanded, while two would have held the conduct outside the statute. I blogged about that case here, and as a brief reminder, here’s the content of the call:
Hi, this is Tamika Taylor from Project 1599, the civil rights organization founded by Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl. Mail-in voting sounds great, but did you know that if you vote by mail your personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts? The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] is even pushing to use records from mail-in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines. Don’t be finessed into giving your private information to the man. Stay safe and beware of vote by mail.
On remand, the Michigan Court of Appeals took the new narrower construction and concluded the case the defendant’s motion to quash should be denied (effectively allowing the prosecution to proceed), in a divided 2-1 decision issued last month. The decision in People v. Burkman and People v. Wohl is here. The dissenting opinion is here. The majority and dissenting opinions principally debated over whether the call was “related to voting requirements or procedures. From the majority:
We conclude there was probable cause to believe the robocall related to voting procedures. The Burkman II Court did not define “procedure.” When a term is not defined, it may be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning, its context, or in consultation with a dictionary definition. See People v Lewis, 302 Mich App 338, 342; 839 NW2d 37 (2013). A “procedure” is “a particular way of accomplishing something or of acting,” or “a series of steps followed in a regular definite order.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (11th ed). The robocall informed voters that, if they chose to vote by mail, their information would be made part of a public database. Further, the robocall stated the database “will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts[.]” Lastly, the robocall warned about the CDC “pushing” to access and use those records “from mail-in voting to track people for mandatory vaccines.”
There can be no reasonable dispute that voting by mail is a voting procedure. That is, voting by mail is “a particular way of accomplishing” voting, which fits the definition of “procedure.” The robocall was related to the procedure, because it alleged that, if a voter used the voting procedure identified, certain negative events “will” occur. Those events involved a creation of a database that “will be” accessed by police and credit card companies to track down warrants and debts.
Indeed, instead of attempting to dispute this, defendants contend the robocall was not actually about the voting procedure, but about consequences. Defendants read “voting procedures” in a vacuum, ignoring that the robocall need only “relate to” the voting procedure. As is clear from the language used in it, the “consequences” cited by the robocall were attached solely to voting by mail, which is a voting procedure. Moreover, the definition of procedure as “a series of steps followed in a regular definite order” contemplates that procedure will incorporate one act after the other, in effect a consequence. Even so, defendants insist voting procedures as used in the limiting construction cannot include consequences of voting because, otherwise, political speech would be unconstitutionally impaired. The concern by defendants is overstated because, in making the argument, they conflate “voting procedures” with “voting.” Defendants provide an example of the consequence of voting for a certain candidate, not a consequence of using a particular voting procedure. The distinction is important because our Supreme Court was specific that the intentionally false speech must relate to a voting requirement or procedure. This means that intentionally false speech about voting for a particular candidate would not be covered, because it relates to the person’s vote, not how it is cast. In the present case, a jury could conclude that the robocall was designed to intimidate or prevent mail-in voting by offering that the process resulted in the creation of public database utilized to address a voter’s outstanding arrest warrants or debts.
And from the dissent:
The robocall appears to have been an effort to dissuade the recipient of the call, African-American citizens, from voting by absentee ballot. The robocall was crude, inappropriate, offensive, and worthy of contempt. Indeed, these actions should be condemned as contrary to that which we strive for as a nation and as individuals. . . .
. . . There is no dispute that defendants’ conduct did not relate to voting requirements. However, the majority concludes that defendants’ conduct related to voting procedures on the basis that the robocall relayed the alleged negative consequences of engaging in absentee voting. Because I conclude that the consequences of engaging in absentee voting are not related to the manner and means of voting, I would hold that the second part of the Supreme Court’s test has not been satisfied. . . .
For example, focusing on voting procedures, a robocall that falsely informs voters that the polls will remain open three hours late, see Burkman, _ Mich at _; slip op at 18 n 11, or falsely informs voters that they may cast a ballot via text message, see United States v Mackey, 652 F Supp 3d 309, 320 (ED NY, 2023), would violate MCL 168.932(a). Likewise, in the context of absentee voting, a robocall that informs voters that the deadline for turning in an absentee ballot was extended would also violate MCL 168.932(a). These examples each relate to the mechanics of voting.
Nothing in this malicious call related to the mechanics of absentee voting. There are no false statements about the steps by which voting by mail is accomplished Rather, the robocall addressed the alleged actions that entities unrelated to the regulation of elections—in this case, police departments, credit card companies, and the CDC—could take using absentee voter database. These entities’ possible use of the voter database says nothing about the mechanics by which voting by mail occurs. The robocall related to the alleged consequences of absentee voting.
It seems likely the case will go back to the Michigan Supreme Court, and I think that decision would be affirmed, so the lingering question is whether the United States Supreme Court might be asked to hear the First Amendment issue in the case sometime next year.
“This Was the Year of the Influencer Political Takeover”
After years of sitting on the sidelines, content creators became a part of the mainstream political media this year, delivering election news, analysis, and political commentary to their online fans—all while sidestepping the traditional press.
Eighty-one-year-old Joe Biden was serenaded on camera by the delightfully cringe TikTok singer Harry Daniels. Bernie Sanders stumped for Kamala Harris on a Twitch stream cohosted by an anime catboy VTuber. Donald Trump collabed with the quintessential creator brothers, Jake and Logan Paul. Instead of making time for traditional sit-down interviews with the mainstream press, Harris and Trump relied on creators to galvanize votes and spread their campaign messages.
“There’s just no value—with respect to my colleagues in the mainstream press—in a general election to speaking to The New York Times or speaking to The Washington Post, because those [readers] are already with us,” Rob Flaherty, deputy campaign manager for Harris, told Semafor in December.
Influencing has grown into a $250 billion industry. More than 70 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say they follow an influencer on social media, a Pew Research survey found last year. A more recent survey, published in November, found that one in five US adults get their news from news influencers. That shift in media consumption was met with record spending on creator partnerships. Priorities USA put at least $1 million toward influencer marketing. The Harris campaign paid at least $2.5 million to management agencies that book creators for political advertising campaigns.
This election, creators were everywhere—the Republican and Democratic conventions, fundraisers, rallies, and even parties at Mar-a-Lago. But the foundations for this creator takeover of political messaging were propped up nearly a decade ago. In 2016, Trump showed how social media platforms like Twitter could influence voters. Throughout the 2020 election, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $300 million on a presidential campaign that recruited influencers and meme pages as paid digital surrogates, and the Biden administration routinely invited creators to the White House for briefings.
By embracing creators, politicians have started blurring the lines between talking heads and journalists. Unlike reporters, news creators are often not beholden to editorial standards and substantial fact-checking—something that is one high-profile defamation lawsuit away from changing but that, for now, marks a difference. Many creators do work similar to what journalists do—absorbing, translating, and communicating news to audiences online. But in the online political ecosystem, many of them come off more as fans than as objective observers. Some are explicitly party activists. Still, they are often provided access similar to what the traditional press gets….
“Your candidate needs to become the creator; they need to find their niche and stick to it,” says Caleb Brock, a senior digital strategist for Democrats. “We need to find our 2028 presidential Hawk Tuah Girl—and I mean that seriously. Whichever candidate steps up and wields their respective, genuine personality into something that continuously pumps out content—content that people want to see, share, and engage with—will win.”
Adopting these tactics could be crucial to winning over young voters, millions of whom enter the electorate every four years. More than 8 million members of Gen Z entered the electorate in 2024, according to Tufts University. This year, 41 million of them were eligible to vote.
The industry hasn’t run up against much friction from the federal government either, despite criticism over its opaque nature. This year, the Federal Election Commission opted against requiring political influencers to disclose when a political group or campaign paid for content on their accounts.
“Because this is such a substantial part now of the information economy and information ecosystem, it’s absolutely vital that there are disclosures,” says Robert Weissman, copresident of the public interest group Public Citizen. “And just as disclosure is a core part of fair advertising law, it’s a core part of fair election law too.”…
“Online Ad Spending in the 2024 Election Topped $1.35 Billion”
New from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, OpenSecrets, and the Wesleyan Media Project.
Key findings:
- Between January 1, 2023, and November 5, 2024, online political advertisers spent $1.35 billion to buy ads on Google and Meta.
- More than half of the spending ($729 million) was concentrated between September 1 and Election Day.
- Much of the late spending was driven by candidates and joint fundraising committees (40%), super PACs (26%), and national groups seeking to influence state ballot measure results (7%).
- Advertisers spent $61 million on state ballot campaigns, six times the figure ($10 million) for the period up to August 31, 2024. Most of the spending came from national donors rather than in-state residents. Abortion rights measures in Florida ($9 million) and Ohio ($3.7 million) were among the measuresattracting the heaviest spending.
- Democrat-aligned spending was almost three times as much as Republican-aligned spending.
- Some of the largest spenders were groups focused primarily on fundraising appeals, such as the Harris Victory Fund, which spent $179 million on online ads.
As the authors explain, transparency rules for online spending are weak compared to those that apply to political advertising on TV and radio. Digital ad platforms don’t have to publish political ad data, in contrast to broadcast media. Google (owner of YouTube) and Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) are unusual in that they make that information public and in a reasonably accessible format. Other ad platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), provide incomplete political ad data, if any.
“Jeff Bezos’ Amazon Plans to Donate $1 Million to Trump’s Inauguration; The tycoon, long a Trump foe, is among tech leaders seeking improved ties with the president-elect”
Amazon.com is planning a $1 million donation to President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural fund, as founder Jeff Bezos and other tech leaders shore up ties with the incoming administration.
The donation is being prepared as Bezos, Amazon’s AMZN -0.36%decrease; red down pointing triangle executive chairman, is slated to visit Trump next week at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., according to people familiar with the matter.
Tech companies have been the target of intense criticism by Trump and his allies, and other tech leaders have hastened to smooth ties with him. Mark Zuckerberg directed Meta Platforms to also make a $1 million contribution to Trump’s inaugural fund, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
Bezos and the company decided on the contribution earlier this week, and communicated it to Trump’s team, according to some of the people. “Bezos is donating through Amazon,” according to a person close to Bezos. Amazon also will stream the inauguration through its Prime Video business, a separate, in-kind donation valued at $1 million, another of the people said….
“How Alarmed Harris Staffers Went Rogue to Reach Black and Latino Voters”
Two days before the November election, a rogue team of campaign organizers for Vice President Kamala Harris turned a Dunkin’ Donuts in Philadelphia into their secret headquarters.
Their mission was simple: Knock on the doors of as many Black and Latino voters as they could in neighborhoods that they believed the Harris campaign had neglected in its get-out-the-vote-operation. And they could not let their bosses find out.
They called it Operation Dunkin’kirk, a gallows-humor joke about the desperate World War II mission to save Allied troops trapped by Nazi armies in France.
Fueled by boxes of coffee in their impromptu boiler room, the small team of operatives crunched internal campaign data beneath purloined Harris-Walz signs and directed dozens of volunteers across the city’s core Democratic wards. Many of the thousands of Black and Latino voters they talked to said they had never heard from the campaign, a stunning breakdown so close to Election Day.
“I was the first one knocking on these doors,” said Amelia Pernell, a Harris campaign organizer involved in setting up the clandestine Dunkin’ Donuts field office in North Philadelphia. “They hadn’t talked to anybody. It was like: ‘Hey, nobody has come to our neighborhood. The campaign doesn’t care about us.’”
The Dunkin’ Donuts office and several similar efforts in Philadelphia, often funded independently by Democratic donors through nonprofit voter-education groups, reflected deep frustration within the campaign. Numerous Harris organizers believed it was failing to invest in mobilizing Black and Latino voters in the nation’s sixth-largest city, the biggest prize in the election’s most populous battleground state.
This article is based on interviews with 11 Harris campaign staff members and volunteers who were directly involved in organizing the stealth efforts in the weeks before the election, most of whom insisted on anonymity to talk candidly about internal campaign matters. The New York Times also spoke with more than 20 other campaign officials, volunteers, Democratic Party operatives and elected leaders who were involved in voter outreach around the country and described how it fell short.
The covert operations, many of them led by Black organizers, represented extraordinary acts of insubordination against the Harris campaign.
Campaign organizers in Philadelphia said they were told not to engage in the bread-and-butter tasks of getting out the vote in Black and Latino neighborhoods, such as attending community events, registering new voters, building relationships with local leaders and calling voters.
Instead, they said, they were instructed to spend most of their days phoning the same small pool of volunteers and asking them to knock on voters’ doors and help run field offices. The strategy essentially turned experienced organizers into glorified telemarketers making hundreds of calls daily, with some harried volunteers begging to be taken off call lists.
Staff members also said that the campaign did not hire enough Black and Latino campaign workers or political consulting firms that were owned by people of color and had expertise in reaching such voters — a source of continuing frustration among Democratic operatives that they say has contributed to the erosion of the party’s multiracial base….
“How Trump Targeted Undecided Voters Without Breaking the Bank”
The NYT with some insight into the microtargeting capability of streaming services.