Campaign Finance

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Secrets of Debate Swag

      by

      Oh, the games campaigns play with political merch. They may surprise you.Whatever happens at the first Republican presidential primary debate on Aug. 23, whatever revelations emerge from the melee of eight (count ’em) contenders, whatever slings and arrows are thrown, and whoever is declared the winner, one thing is certain: There will be a viral moment or two; a riposte that becomes a meme. Campaign staff will be watching. And before you can say “in my prime” or “too honest,” it will end up on a T-shirt in a candidate’s store.These days, retail politics has a whole new meaning. At a point in the electoral cycle when candidates are desperate to distinguish themselves and have only minutes onstage to do so, being able to deliver a zinger that will play on via swag is a key advantage.Ever since the inauguration of George Washington, voters have been participating in the electoral process by means of merch. Back then, it was fancy commemorative buttons that were sewn onto clothes (and were, largely, accessible only to the well-off).Over the years, the “store” — effectively an alternate way for candidates to elicit small-dollar donations and add to their supporter base by appealing to consumer culture — has grown in importance as technology has transformed our ability to make stuff, sell stuff and mine data. Now, almost as soon as presidential contenders declare their candidacy and their websites go live, the shops go live with them.“It’s one of the biggest changes over the last 20 years,” said Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and a founder of ROKK, a public affairs firm.By their stuff ye shall know them. Or at least know something about their strategy. It’s no longer just bumper stickers and baseball caps with a candidate’s name and the electoral year, but a constantly evolving stream of purpose-made product.And because of that, by their merch they are also finding new ways to know you.Casey DeSantis in her “Where Woke Goes to Die” leather jacket on a campaign stop in Iowa in June.Hannah Fingerhut/Associated PressA quarter-zip sweatshirt on offer in the DeSantis for President store inspired by Casey DeSantis’s jacket.Campaign store offerings have essentially become Rorschach tests for the electorate: What people buy, the slogans that get their shopping juices flowing, help determine how the candidates sell their ideas.“It’s a way to trial how candidates market themselves and how people respond to that,” said Claire Jerry, a curator of political history at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, who had been scouting the landscape at the Iowa State Fair.Which is why campaign store offerings are getting so, well, tailored, the better to put their own spin on the popular conversation. Not the one taking place about policy among talking heads, but the one taking place on Instagram, X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) and TikTok. It’s a bona fide trend.Get Ready for the RevolutionJust in time for the debate, Vivek Ramaswamy’s team rebranded his main product stream (he offers about 65 total SKUs, as stock-keeping units of an item are called) to move away from his original focus on woke-ness, or anti-wokeness, to a new “Revolutions” theme., including what Tricia McLaughlin, a senior adviser on the campaign, called “Thomas Paine-style” campaign literature and slogans, with 18th-century script and sepia tones.At the Iowa State fair, Nikki Haley (about 70 SKUs), who has had great success with products featuring the slogan “In Her Prime” — a reference to Don Lemon’s much criticized comment that she was past her prime — modeled her “Underestimate me, that’ll be fun” T-shirt, which became its own talking point.Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota (about 40 SKUs), has “Doug Who?” shirts, playing up his underdog status. When Casey DeSantis wore a leather jacket with an alligator on the back superimposed over a map of Florida with the words “Where Woke Goes to Die” on it, the image went viral — and ended up on a quarter-zip sweatshirt in the store. The DeSantis campaign boasts it is the fastest selling of its more than 70 products.Clockwise from top left, candidate merchandise that exploits a moment from Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence and Doug Burgum.And when the federal indictment against Donald Trump was opened and included a quotation from Mr. Trump calling Mike Pence “too honest” for insisting there was no constitutional basis for rejecting Biden electoral votes in the 2020 election, the Pence campaign jumped on the phrase and made it the centerpiece of his store.This kind of quick reaction “allows you to meet people where they are, rather than trying to drag them over to where you are,” Ms. McLaughlin said. (The “Dark Brandon” phenomenon, which President Biden’s team has appropriated to great success, is a prime example.)Arguably, where people are — in the middle of cancel culture, locked in their own social media echo chambers — is not the most positive place, and making it into merch is a cynical move to exploit our factionalism and us-versus-them mentality. But then, fashion is often the locale where culture and politics meet. Swag just makes it obvious.Indeed, the shop has become so central to campaigning that not long after a group of Republican strategists created WinRed, the party’s donation-processing digital platform, in 2019, it has included support for opening storefronts available free of charge to every candidate. That helped erase any barrier to entry for a campaign that may not have the complex operations needed to design, source, produce and distribute merch. (Democrats have had a similar entity, ActBlue, since 2004.)Every Republican candidate who has qualified for the debate on Wednesday night uses WinRed for their shop, except Chris Christie, the rare candidate, Republican or Democratic, to not have a store, viewing it as a drain on personnel resources. Donald J. Trump, who qualified for the debate but has decided not to appear, also uses the platform.WinRed vets its recommended vendors, like Ace Specialties, “known for making the MAGA hat,” and Merch Raise, allowing candidates to state that products are “made in the U.S.A.” And all of them work on a drop-ship model, meaning they produce items only after they are ordered, so campaigns can test as many designs as they want without the expense of holding inventory.That has allowed campaigns to be ultra-responsive to buzzword moments and to weaponize them for their own purposes. After all, sites like Redbubble and Etsy have built their business on exploiting virality, including viral political moments. Why shouldn’t the protagonists themselves profit from the give-and-take between publicity and product? Not to mention exploit our desire for stuff.Reading the Merch Leaves“People like the tangible sense of participating in a campaign,” Ms. Jerry, of the Smithsonian, said. And we have become conditioned to appreciate acquisition.“If someone just asks if you want to donate, you might say no,” Ms. Jerry continued. “But if you can get a T-shirt?” Tim Scott has even sent out direct mailings asking supporters what “new piece of Tim Scott merchandise” they would like to see. (The socks are kind of fun.)Merch turns individuals into billboards in a cycle of shopping satiation and public support. “When you see people in a crowd identified as being on your side, it creates a sense of excitement,” Ms. Jerry said. Case in point, the ocean of red baseball caps at Trump rallies, which sends a visual message that is, to many in our current environment, more convincing than any poll.Even more significantly, merch allows candidates to see what is resonating with voters and adjust their message accordingly, much like a focus group. When you buy some merch, you are giving a candidate not just your money, email and address, but (whether you realize it or not) psychographic information that can be used to geo-target mailings and commercials. The more varied the offerings, the more information they elicit.If you buy, say, a camo hat in the Burgum store, you may suddenly find yourself on the receiving end of lots of Second Amendment information. If you buy a “Joe Biden Makes Me Cry” baby onesie at the DeSantis store, or a “Mamas for DeSantis” T-shirt, you may be inundated with information about the battle over school curriculums and abortion. If you buy a “Faith” tee from Tim Scott, it’s understood as a signal that you care about religious freedoms.Clockwise from top left, candidate merchandise from Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Pence, Doug Burgum and Ron DeSantis, on what appear to be the same computer-generated bodies.There’s only one problem: The WinRed-effected ease of shop creation, in which every candidate’s store is powered by the same platform, means that they all look pretty much the same.Down to the structure (four horizontal squares of products), the color scheme (red, white and blue, duh, with some gray, black, white and pink thrown in for good measure) and the chubby baby torso depicted in each onesie, or the generic female and male torsos, all of which resemble A.I.-generated fake humans from a very bland heartland. It can make going from one shop to the other a bit like entering the Twilight Zone.And, given the need to stand out from the crowd, having a storefront that looks just like the other guy’s — and is populated with the same bots as the other guy’s — can also seem less than ideal.“I don’t think anyone notices,” said Mr. Bonjean, the strategist (he is not working for any of the candidates). Which may be true for those already decided, but given the early stage of the campaign cycle, anyone … um, shopping around for a candidate and visiting the sites may have a different opinion.Still, the current reality has led to a situation in which, Mr. Bonjean said, not only are campaigns primed to jump on any one-liner that can easily translate into merch, but also they are likely teeing them up, seeding quips in debate responses, the better to jump-start a new political product placement cycle.“We don’t think it’s ever going away,” Ms. Jerry said.Watch for it Wednesday, and then see what sentiment ends up on the sleeves, socks or sunglasses strap coming soon to a voter near you. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Beyond the Debate, Republicans Are Deep in the 2024 Ad Wars

      by

      Many of the party’s presidential candidates have spent heavily as they try to introduce themselves to voters. Ads for Donald Trump, meanwhile, look ahead to a matchup with President Biden.Americans who don’t live in early presidential nominating states — that is to say, most Americans — might not be aware of the advertising wars already underway in the 2024 campaign. For months, Republican candidates have been on the airwaves, plugging away at themes we are likely to see more of during the party’s high-stakes first debate on Wednesday.This year, they face an unusual challenge: Former President Donald J. Trump has effectively taken on the role of an incumbent. The rest of the candidates have spent tens of millions of dollars to introduce themselves to primary voters, stake out policy positions and chart a course to the general election — only to be overshadowed by Mr. Trump.“I think of advertising as spitting out Ping-Pong balls,” said Ken Goldstein, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco who has researched political advertising. Mr. Trump’s influence, he said, means that other candidates’ messages often do not reach voters: “There’s this big, huge wind blowing those Ping-Pongs back in their face.”The gamble for the challengers is that the wind will shift — or go away entirely.“If your opponent is winning 57 percent of the vote and you have 2, there is zero percent chance you are making that difference up with advertising,” said Lynn Vavreck, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles. Even in a typical election year, Dr. Vavreck said, the persuasive effects of campaign television advertisements are small, and fade fast.“That doesn’t mean everybody polling under 10 percent should stop,” Dr. Vavreck said. “They need to be seen as a candidate who’s taking it seriously. That includes advertising.”Here’s a look at some of the themes and strategies emerging in the campaign advertising for the more than a dozen Republican candidates.How are the candidates dealing with Trump?Republican candidates face an unusual challenge: Former President Donald J. Trump has effectively taken on the role of an incumbent.Christian Monterrosa for The New York TimesMany of the Republican candidates, particularly the lower-polling ones, do not address the former president at all in their ads. Others take indirect shots at him.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and his allies are the loudest exception.In a series of acerbic ads, a super PAC supporting Mr. Christie has ripped Mr. Trump over his indictments, his electoral losses and his impeachments. In an ad that ran nationally after Mr. Christie qualified for the debate on Wednesday, the narrator goads Mr. Trump to join him onstage: “Are you a chicken, or just a loser?”Ads on New Hampshire and Iowa stations by the main super PAC backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida have criticized Mr. Trump elliptically — for instance, asking why the former president is attacking Republican governors rather than focusing his attention on Democrats and President Biden. (Mr. Trump, one ad concludes, “is all about himself.”) In another ad, a man covers his Trump bumper sticker with a DeSantis one.Other groups not connected to any candidate have spent millions opposing Mr. Trump.Win It Back, a super PAC that shares leadership with the Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax group, has bought $5.6 million in ads, according to an analysis by AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. The ads including lengthy broadcast spots in Iowa and South Carolina that feature voters who once supported Mr. Trump but are now looking for a new candidate.A political action committee supporting Mr. Trump, in the meantime, has turned its attention to the general election, with a 60-second ad attacking Mr. Biden.Who is spending the most?Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and his allies have spent $46.2 million on ads, including a huge outlay on commercials planned for the weeks after Wednesday’s debate.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesThe main super PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis has spent $17 million buying television ads, while MAGA Inc, a PAC supporting Mr. Trump, has spent $21.4 million, according to the AdImpact analysis.But that doesn’t come close to the $46.2 million spent in support of Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, between his campaign and a super PAC backing him. That figure includes a huge outlay on ads planned for the weeks after Wednesday’s debate.A PAC supporting Nikki Haley has spent $8.4 million on ads — about the same amount spent on ads for Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, between his largely self-funded campaign and a super PAC supporting him. Ms. Haley’s ads include broadcast spots in New Hampshire and Iowa that draw on her experience as ambassador to the United Nations, and a clip describing her as the “surprise rock star” of the Trump administration.Perry Johnson, a businessman who has lent his own campaign $8.4 million, has spent $1.9 million on ads. One ad that ran in Illinois features him walking determinedly through a blizzard of computer-generated charts and mathematical equations, representing his love of statistics and quality standards.Many of his online ads have included a plea for donations to get him over the threshold of 40,000 donors required to participate in Wednesday’s debate. (The Republican National Committee said on Tuesday that he had not qualified.)Pleas for donors to contribute just $1 — a clear attempt at meeting the debate threshold — also featured heavily in digital ads by SOS America PAC, which is supporting Mayor Francis X. Suarez of Miami. The super PAC has spent $1.7 million on ads, the AdImpact analysis shows.What themes are emerging?Many of the candidates have appealed to anti-abortion voters in their ads.Meridith Kohut for The New York TimesBorder security, China, a touch of Ukraine, inflation, cleaning up Washington. And, of course, the culture wars.Mr. DeSantis’s super PAC has amplified his resistance to coronavirus lockdown orders, and lauds him for “pushing back against the woke left.” In a video clip in one of the ads, he says: “If you’re coming for the rights of parents, I’m standing in your way.” The group’s ads have also gone after Disney and Bud Light.Another ad from the group aims to appeal to anti-abortion voters, quoting Mr. Trump relaying criticism that the six-week abortion ban Mr. DeSantis signed in Florida was “too harsh.”The super PAC supporting Ms. Haley ran a digital ad in May that highlighted her “pro-life” voting record in South Carolina, and criticized Mr. Biden for encouraging protests after Roe v. Wade was overturned. “We need a president who unites Americans,” she says, “even on the toughest subjects.”Perhaps no candidate has made more of his opposition to abortion than former Vice President Mike Pence, and his ads have addressed this head-on. One of his longer ads focuses entirely on his anti-abortion record.Both Ms. Haley and Mr. Pence have used the phrase “the ash heap of history” in stump speeches that wind up in their ads — Ms. Haley in reference to the future of “Communist China,” and Mr. Pence in reference to the overturning of Roe.What’s the visual style of the ads?Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign ads often feature him speaking directly at the camera.Christian Monterrosa for The New York TimesSo far, most of the ads have been pretty “cut-and-paste,” as Mr. Goldstein put it. Inspiring personal stories, a few grim shots of Mr. Biden, uplifting music, a few wives offering endorsements of their husbands, adoring crowds, American flags.The entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (total ad outlay: $334,000, plus $240,000 more from a supporting super PAC) has made a slightly different presentation. Unlike other candidates’ campaign ads, his spots do not rely on dramatic voice-overs, but feature him in a room, speaking directly at the camera.The super PAC supporting Mr. Scott tried another approach to introduce the candidate: ads featuring prospective voters speaking to the camera about the senator, as if speaking to their neighbor: “Have you seen him work a crowd?” “Did you see Tim Scott on ‘The View’?” “He will crush Joe Biden.”Who has the best Ronald Reagan cameo?Recordings of Ronald Reagan have appeared in ads for former Gov. Asa Hutchinson, Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Ramaswamy.Dirck Halstead/Getty ImagesDoes a 40-year-old endorsement count? An ad for former Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas — seeking $1 donations to help him reach the debate stage — consists almost entirely of a short clip of former President Ronald Reagan, sitting at his desk in the Oval Office and addressing the camera.“If you believe in the values I believe in, there’s a man you should get to know,” Mr. Reagan says. “His name is Asa Hutchinson.”Mr. Reagan had nominated Mr. Hutchinson to serve as the United States attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. The clip appears to be from an endorsement for Mr. Hutchinson in the 1986 Senate race. (He lost to Dale Bumpers, an incumbent Democrat.)Mr. Ramaswamy invokes Mr. Reagan in a digital ad, saying the former president “led us out of our national malaise” carried over from the 1970s. Mr. Ramaswamy pledges to lead America out of its latest “national identity crisis.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Giuliani Repeatedly Sought Help With Legal Bills From Trump

      by

      As Rudolph Giuliani has neared a financial breaking point with a pile of legal bills, the former president has largely demurred, despite making a vague promise to pay up.Rudolph W. Giuliani is running out of money and looking to collect from a longtime client who has yet to pay: former President Donald J. Trump.To recover the millions of dollars he believes he is owed for his efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power, Mr. Giuliani first deferred to his lawyer, who pressed anyone in Mr. Trump’s circle who would listen.When that fizzled out, Mr. Giuliani and his lawyer made personal appeals to the former president over a two-hour dinner in April at his Mar-a-Lago estate and in a private meeting at his golf club in West Palm Beach.When those entreaties largely failed as well, Mr. Giuliani’s son, Andrew, who has an independent relationship with the former president, visited Mr. Trump at his club in New Jersey this month, with what people briefed on the meeting said was the hope of getting his father’s huge legal bills covered.That appeared to help. Mr. Giuliani’s son asked that Mr. Trump attend two fund-raisers for the legal bills, and the former president agreed to do so, the people said.Still, for the better part of a year, as Mr. Giuliani has racked up the bills battling an array of criminal investigations, private lawsuits and legal disciplinary proceedings stemming from his bid to keep Mr. Trump in office after the 2020 election, his team has repeatedly sought a lifeline from the former president, according to several people close to him. And even as the bills have pushed Mr. Giuliani close to a financial breaking point, the former president has largely demurred, the people said, despite making a vague promise during their dinner at Mar-a-Lago to pay up.Mr. Giuliani, 79, who was criminally charged alongside Mr. Trump this week in the election conspiracy case in Georgia, is currently sitting on what one person familiar with his financial situation says is nearly $3 million in legal expenses. And that is before accounting for any money that Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, might be owed for his work conducted after Election Day on Mr. Trump’s behalf.Mr. Trump’s political action committee, which has doled out roughly $21 million on legal fees primarily for Mr. Trump but also for a number of people connected to investigations into him, has so far covered only $340,000 for Mr. Giuliani, a payment made in late May.A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to a request for comment, nor did a spokesman for Mr. Giuliani.Mr. Giuliani, whose law license has been suspended because of his work to overturn the election, has few sources of income left, according to people close to him.He earns roughly $400,000 a year from his WABC radio show, according to a person familiar with the matter. He also gets some income from a podcast he hosts, and, according to another person familiar, a livestream broadcast. The three cash streams are nowhere near enough to cover his debts, people close to him say. A legal-defense fund set up by friends to raise $5 million for him in 2021 took down its website after raising less than $10,000.Those who remain close to Mr. Giuliani have expressed bafflement that Mr. Trump has given him little financial help after his work on behalf of the former president.Doug Mills/The New York TimesIn the past, Mr. Trump has entered dangerous territory by not paying an associate’s legal bills when the case is connected to him, most notably with his former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who has become a chief antagonist and star witness against him. But people close to both Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani take it as an article of faith that the former mayor would never cooperate with investigators in any meaningful way against the former president. (Mr. Giuliani has said both he and his former client did nothing wrong.)Among those who remain close to Mr. Giuliani, there is bafflement, concern and frustration that the former mayor, who encouraged Mr. Trump to declare victory on election night before all the votes were counted, has received little financial help.Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner under Mr. Giuliani, who worked with the former mayor trying to identify evidence of fraud and who remains a supporter of Mr. Trump, puts the fault on people around the former president. Mr. Kerik was pardoned by Mr. Trump after pleading guilty to tax fraud and having lied to White House officials when President George W. Bush nominated him to be secretary of the Homeland Security Department.“I know the president is surrounded by a number of people that despised Giuliani even before the election, more so after the election, for his loyalty to the president and for their relationship,” Mr. Kerik said. “It’s always been a point of contention for a number of people who I personally think didn’t serve the president well in the first place.”Mr. Kerik added, “Where is everybody? Where’s the campaign?”But, even as Mr. Kerik and others have blamed Mr. Trump’s inner circle for the lack of payments, the decision, as several people familiar with the matter noted, was always the former president’s.Mr. Trump has never explicitly told Mr. Giuliani why he is effectively stiffing him, but the former president has pointed out that he lost the cases related to the election. That has been consistent with what Mr. Trump told aides shortly after Election Day, when an associate of Mr. Giuliani’s, Maria Ryan, asked the campaign in an email for $20,000 a day to pay for the former mayor’s work.People close to the former mayor argue he was not working strictly on lawsuits, but also on research and efforts to keep state legislatures from certifying results Mr. Giuliani insisted were false. But Mr. Trump told aides he didn’t want Mr. Giuliani to receive “a dime” unless he succeeded. Some of Mr. Giuliani’s expenses were eventually paid, but only after Mr. Trump personally approved the money.Andrew Giuliani appealed to Mr. Trump on behalf of his father.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesThe effort to collect legal fees from Mr. Trump began in earnest more than two years ago. Mr. Giuliani’s main lawyer, Robert J. Costello, started calling people in Mr. Trump’s orbit, making the case that the former president was on the hook for legal fees Mr. Giuliani incurred because of his work for Mr. Trump. Mr. Costello has contacted at least six lawyers close to Mr. Trump, according to people with knowledge of the discussions, and most appeared sympathetic to Mr. Giuliani’s situation.This spring, Mr. Giuliani reached out to Mr. Trump directly and asked to meet, the people said. Mr. Trump agreed, and in late April, they met at Mr. Trump’s golf club in West Palm Beach.The meeting was pleasant, and lasted more than an hour, a person familiar with the meeting said. But Mr. Trump, who was accompanied by one of his Florida attorneys, was noncommittal.Yet he agreed to meet them again, two days later, at his private club, Mar-a-Lago, a meeting previously reported by CNN. Over a nearly two-hour dinner, Mr. Costello pressed Mr. Trump to cover not only Mr. Giuliani’s legal bills, but also to pay him for the work Mr. Giuliani provided Mr. Trump in the wake of the 2020 election.Mr. Trump resisted, noting that Mr. Giuliani did not win any of those cases. Mr. Costello, who did most of the talking for Mr. Giuliani, said that the money was not coming out of Mr. Trump’s own pocket, but rather the coffers of his PAC. By the end of the dinner, Mr. Trump agreed that Mr. Giuliani would be paid, one person said. But in the weeks that followed, neither he nor the PAC delivered. And Mr. Giuliani was growing more and more desperate.A federal judge was exasperated with Mr. Giuliani for failing to search for records as part of a defamation lawsuit that two Georgia election workers filed against him because he falsely accused them of stealing ballots. Mr. Giuliani said that he could not afford to pay for a vendor to do so.Mr. Costello pleaded with Mr. Trump’s aides to pay off Mr. Giuliani’s balance with the vendor, and the PAC made a $340,000 payment to that firm.Since then, however, the PAC has not covered any other bills for Mr. Giuliani.It has been a remarkable reversal of fortune for Mr. Giuliani, who was once worth tens of millions of dollars made partly on contracts he signed after leaving City Hall in New York, having become known as “America’s mayor” for his performance in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.A divorce from his third wife, Judith Nathan, cost him much of his wealth around the time he left his law firm to represent Mr. Trump, then the president, in the investigation brought by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III over whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russian officials in the 2016 election.From there, Mr. Giuliani engaged in campaign efforts to find damaging information about Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Ukraine, where Mr. Biden’s son had business dealings, efforts that helped lead to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.As part of an investigation into Mr. Giuliani’s work in Ukraine, the F.B.I. searched his apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side in May 2021. That apartment is now on sale for $6.5 million. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democratic Group Plans $10 Million Push to Protect Election Officials

      by

      The group is starting a new venture that will focus on five battleground states: Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin.A group that works to elect Democrats as the top election officials in states around the country is planning a $10 million venture to pay for private security for election officials of both parties, register new voters and try to combat disinformation.The group, the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, is starting a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization called Value the Vote that will initially focus on five battleground states: Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada and Wisconsin.“We’ve seen our election officials come under threat while they’re just trying to do their jobs, and they’re doing a fantastic job,” said Travis Brimm, the executive director of the Democratic group, who will also serve as president of Value the Vote. “They deserve the ability and the right to feel safe while they’re doing their job.”Mr. Brimm said the new group had raised $2.5 million so far of its $10 million pledge.Since the 2020 election, once-uncontroversial matters of election administration have increasingly become entangled in partisan politics.Election officials have faced increased threats in recent years, and they have been resigning at an alarming rate. Elections for secretary of state also became far more politicized last year, as several Republicans who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 vote sought the office in critical battleground states before ultimately falling short.In turn, the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State grew rapidly after the 2020 election, when former President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to overturn the results drew attention to the importance of the position. The group went from raising a few million dollars each election cycle to raising and spending more than $30 million in the midterms last year.Officials at the group say they will provide equal funding opportunities to both Democratic and Republican election officials, but how the distribution will work in practice is unclear. Republican officials may hesitate to take money from a Democratic organization, fearing political fallout from fellow conservatives.Mr. Brimm said that election officials could request grants to pay for private security themselves, and that Values the Vote would also proactively offer private security.The introduction of private security with a loose affiliation to a political group could carry risks, however, especially in an era of extreme polarization and partisan distrust in the mechanics of voting.The safety funding is also likely to serve as an early test of new bans on outside funding of elections in Georgia and Arizona, which passed laws after the 2020 election prohibiting private groups from providing financial help to election officials. The bans were rooted in conservative criticism of grants made by an organization with ties to the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg — money frequently called “Zuckerbucks” by right-wing news outlets.Republicans in the North Carolina legislature, who have veto-proof majorities, are currently seeking to pass a bill that would also ban outside money for election officials.Campaign finance experts note that the new laws are untested, and say they include some gray areas that could allow for the security donations.“The 501(c)(4) could theoretically provide security services directly to state election officials or at voting or vote-counting sites without charging for them,” said Brett Kappel, an campaign finance lawyer at the firm Harmon Curran. “It will take a court to decide if that is prohibited donation of services or whether it falls within the exception for services provided without remuneration.”Mr. Brimm said the group was working with a legal team to make sure it was “navigating those laws correctly.”“In some ways, it’s going to be a little bit of a new frontier,” he said.The rest of the initiative hews more closely to traditional campaign tactics and organizing. The group will look to counter election misinformation, including with paid digital advertising, and will begin a voter registration program.And though the group says it will be apolitical, its voter registration efforts align with typical Democratic efforts, focusing heavily on Black and Latino communities, which have tended to back Democrats in greater numbers.“The voter registration piece is about actually getting more people into the process,” Mr. Brimm said. “The people who are not getting access to voter education and voter registration are typically rural communities, typically lower-income communities and Black and Latino or Hispanic communities.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Uses Supporters’ Donations to Pay His Legal Bills

      by

      Facing a wide array of criminal charges, the former president is using money from small donors to defend himself legally — a practice that raises ethical questions.Former President Donald J. Trump faces a mountain of legal bills as he defends himself against a wide array of federal and state charges, with the latest coming this week in Georgia.To pay lawyers, he has often turned to money from supporters: Over the past two years, he has drawn tens of millions of dollars from a political action committee he controls called Save America PAC. Originally set up in 2020 as he galvanized supporters around his baseless claims of election fraud, the group — technically known as a leadership PAC — has been sustained in large part by contributions from small donors.Experts say the practice is most likely legal but that it raises ethical questions about how Mr. Trump treats his donors.Why is he doing this?Because Mr. Trump, who is famously tightfisted with his personal fortune, has mounting legal bills, a ready source of cash to cover them and not much standing in his way.Even before he entered the 2024 race, Save America was paying his legal bills as he faced federal and state investigations into his business practices, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his handling of classified documents after he left the White House.As charges have arrived, the legal bills have ballooned. Mr. Trump will have to pay lawyers in Florida, Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C., as well as costs for things like databases for managing discovery.According to its public filings, Save America has also paid lawyers who are representing witnesses in the Trump investigations, including the congressional inquiry into the Capitol riot, raising questions about possible efforts to influence testimony.Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, has said that the PAC is paying legal bills for witnesses to protect them from “financial ruin.” Mr. Cheung did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.In 2021 and 2022, Save America spent $16 million on legal bills, The New York Times has reported. In the first six months of this year, almost a third of the money raised by his committees and the super PAC backing him has gone toward legal costs — more than $27 million, according to a Times analysis of federal records.The legal payments could have tax implications, some experts said, if the underlying legal matter were deemed by the Internal Revenue Service to be related to Mr. Trump personally, rather than to his official role. The payments could, in theory, count as taxable income for Mr. Trump.But other experts said that the broad discretion of campaign finance laws would most likely shield him from any tax liability.Is it legal?Most likely, yes, although the rules governing what PACs and campaign committees can pay for are byzantine and not firmly settled.A campaign committee cannot pay for things that benefit a candidate personally, including legal bills that are unrelated to government matters.There is no such restriction on leadership PACs. While these organizations, which are controlled by the candidate, cannot spend money directly on the campaign, they can pay for legal fees.“Under prevailing F.E.C. interpretation, this whole discussion is moot,” said Saurav Ghosh, a former lawyer at the Federal Election Commission who is now the director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group. “He can pay all the lawyers, for all the matters, and according to the F.E.C., these rules don’t even matter.”The more important question, Mr. Ghosh said, is: “Is that an abuse of donors?” Mr. Trump is raising money for one stated reason — his run for office — and apparently using some of it for another, his legal troubles, Mr. Ghosh said. “I think it sets a very bad precedent.”Save America’s fund-raising efforts have been a focus of one of the investigations by the special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought indictments against Mr. Trump in Washington and Florida. Mr. Smith’s team has asked why Save America is paying some witnesses’ lawyers.Mr. Trump’s team is also setting up a legal-defense fund to help cover some of his allies’ legal fees, The Times reported last month. The fund is not expected to cover Mr. Trump’s own bills, but it could alleviate pressure on Save America.Do Trump’s donors and supporters care?Neither the indictments nor the reports about how he is paying for his legal expenses have dented his popularity in polls. Mr. Trump’s die-hard followers seem to have embraced his legal cause as their own, and he has used each indictment as an opportunity to solicit financial contributions.Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a onetime Trump ally turned fierce critic who is now running for the Republican presidential nomination, has called attention to Mr. Trump’s use of donor money to cover his legal bills.Speaking this month on CNBC, Mr. Christie said: “And the fact is, when you look at just his campaign filings yesterday, almost most of the money that middle-class Americans have given to him, he spent on his own legal fees.”Mr. Christie continued, “I mean, this guy’s a billionaire.” How, exactly, does it work?Since Mr. Trump set up Save America after the 2020 election, it has been a war chest to sustain his political operation. It has brought in more than $100 million, but has also spent quickly, including on legal bills.In February 2022, the PAC said it had $122 million in cash on hand. By the beginning of this year, that number was down to $18 million, filings show. More than $16 million of the money spent went to legal bills — some for witnesses in the investigations, but mostly to firms representing Mr. Trump.A further $60 million was transferred in late 2022 to MAGA Inc., a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump.This year, Save America asked the super PAC for the money back, a sign of the committee’s growing need for cash.Most of the money that has gone to legal fees came from cash that Save America stockpiled between 2020 and 2022. But Save America is also receiving 10 percent of every dollar currently being donated to Mr. Trump.Here’s how it works: Mr. Trump now raises money primarily through the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, a type of group that allows candidates to divide contributions between their campaign and another committee.In November, when Mr. Trump began his campaign, 99 cents of every dollar raised into the committee went to his campaign committee, and 1 cent went to Save America. But as The Times reported in June, sometime this year the split changed: 90 percent of the money went to the campaign, while 10 percent went to Save America — 10 cents on every dollar raised went to the PAC that Mr. Trump has used to pay his legal bills. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump se beneficia del llamado ‘efecto de la acusación formal’

      by

      La mañana del 18 de marzo, el expresidente Donald Trump pulsó el botón de ‘enviar’ y publicó un mensaje en las redes sociales que afirmaba que sería “arrestado el martes de la semana que viene”.“Protesten”, escribió en su sitio web Truth Social. “¡Recuperemos nuestra nación!”.Según sus abogados, la predicción de Trump se basó en informes de los medios de comunicación, pero el expresidente se equivocó por dos semanas.Sin embargo, la declaración desencadenó acontecimientos que alteraron de manera profunda el curso de la contienda por la candidatura republicana. Los donantes enviaron cheques. Fox News cambió de tono. El aparato del partido se apresuró a defender a Trump. Y sus números en las encuestas subieron y subieron.Esta serie de acontecimientos en cadena —llamémosle el efecto de la acusación formal— puede medirse en maneras que revelan mucho sobre el estado del Partido Republicano. Para examinar el fenómeno, The New York Times analizó encuestas nacionales y estatales preliminares, entrevistó a votantes de las elecciones primarias republicanas, examinó registros financieros de las campañas federales, revisó cientos de correos electrónicos del partido, escudriñó los cambios en la cobertura mediática conservadora y habló con operadores dentro de las campañas de los rivales de Trump.El análisis destaca el dominio que tiene Trump sobre el partido, y revela los años de condicionamiento de millones de votantes republicanos que ven los problemas legales del expresidente como un ataque indirecto contra ellos. Además, muestra un mundo invertido donde los cargos penales funcionan como activos políticos, al menos para efectos de ganar la candidatura republicana.“El apoyo nacionalista no es un fenómeno nuevo en la política estadounidense, pero, sin duda, Donald Trump lo ha llevado a otro nivel”, comentó Tony Fabrizio, un encuestador republicano que trabaja para el supercomité de acción política de Trump. “Con Trump, el apoyo nacionalista recae directamente sobre su persona”.‘Un acontecimiento que lo eclipsa todo’Durante casi dos años, Fox News y el vasto imperio de Rupert Murdoch habían comenzado a deslindarse de Trump y se centraron en encumbrar al gobernador de Florida, Ron DeSantis. Como decía un titular del New York Post que celebraba su victoria de 20 puntos en la reelección, DeSantis era el “futuro” del Partido Republicano.La oficina de DeSantis se coordinaba de cerca con los productores de Fox para crear segmentos que lo hicieran ver bien, según correos electrónicos obtenidos por The Tampa Bay Times. Sus logros en Florida —en particular, su manejo de la pandemia de COVID-19— se anunciaron como actos heroicos gubernamentales frente a la oposición de izquierda. La programación de Fox se centró en temas y villanos contra los que DeSantis había construido su marca: atletas transgénero, Anthony Fauci y todo lo relacionado con la cultura “woke”.Pero, después de la primera acusación formal contra Trump, las prioridades del movimiento conservador y su ecosistema de medios cambiaron.Influyentes locutores de radio conservadores se alinearon con Trump. Incluso comentaristas a los que les gustaba DeSantis, como Mark Levin, asumieron las acusaciones formales como una misión personal que parecía anular otras prioridades. Otro personaje de derecha, Glenn Beck, quien solía advertir sobre los peligros de Trump, acudió al ahora cancelado programa de Tucker Carlson en Fox, se puso una gorra roja MAGA (sigla en inglés de “Hagamos a Estados Unidos grandioso de nuevo”) y declaró: “Los Estados Unidos que conocíamos, la transformación fundamental que empezó en 2008, está acabada”.En todos los medios conservadores, la programación se centró en la idea de que Trump era víctima de un sistema de justicia secuestrado por los demócratas. La lucha de DeSantis contra la conciencia social exacerbada (conocida como “wokeness” en inglés), se volvió cosa del pasado, una cuestión de poca importancia comparada con la posibilidad de que Trump fuera encarcelado.Las acusaciones formales contra Trump no solo ocuparon un ciclo de noticias de 24 horas; los casos consumieron semanas enteras tanto en los medios masivos como en los conservadores, cada uno siguiendo un patrón. Hubo una semana de rumores antes de las acusaciones, seguida del día de la acusación, el día de la comparecencia y el análisis posterior a la comparecencia.Menciones semanales de Trump en Fox NewsNúmero de segmentos de Fox News de 15 segundos semanales que mencionaron “Trump” al menos una vez More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Political Orbit, Amid Spiraling Legal Bills, Faces a Cash Crunch

      by

      The former president’s political orbit, including the super PAC that backs him, is already spending more than it is taking in — an unusual trajectory this far out from an election.Donald J. Trump’s legal problems aren’t just piling up — his legal bills are, too.New financial reports show that the former president’s various political committees and the super PAC backing him have used roughly 30 cents of every dollar spent so far this year on legal-related costs. The total amounts to more than $27 million in legal fees and other investigation-related bills in the first six months of 2023, according to a New York Times analysis of federal records. That $27 million in legal costs includes Mr. Trump paying at least eight law firms more than $1 million each in the first half of 2023, part of a sizable set of legal billings expected to spiral upward in the coming months as his overlapping criminal cases wind their way toward courtrooms in New York, Florida and Washington, D.C.The new disclosures revealed the remarkable degree to which Mr. Trump’s political and legal cash are intermingled, much like his own political and legal fate.Mr. Trump’s complex political orbit is already spending more than it is taking in, and tapping into money it raised years ago — an unusual trajectory this far out from an election. And the burn rate raises questions about whether such an approach is untenable, or whether Mr. Trump will eventually need to dip into his own fortune to pay for his lawyers, his 2024 campaign or both.It is a step that the famously tightfisted Mr. Trump has resisted taking, even as his advisers have begun planning behind the scenes for a potential political cash crunch months before the primaries begin.Mr. Trump is not known for long-term planning, so it remains unclear how much he has focused on the intricate challenges of financing his campaign in the coming months. Some close to him say they are reassured by the fact that if he becomes the presidential nominee again, he can rely on the Republican Party to provide financial support. “President Trump continues to be the campaign fund-raising leader due to the support from voters who recognize this as an illegal witch-hunt,” said Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, in a statement. “As President Trump has said, he will spend whatever it takes to defeat the Deep State and Crooked Joe Biden.”All told, the political committees that Mr. Trump directly controls, along with the independently operated super PAC devoted exclusively to helping him, are spending more than they raised so far in 2023 — largely because of his legal expenditures, the filings show.Those entities brought in $67.2 million in new donations in the first half of the year and spent about $90 million in the same period. Most of the money that went to legal fees did not come from new donations, the records show. Save America, the PAC doing the bulk of the legal spending, raised much of its funds in the aftermath of the 2020 election and plunged $16 million into legal expenses in 2022. It’s nearly been bled dry.“This is going to be an incredibly expensive proposition,” said Ben Brafman, a prominent criminal defense lawyer who is not involved in Mr. Trump’s cases. Of Mr. Trump’s three indictments, he added, “Not only is he now dealing with three separate jurisdictions, and nobody really knows which case is going to come first, but they all need to be investigated, researched and prepared at the same time by his attorneys.”Trump Entities Have Plunged Millions Into Legal ExpensesData is for Jan. 1 through June 30. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      DeSantis, With a Subtle Maneuver, Hides His Small-Dollar Donations

      by

      The campaign of the Florida governor, who is known to be reliant on rich donors, worked with a Republican fund-raising powerhouse to prevent the disclosure of information on small contributors.When WinRed, the company that processes nearly all online Republican campaign contributions, recently released its enormous trove of donor data for the first half of the year, donations were conspicuously absent for one presidential candidate: Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.It was no technical glitch. The DeSantis campaign worked with WinRed in a way that prevented the disclosure of donor information, ensuring that the campaign’s small donors would remain anonymous, according to a person familiar with the campaign.The arrangement appears to be the first of its kind for a presidential campaign since WinRed’s founding four years ago and could presage a return to an era in which far less information on small donors is made public, at least for Republicans.Representatives for Mr. DeSantis declined to describe details of the arrangement. The person familiar with the campaign said the aim was to prevent other campaigns from poaching Mr. DeSantis’s donors.But the move has other effects, including obscuring exactly how many — or how few — online donations Mr. DeSantis has received.His dependency on larger contributors has been a source of concern for his campaign, after his first financial report last month revealed that less than 15 percent of his $20 million haul had come from donors who gave less than $200. News emerged on Tuesday that Mr. DeSantis had replaced his campaign manager as part of a broad shake-up.Matt Mackowiak, a Republican consultant based in Texas, said he was not convinced of the value of concealing small donors — “Generally, small donors don’t care about disclosure,” he said — but he also did not see much of a threat to transparency in the campaign’s arrangement.“To me, the single most important aspect of the transparent philosophical debate is: Is somebody buying influence?” Mr. Mackowiak said. “You’re not going to buy anyone with a $200 or less donation.”Until recent years, he noted, small donations were never broken out in federal campaign finance disclosures. In a sense — and to the all but certain dismay of those who push for transparency — the move by the DeSantis campaign suggests a return to a previous era when those contributions remained anonymous.WinRed was set up in 2019 as a conservative answer to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that since 2004 has served as the central platform to process online donations for Democratic candidates and causes. ActBlue has been widely credited with establishing Democratic dominance in small-dollar fund-raising, and Republicans had long been eager for their own version.Unlike ActBlue, the heart of WinRed is a for-profit company. But its political action committee, like ActBlue’s, has served as a conduit for contributions to campaigns. Donors would give to the campaign through a webpage run by WinRed, which then distributed the money to it.In the 2020 election cycle, WinRed received and forwarded over $2.2 billion in online contributions; ActBlue was a conduit for more than $4.2 billion.While political campaigns are not required to itemize contributions under $200, the PACs for WinRed and ActBlue have to provide information on every donor. Their filings offered the public the only details about campaigns’ small-dollar contributions.WinRed has fought the requirement that it disclose every donor. It is currently in litigation with the Federal Election Commission and seeks to raise the threshold to $200, arguing that the requirement is burdensome and is not in keeping with the drastic growth of small-dollar donations.A spokesman for WinRed did not respond to requests for comment.WinRed recently started offering “merchant” accounts, in which the company acts not as a conduit, but as a typical payment processor. Mr. DeSantis’s campaign chose this option, the person familiar with the campaign said, cutting WinRed’s PAC and its disclosure requirements out of the picture.It appears to be the first time a presidential campaign has opted for this arrangement. The former chief executive of WinRed, Carl Sceusa, is currently the chief financial and chief technology officer of the DeSantis campaign.The difference in disclosure is vast.WinRed’s filing last week showed that Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising committee processed 1,328,930 donations in the first six months of the year. It showed nothing about Mr. DeSantis, whose campaign reported only 15,462 donations above $200 on his campaign’s Federal Election Commission filing. There was no information about the donors who gave less than $200. His campaign has said he has topped the 40,000 donors needed to make the first debate stage, but only a fraction of them are now disclosed.“Using the payment processor model allows them to not have to itemize those donors,” said Adav Noti, senior vice president and legal director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit campaign ethics group. “That’s a business question, not a legal question.”The vendor arrangement raises some legal questions, Mr. Noti said: First, whether WinRed’s merchant arm is, itself, a de facto political group, which would have to register as a political action committee.“F.E.C. rules are pretty clear that payment processors can’t be partisan,” Mr. Noti said.The strategy may be most notable for what it could suggest to competitors about Mr. DeSantis’s campaign.“To the extent that unitemized contributions could tell you something about a candidate that might be valuable, it’s that they are regional, in one place,” Mr. Mackowiak, the strategist, said. “The only thing I can think of is that their small donor base may be primarily Florida-based, and they didn’t want to appear like a regional candidate.” More