United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Campaign Fund-Raising Filing Shows Sluggish Small Donations

      by

      Wealthy Democrats have thrown their money behind the president’s re-election bid, but for many reasons, the party’s small donors have yet to step up their contributions.When President Biden traveled to San Francisco last month, he raised more than $10 million in 36 hours from wealthy Democrats. Trips to Chicago and New York netted millions more, as did fund-raising events around Washington, proving that the party’s big-donor class is fully committed to Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign.But the small-dollar online money spigot that helped Mr. Biden smash fund-raising records during his 2020 presidential campaign has not yet turned on, and there are ample signs that it may be months before it does.The Biden campaign and the Biden Victory Fund, its joint fund-raising vehicle, collected $10.2 million from small donors — defined as those who gave $200 or less — during the three-month fund-raising period that ended June 30, according to a Federal Election Commission report filed Saturday. That figure is about half of the $21 million President Barack Obama’s campaign raised during the same period of his 2012 re-election effort.Democrats involved with Mr. Biden’s campaign and the world of online fund-raising detailed a host of reasons for Mr. Biden’s relatively low small-dollar haul.Google and Apple have made it harder for email senders to see data about who has opened solicitations. Inflation slowed political donations across the board. Donors are exhausted by the unending flow of emails asking for money, and recipients are responding to far fewer of them.At the moment, Democrats aren’t quite as fired up as they were in 2018 and 2020, when Donald J. Trump’s presidency opened floodgates of liberal money, or ahead of the 2022 midterms, when the Capitol riot, the rise of the election-denial movement and the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade all motivated donors.And Mr. Biden is not an insurgent candidate who is motivating students to put up posters of him on dorm-room walls, as Mr. Obama or Senator Bernie Sanders did in their campaigns. His low-key White House and bare-bones campaign haven’t yet motivated supporters to rage-donate to his campaign.“Right now there’s there is no day-to-day competition combat going on,” said Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood mogul, whom Mr. Biden named a co-chairman of his campaign. “So these are the most loyal, most dedicated believers and supporters. It’ll build over time.”Mr. Biden’s campaign highlighted an array of statistics to promote its grass-roots donor operation. Nearly a third of its 394,000 donors did not contribute to Mr. Biden in 2020, the campaign said.Yet the president’s finance reports show that he is far more dependent on the wealthiest donors than Mr. Trump was in his re-election bid or Mr. Biden’s opponents were in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary contest.Ten donors, including Mr. Katzenberg, Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, and Stewart W. Bainum Jr., the Maryland hotel magnate, gave $500,000 or more to the Biden Victory Fund. Another 82 donors contributed $100,000 or more.Four years ago, 35 percent of the money raised by Mr. Trump and the two joint committees his campaign formed with the national committee — Trump Victory and Trump Make America Great Again Committee — came from donors who gave $200 or less. For Mr. Biden, 21 percent of funds to his campaign and the joint finance committee came from small donors.Small-dollar contributions are down across the political spectrum. An analysis conducted by Middle Seat, a digital fund-raising firm with an array of Democratic clients, found that small donors had given less money during the first fund-raising period of 2023 than they had in nearly four years — since early 2019.“If I were on the Biden team right now, I’d be really happy with the numbers,” said Kenneth Pennington, a partner at Middle Seat. “It’s a terrible fund-raising environment, and he’s not launching a new campaign.”While Mr. Biden’s total fund-raising was roughly on par with the Republican candidates, he outpaced them with small donors. Combined, the G.O.P. candidates raised $7.5 million from small donors to his $10.2 million.The percentage of contributions of less than $200 is typically at its high point at the beginning of a campaign and drops as campaigns proceed, because when the amount an individual donor has given exceeds $200, it triggers a federal disclosure requirement.When Mr. Biden began his 2020 campaign for president, 38 percent of the money his campaign raised during the comparable reporting period came from small donors. Democratic online fund-raising experts said they expected the pace of online giving to the Biden campaign to pick up early next year, once voters begin to pay more attention to the Republican primary race and the nominee to oppose Mr. Biden emerges.“Once Democratic donors become focused on the Republican primary and what’s at stake in the 2024 election, the Biden campaign will have no problem raising record amounts of money online,” said Lauren Miller, who served as digital director to Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaigns.Mr. Trump’s small-dollar percentage cannot be discerned until his joint fund-raising committees, into which most of his online solicitations direct money, report finances. They are not required to do so until July 31.Finance reports for the other Republican candidates reveal a party that, even more than Mr. Biden, is heavily reliant on large donors.Among the other Republican candidates, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida reported $2.9 million from small donors, but that figure accounts for a mere 14 percent of what his campaign raised. The small-dollar percentages among other candidates ranged from 34 percent for former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey to 2 percent for Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who is largely self-financing his campaign.Unlike the Obama and Trump campaigns, the Biden campaign didn’t begin with a digital fund-raising team in place. Instead, it has relied on the Democratic National Committee for its online solicitations. The campaign advertised last week that it was seeking a “director of email and SMS” to lead a division that typically would have more than a dozen people. The campaign recently hired a grass-roots fund-raising director, an official said Saturday.Mr. Biden’s campaign has plowed at least $3.3 million into advertising on Facebook and Google, according to data compiled by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a marketing and communications agency. That figure is far more than any Republican candidate has spent on the platforms and suggests that the campaign is investing in its search for small donors.Two of Mr. Biden’s top advisers, Anita Dunn and Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, who are overseeing his re-election campaign from the White House, this week formally blessed a super PAC, Future Forward, as the chief outlet for large sums of cash from supportive billionaires and multimillionaires. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      With a Centrist Manifesto, No Labels Pushes Its Presidential Bid Forward

      by

      The bipartisan group, facing enormous opposition from Democrats, hopes a new policy document will advance its political cause — and possible third-party White House run.A new political platform focused on cooperative governance by the bipartisan group No Labels has something for everyone to embrace — and just as much for both sides to reject.For example, the government must stop “releasing” undocumented migrants into the country, it maintains. But the government must also broaden legal immigration channels and offer a path to citizenship to those brought to the country as children.Or this one: The constitutional right to bear arms is inviolable but must be tempered with universal background checks and age restrictions on the purchase of military-style semiautomatic rifles.Then there is this: A woman must have a right to control her reproductive health, but that right has to be balanced with society’s obligation to safeguard human lifeNo Labels’ possible third-party challenge for the presidency next year has drawn fire from liberals, centrists and even some members of Congress who support the group’s principles but fear that their efforts — based on the seemingly high-minded ideals of national unity — could greatly damage President Biden’s re-election campaign and hand the White House back to Donald J. Trump.But at an event on Monday, the group will formally release what it calls a “common sense” proposal for a centrist White House, in hopes of shifting the conversation from the politics of its potential presidential bid to the actual policies that it believes can unite the country and temper the partisanship of the major party nominees. If the ideas do not take political flight, or if one or both of the parties adopt many of the proposals the group’s leaders say no challenge will be necessary.Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, is set to speak at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire for his support of the bipartisan political group No Labels on Monday.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSkeptics will say that the 67-page, 30-point document on the “politics of problem solving” by No Labels’ chief strategist, Ryan Clancy, is too heavy on identifying problems and too light on concrete solutions. But within the manifesto are surprisingly substantive policy proposals, many of which will anger conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats but could please the less activist center.“Right now we have campaigns run by Biden and Trump that are far more about style than substance,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and supporter of No Labels who reviewed the document. “This is trying to call the campaigns to be about substance, not style, to actually engage with the American people about the issues that confront us.”Monday’s event, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., will be a significant step for the embattled group. Two of No Labels’ most prominent supporters and possible standard-bearers — Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Republican governor of Utah — will share the stage to talk up the new agenda.The location, a traditional venue for presidential aspirants in the state that will hold the first Republican primary in six months, is intended to be a signal of the group’s seriousness.“I’ll give them credit in that No Labels seems to be tapping into what America is looking for right now,” said Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s Republican governor. “Whether it’s viable and where it goes, we’ll see.”The manifesto is stuffed with poll-tested proposals, some bland and others that would require major shifts for both parties. Universal background checks for firearm purchases have been blocked by Republicans since the proposal emerged with Mr. Manchin’s name on it after the massacre at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.Most Democrats will find the document’s glancing reference to climate change unsatisfying, especially since it couples support for a domestic renewable energy industry with an adamant opposition to restrictions on domestic fossil fuel production.The policy proposals call out Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden by name for pledging not to cut Social Security benefits, as it warns that the public pension system is nearing insolvency. Its solution to the thorny question is more a guideline: No one at or near retirement should face a benefit cut, nor should middle-class or lower-income Americans.Its recognition of a woman’s right to control her reproductive health and society’s right to protect life is simply a punt on the issue that could most animate Democratic voters next year.“Abortion is too important and complicated an issue to say it’s common sense to pass a law — nationally or in the states — that draws a clear line at a certain stage of pregnancy,” that section concludes.Such failures of policy will fuel detractors who call No Labels’ effort a subterfuge to draw reluctant voters from Mr. Biden and secure Mr. Trump’s election.“We like puppies and kittens and pie,” said Rick Wilson, a former Republican and a founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “They think they can be tapioca vanilla pudding as long as possible, to keep up the message, ‘Hey, we’re just centrist do-gooders. What could possibly go wrong?’ And the thing that could go wrong is the election of Donald Trump.”Love it or hate it, No Labels supporters say the manifesto should encourage the parties to at least start talking about a common set of issues.“Having this kind of common sense, bipartisan agenda that starts from place of acknowledging that we have to work together is of great value to the national discourse,” said Representative Jared Golden, a conservative Democrat from Maine.Opponents of No Labels argue that Mr. Biden is already governing by consensus. They say that two of the president’s biggest economic achievements — a major infrastructure bill and a law to reinvigorate domestic semiconductor manufacturing — were negotiated by the administration and Republicans and Democrats in Congress, many of whom are already affiliated with No Labels.Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Republican governor of Utah who served in the Obama administration, is among those supporting the No Labels effort.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesA third pillar of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign — clean energy and climate change programs, as well as measures to hold down prescription drug prices — was largely written by Mr. Manchin, the top prospect to carry a No Labels ticket, said Matt Bennett, the longtime head of the centrist Democratic group Third Way and one of the organizers of a burgeoning anti-No Labels effort.The coalition opposing the No Labels effort — which already includes Third Way, the progressive group MoveOn.org, the Democratic opposition research firm American Bridge and the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, formed by Republican consultants — will be joined next week by a bipartisan coalition headed by Richard A. Gephardt, a former Democratic House leader.To No Labels’ most ardent opponents, the group’s lofty rhetoric and appeals to centrism mask a secret agenda to return the Republicans to the White House. They point to a number of No Labels donors, such as Woody Hunt, senior chairman of Hunt Companies, John Catsimatidis, head of Gristedes Foods, and Ted Kellner, a Milwaukee businessman, who have given lavishly to Republicans, including Mr. Trump, suggesting such donors know full well that No Labels’ main role now is to damage the Democrats.Polling conducted by an outside firm for Mr. Gephardt appeared to indicate that a candidate deemed moderate, independent and bipartisan could not win the presidency but would do great damage to Mr. Biden’s re-election effort. In a national survey by the Prime Group, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research and messaging firm, Mr. Biden would beat Mr. Trump by about the same popular vote margin he won in 2020. But were a centrist third-party candidate to enter the race, that candidate could take a much greater share of voters from Mr. Biden than from Mr. Trump.The same group surveyed seven swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and found that Mr. Trump would win three of those states in a head-to-head matchup with Mr. Biden, Mr. Biden two. In two of the states, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump would essentially tie, according to the survey.Nancy Jacobson, a founder of No Labels, said — as she has before — that the effort should be considered an “insurance policy” for an American electorate dissatisfied with a potential rerun of the Biden-Trump election of 2020. The “common sense” document is a catalyst for tempering that dissatisfaction or channeling it into a genuine political movement.But in an interview, Larry Hogan, the former Republican governor of Maryland and a national co-chairman of No Labels, said he would consider joining a No Labels presidential ticket should both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden win their parties’ nominations.“If it gets to the point where three-quarters of the people in America don’t like the choices, we might have to do something to put the country first,” he said. “I’ve always said I put the country before party, so it’s something I wouldn’t reject out of hand.”While many voters may see protest candidates as a way to express frustration with their options without much consequence, several recent presidential elections may have been swayed by the presence of a third-party candidate. The Green Party ran Jill Stein in 2016 and Ralph Nader in 2000 — both elections with razor-thin margins in key states — who drew from the Democratic nominees. The presence of H. Ross Perot in the 1992 campaign siphoned off voters from George H.W. Bush, which benefited Bill Clinton.“Not a single one of us is worried they’re going to win the election and Jon Huntsman will be president,” said Mr. Bennett, the Third Way leader. “We’re worried they will spoil the election.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Fundraising Deadline for 2024 Presidential Campaigns Arrives: What to Watch

      by

      Which presidential and Senate candidates are swimming in cash? Which ones are growing desperate? That and more will become clearer on Saturday, when campaigns must file their latest federal reports.The financial landscape of the 2024 presidential race — the contest’s haves and have-nots, their momentum and desperation — will come into sharper focus on Saturday, the deadline for campaigns to file their latest reports to the Federal Election Commission.The filings, which detail fund-raising and spending from April 1 through June, will show which campaigns brought in the most hard dollars, or money raised under federal limits that is used to pay for staff, travel, events and advertising. Senate campaigns must also file by the end of Saturday, which means an early glimpse at incumbents’ fund-raising in potentially vulnerable seats.Crucially, the records will reveal which candidates are struggling to draw donor interest. For example, former Vice President Mike Pence raised just $1.2 million, two aides said on Friday, a strikingly low figure that could signal a difficult road ahead.The reports will also give a sense of small-dollar support, and which donors are maxing out their contributions to which candidates. And they will show how campaigns are spending their money, which ones have plenty of cash on hand and which ones are in danger of running dry.“The F.E.C. reports are the M.R.I. scan of a campaign,” said Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican strategist. “It’s the next-best thing to breaking into the headquarters and checking the files.”But the picture will not be complete. For one thing, super PACs, which can raise unlimited money and play an outsize role in supporting presidential candidates, do not have to file reports on their fund-raising and spending until the end of the month.The total number of donors to each campaign will not be provided in the filings, either. That figure is a vital measure for Republicans, because the party is requiring presidential candidates to have at least 40,000 unique donors to take part in the first primary debate on Aug. 23.Saturday will also be the first detailed look at President Biden’s war chest as he slowly ramps up his re-election campaign. His campaign said on Friday that along with the Democratic National Committee and a joint fund-raising committee, it had raised more than $72 million combined for the second quarter.In the same period in 2019, former President Donald J. Trump and his allies raised a total of $105 million — $54 million for Mr. Trump and his committees, and $51 million for the Republican National Committee. In 2011, former President Barack Obama raised $47 million for his campaign and $38 million for the Democratic National Committee.Saturday will also show the money taken in by candidates in competitive Senate races in West Virginia, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, among other places.The filings for presidential candidates are pored over by competitors, who want to “get a sense of how they are applying their resources, which will give them a clue to strategies,” Mr. Murphy said. Candidates might look at how much their rivals are spending on ads and polling, for example.“The most important number is cash on hand, minus debt,” Mr. Murphy said. “You see how much financial firepower they actually have.”Several Republican presidential campaigns have previewed their fund-raising ahead of the release. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida raised $20 million in the second quarter, his campaign said this month. But the filing on Saturday will show what percentage of that amount came from contributions below $200, which is instructive to assessing the strength of his grass-roots support.Mr. Trump raised more than $35 million in the second quarter, his campaign said. That number, however, is hard to compare with Mr. DeSantis’s because Mr. Trump has raised money through a joint fund-raising committee, which allows him to solicit contributions above the $3,300 individual limit and then transfer funds to his campaign and to his leadership political action committee.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida raised $20 million in the second quarter, his campaign said this month. His filing on Saturday will show what share came from contributions below $200, a sign of grass-roots support.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesNikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, is raising money into a joint fund-raising committee, which transfers funds to her campaign and to a leadership PAC.Ms. Haley’s three committees together took in $7.3 million in contributions in the second quarter, according to filings shared with The New York Times, of which the campaign itself accounted for $4.3 million.Mr. Murphy singled out Ms. Haley as a candidate whose total earnings appeared modest, but whose cash on hand had increased from the first quarter of the year — to $9.3 million from $7.9 million across the three committees. “It shows a heartbeat,” he said. Her filings also suggest that her campaign is running a lean operation, with minimal staff, economical travel and no television ads.The Republican National Committee’s donor threshold for the first debate has shifted the calculus of many campaigns and PACs, which must focus not only on raising money but also on attracting a sufficient number of individual donors. So far, the candidates who say they have met that threshold are Mr. Trump, Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.Nikki Haley’s three committees together took in $7.3 million in contributions in the second quarter, according to filings shared with The New York Times. Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesOn Wednesday, Mr. Scott’s campaign said he had raised $6.1 million in the second quarter. Mr. Scott entered the race in May with a head start: He had $22 million in hard dollars in his Senate campaign. His presidential campaign said it had $21 million remaining at the end of the quarter.Another Republican candidate, the wealthy entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, has not released a preview of his fund-raising numbers, but he has said he will spend $100 million of his own money on his bid. Mr. Christie, similarly, has not released his numbers.On Friday, the campaign of Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, a wealthy former software engineer, filed its quarterly report, showing that he had raised $1.5 million in contributions and that he had lent $10 million to his campaign. He had $3.6 million in cash on hand at the end of the month.The campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer who is challenging Mr. Biden for the Democratic nomination, also filed its report Friday, showing more than $6.3 million in contributions and $4.5 million in cash on hand at the end of June.Terry Sullivan, a Republican strategist who ran Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, said it would be telling which candidates broadcast their total donor numbers.Another thing to watch is the “burn rate” of each campaign, Mr. Sullivan said — what candidates are spending as a share of what they have taken in, and how much they have left in the bank.Campaign accounts are vital to candidates because, unlike PACs, the funds are controlled by the campaign. Also unlike PACs, campaigns are protected by federal law that guarantees political candidates the lowest possible rate for broadcast advertising.Mr. Sullivan said that television advertising was no longer as important as so-called earned media exposure, through events, viral moments and debates. But those often cost money, too: Even on a tight budget, candidates can easily spend a quarter-million dollars a day holding events on the trail, he said.“Nobody stops running for president because they think their ideas are no longer good enough, or they’re not qualified,” Mr. Sullivan said. “People stop running for president for one reason, and one reason only: It’s because they run out of money.”Reid J. Epstein More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      George Santos Used Most of His Campaign Cash to Pay Himself Back

      by

      Mr. Santos brought in $179,000 in the most recent quarter and spent much of it repaying loans he made to his campaign, new filings show.Representative George Santos, the New York Republican facing federal criminal charges, raised about $179,000 for his re-election campaign from April through June — a modest sum that he used in large part to pay back money he had lent to his past congressional bids.Much of the money, which came from an unorthodox network of about 180 donors scattered across the country, arrived after Mr. Santos’s indictment, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday.Some said they gave as a gag, but others sought to reward Mr. Santos’s stalwart stance against the Chinese Communist Party or his conservative views. The vast majority of donors reported living outside Mr. Santos’s Queens and Long Island district.Mr. Santos used $85,000 of the money on May 30 to repay himself. He had previously reported giving his own campaign more than $700,000 in personal loans.The fund-raising figures, the first since Mr. Santos officially began his re-election bid, were strikingly weak for a candidate in a competitive swing district. They underscored the steep political path before him as both Democrats and leaders of his own party try to remove him next year.One of the Democratic candidates for his seat, Zak Malamed, announced that he had taken in $417,000 in just the first six weeks of his campaign, nearly three times Mr. Santos’s total. Kellen Curry, a Republican primary challenger, reported raising more than $200,000.Mr. Santos’s totals were also dwarfed by those raised by other frontline Republicans in New York, who are gearing up for some of the most closely contested races in the country next year.Lies, Charges and Questions Remaining in the George Santos ScandalGeorge Santos has told so many stories they can be hard to keep straight. We cataloged them, including major questions about his personal finances and his campaign fund-raising and spending.Filings showed that Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican who narrowly flipped a Hudson Valley seat by defeating Sean Patrick Maloney, the powerful head of House Democrats’ campaign arm, raised just over $900,000 during the three-month period, much of it from PACs.The figure made him one of the most successful freshman fund-raisers in the country, and left his campaign with $1.5 million in cash.Other first-term Republicans in New York and New Jersey swing districts — including Representatives Marcus Molinaro, Anthony D’Esposito, Brandon Williams and Tom Kean Jr. — had not yet reported their totals by Friday afternoon.The campaign of Representative Pat Ryan, a Hudson Valley Democrat whom Republicans hope to unseat, said it had raised more than $625,000, down from more than $1 million raised in the previous quarter.The recent contributions to Mr. Santos — $162,031.52 to his campaign and $16,600 to an affiliated committee, Devolder Santos Victory Committee — are almost certain to be scrutinized by federal prosecutors and the House Ethics Committee.(The Santos campaign reported earlier Friday having raised somewhat less money from fewer donors, but the campaign updated its filing on Friday evening, citing incomplete information provided by previous treasurers.)Mr. Santos’s donors included a part-time cashier from Georgia, students from Pennsylvania and California, a masseuse from Texas and a member of a stage crew from New York, who all gave at least $3,300 each.The Times reached out to more than 40 donors listed on Mr. Santos’s filing, few of whom had made large political donations in the past. Many had Chinese or other Asian surnames and donated around two dates, in late May and late June.Mr. Santos has repeatedly linked his fund-raising appeals to his opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, as well as his support for Guo Wengui, the exiled Chinese billionaire and Steve Bannon ally with a global legion of followers.Mr. Santos has directly solicited support on Gettr, a conservative social media site financed by Mr. Guo and used by many of his followers. Mr. Guo, who also goes by the names Miles Guo and Miles Kwok, is facing legal jeopardy of his own, after federal prosecutors say he bilked his supporters out of more than $1 billion.At least two donors said Mr. Santos’s opposition to the Chinese Communist Party had moved them to contribute the legal maximum, and a relative of a third donor indicated that the person was a follower of Mr. Guo.“I see him want to take down C.C.P.,” said Xuehong Zhang of Plano, Texas, who identified herself as a Chinese immigrant and said she had learned about Mr. Santos on Gettr, though she did not mention Mr. Guo. “I just want to take down C.C.P.”Others said they found Mr. Santos’s conservative voting record appealing, and were stirred to support him by what they viewed as hypocritical attacks.“You’ve got the dirtiest of the dirty calling him dirty. That’s hypocrisy,” said Ronald Bucina of Prospect, Tenn., who gave $50. “They’ve stolen more money than George Santos was ever going to dream of stealing.”Charles Scheferston, a retired New York City detective who lives in Rockville Centre, N.Y., and also gave $50, said the congressman was “probably guilty” and had lied “like crazy,” but that he liked his policy stances. “You cannot lie about a voting record,” he said.Not everyone contributed in earnest.Michael Sommer, a 29-year-old teacher in Atlanta, said he spent $32.95 on a Santos for Congress T-shirt “for a joke.”Brad Mason of Pittsburgh, donated $1. “I thought it would be really funny to request the refund,” he said. “And it was amazing for me.”Stockpiling cash could prove unusually important for Republican incumbents this year if New York is forced to redraw its congressional districts. An appeals court on Thursday ordered a redraw that could make a handful of seats virtually unwinnable for Republican incumbents. The case will be appealed.Mr. Santos announced his re-election campaign in April, even as local Republican officials and party committees said they would not support him. The next month, he was indicted on 13 felony counts, including wire fraud, money laundering and theft of public funds.He has pleaded not guilty, but the case further diminished his support from House Republican leadership. Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California told Fox News last month that the party planned to “keep that seat with another Republican.”Mr. Santos’s fund-raising totals were an improvement over what he took in during the first quarter of the year, when his campaign raised just $5,300.His expenses were fairly limited outside of his loan repayment. Though he paid legal and consulting fees, he did not report paying any staff or renting an office. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Pence Raises Just $1.2 Million, Aide Says, in Worrying Sign for 2024 Bid

      by

      The notably low figure raised new doubts about Republican voters’ enthusiasm for the former vice president, as well as questions about whether he will qualify for the first G.O.P. debate.Former Vice President Mike Pence has raised a paltry $1.2 million for his presidential campaign, according to two campaign aides, a sum that raises dire questions about Republicans’ appetite for Mr. Pence in 2024.Now Mr. Pence’s campaign is fighting to qualify for the first televised Republican presidential debate next month in Milwaukee. An aide said he had not yet received donations from 40,000 donors, the threshold required to make the debate stage.Mr. Pence, who entered the race on June 5, was always a long-shot candidate in a contest dominated by his onetime running mate, former President Donald J. Trump. Adding to Mr. Pence’s challenges, he is also competing against other candidates, such as Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who appeal to evangelical voters.Mr. Pence’s repeated defense of his actions to certify Mr. Trump’s defeat before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, has alienated him from Mr. Trump’s loyal base without appearing to win many converts from the wing of the Republican Party that wants to move on from the former president.Unlike other candidates who have employed online gimmicks to secure 40,000 donors, Mr. Pence has invested little in seeking out contributors on the internet. His campaign has spent just $14,230 in advertising on Facebook and Google, according to data collected by Bully Pulpit Interactive, a marketing and communications agency, a figure that is one-fortieth of what has been spent on those platforms by Vivek Ramaswamy, a political newcomer who joined the race in February.In an admission of its struggle to raise money online, the Pence campaign plans to spend a large bulk of what it has raised on a robust direct-mail program aimed at helping him accrue enough donors to qualify for the first debate.The super PAC supporting Mr. Pence, Committed to America, had raised an additional $2.7 million during the fund-raising reporting period that ended June 30, an aide said. For a fund-raising vehicle that can accept unlimited contributions, such a total is quite small.Other Republican presidential candidates have announced far larger fund-raising sums from the three-month reporting period; some of them, unlike Mr. Pence, were in the race for the entire quarter.Mr. Trump said his campaign and his joint fund-raising committee had raised $35 million in the second quarter. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida announced he had raised about $20 million. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, raised $4.3 million for her campaign and an additional $3 million for her affiliated committees. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said his campaign had raised $6.1 million.Even Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who is largely self-funding his own hopeful campaign that began the same day as Mr. Pence’s, said on Friday that he had raised $1.6 million from donors, in addition to $10 million of his own money he has given to his campaign.Mr. Burgum has been using gimmicks like offering $20 gift cards to the first 50,000 people to donate at least $1 to his campaign, or the chance to win a Yeti cooler for a low-dollar donation, all in the hopes of making the debate stage. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Vulnerable Republicans Take a Political Risk With Abortion Vote

      by

      In uniting his party behind a defense bill loaded with social policy restrictions, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has raised questions over whether his short-term victory could imperil his majority.Representative Jen Kiggans, a minivan-driving mom and Navy veteran, narrowly won election last year in her suburban Virginia swing district after a fiercely competitive race that focused on her opposition to abortion rights.The issue remains a top priority for voters in her district, and appearing too extreme on it could make her vulnerable again when she faces re-election in 2024. But Ms. Kiggans was one of dozens of Republicans from competitive districts who voted this week to support adding a bevy of deeply partisan restrictions to the annual defense policy bill, including one that would reverse a Pentagon policy aimed at preserving access to abortion services for military personnel, no matter where they are stationed.Democrats said the G.O.P. provision was a steppingstone to instituting more abortion bans across the nation, while Republicans argued it merely preserved a longstanding bar against allowing federal funds to be used to pay for abortions.The vote put lawmakers like Ms. Kiggans, a top target of Democrats whose seat is up for grabs in next year’s congressional elections, in a politically perilous position. And it raised the question of whether, in scoring the short-term victory of keeping his party united behind the annual defense bill — which passed on a near-party-line vote on Friday — Speaker Kevin McCarthy may have embraced a strategy that could ultimately cost his party the House majority.Ms. Kiggans and other similarly situated Republicans said they had no problem backing the abortion restriction or the bill itself, which emerged from the House loaded with other conservative policy dictates, including one barring the military health care program from providing transgender health services and another limiting diversity training for military personnel.“Taxpayers should not be paying for elective surgery,” Ms. Kiggans, who ran as a moderate focused on kitchen-table economic issues, said in an interview on Friday, explaining her vote. “This wasn’t a bill about abortion; it was about taxpayers paying for travel for military members for elective procedures.”Still, Democrats’ House campaign arm wasted no time in attacking Ms. Kiggans and other vulnerable Republicans who had backed the bill, and even some G.O.P. lawmakers conceded that embracing it was a bad look for a party trying to broaden its appeal.“The reason we’re in the majority today is because of swing districts and the reason we’re going to lose the majority is because of swing districts,” said Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina. “That’s just lost up here. We’re 10 days out from the August recess, and what have we done for women, post-Roe? Zero.”Ms. Mace, who represents a politically split district, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it because she said it was technically consistent with Defense Department policy. But she said she regretted being forced to take the vote at all.“I’m not happy about it,” she said. “I wish we didn’t have to do this right now.”The Republican proposal would overturn a Defense Department policy put in place after the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion last year, setting off a rush by some states to enact curbs and bans on the procedure. The policy reimburses travel costs for personnel who must travel out of state to obtain an abortion or related services. The policy does not provide any money for abortions.Democrats pointed to the vote as a prime example of Republicans taking votes that could ultimately cost them their House majority. Strategists in both parties have suggested that the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, and Democrats’ subsequent efforts to spotlight Republican opposition to abortion rights, weakened the G.O.P. during last year’s election, costing them support from independent and suburban voters.“For the swing districts they represent, they should be doing the opposite — but they’re not,” said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Their decision to put party politics over pocketbook issues is going to cost them the House in 2024.”Many vulnerable House Republicans said they consoled themselves with the knowledge that the amendments that focused on stoking battles on social issues were likely to be stripped out of the bill by the Democrat-controlled Senate and would not be in a final version of the defense policy bill.“It wouldn’t be the way I would run the place, but at the end of the day as long as we pass N.D.A.A. like we’ve done and keep the really nasty poison pills out, I think it solves the problem,” said Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, referring to the defense bill by the initials of its full name. Mr. Gonzales, who voted for the abortion amendment and others barring transgender health services and limiting diversity training for military personnel, voted against amendments that sought to cut funding for Ukraine.Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, an outside organization allied with the congressional Republican Main Street Caucus, described the vote as a “calculated risk” for many members who gambled that it would not hurt them politically.“They made the decision that it was more important to them to get this bill out of the House than to fall on their sword on this one,” she said. “They would have preferred these amendments didn’t exist, but I think they can defend their vote because they’re supporting the men and women of the military.”Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, railed against the abortion amendment but ultimately voted for it.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesStill, it’s not the first time vulnerable Republicans have caved to the hard right wing of their party, even when it means taking votes that could prove to be political liabilities down the line. Mr. McCarthy, who has worked overtime to appease the right flank whose support he needs to remain in power — most of whom represent safe G.O.P. districts — has done comparatively little to protect more mainstream Republicans whose seats are at risk from having to take tough votes.In April, they voted for Mr. McCarthy’s bill to lift the debt ceiling for one year in exchange for spending cuts and policy changes, even though it gutted programs that helped veterans and older people.Last month, they voted in support of a resolution that would repeal a Biden administration rule that tightened federal regulations on stabilizing braces for firearms that have been used in several mass shootings. House leaders brought the bill to the floor in order to help end a weeklong blockade by far-right Republicans.Still, the level of G.O.P. support for the abortion amendment — only two Republicans, Representatives John Duarte of California and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voted against it — came as a shock to Democrats.“There are those across the aisle who realize that this is bad,” said Representative Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, a former Navy helicopter pilot who is one of two Democratic women in the House who have served in the military. Ms. Sherrill said she had heard from some Republican colleagues who told her privately, “‘This is a really bad idea, this is a mistake.’ Well then, why did everyone but two people vote for this really bad amendment?”Representative Chrissie Houlahan, Democrat of Pennsylvania and a former Air Force officer, said she was “surprised by the paucity of people who voted against the amendment. I was expecting 15 Republicans to do the right thing.”Some more mainstream Republicans sought to justify their votes by arguing that they were not voting against abortion or transgender health care — just against government funding for it.“If you look at the polling, most Americans don’t think the federal government should be paying for abortions,” Representative Stephanie Bice, Republican of Oklahoma and vice chair of the Main Street Caucus, said.Representative Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska, said he backed the provision barring military coverage for gender transition surgeries and hormone therapy because he believed, “If you want to do it, do it on your own dime.”“I don’t think it should be the taxpayers’ responsibility,” Mr. Bacon added. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Campaign Elevates a New Super PAC to Help 2024 Re-election Bid

      by

      The president and his advisers are elevating a new super PAC, Future Forward, as their leading outside group to rake in cash from his wealthiest benefactors.President Biden and his advisers are elevating a new outside group as the leading super PAC to help re-elect him in 2024, making it the top destination for large sums of cash from supportive billionaires and multimillionaires.The blessing of the group, Future Forward, is a changing of the guard in the important world of big-money Democratic politics. Since the 2012 election, a different group, Priorities USA, has been the leading super PAC for Democratic presidential candidates.“In 2020, when they really appeared from nowhere and started placing advertising, the Biden campaign was impressed by the effectiveness of the ads and the overall rigorous testing that had clearly gone into the entire project,” Anita Dunn, a senior White House adviser to Mr. Biden, said of Future Forward. The group, she added, had “really earned its place as the pre-eminent super PAC supporting the Biden-Harris agenda and 2024 efforts.”On Friday, Mr. Biden’s campaign also announced a combined fund-raising total of more than $72 million for the second quarter alongside the Democratic National Committee and their joint fund-raising committee, a figure far greater than what Donald J. Trump raised. Future Forward has raised $50 million so far this year, the group said.Federal candidates cannot legally coordinate campaign strategy with super PACs, but officials in both parties have signaled their preferred entities for a decade. Super PACs can accept donations of unlimited size, unlike federal candidates, who must abide by contribution limits.Future Forward, which is led by Chauncey McLean, a former official on Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, has kept a remarkably low profile for a super PAC that, along with an affiliated nonprofit arm, has raised nearly $400 million in the last five years.The group maintains a sparse website. Mr. McLean said that Future Forward had never sent out a news release trumpeting its activity, which has included producing more than 400 advertisements.“We keep a low profile because we’re just not the story, we’re just not important,” Mr. McLean said in a rare interview. “I just don’t see any reason for popping our head up. That’s not going to change.”The super PAC spent more than $130 million on what are known as independent expenditure ads in the 2020 race between Mr. Biden and Donald J. Trump. It was also a major spender in the midterm elections in three crucial battlegrounds: Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Mr. McLean, who is based in Seattle, said that the group planned to run “the largest presidential I.E. in history” and that his fund-raising goal was to collect “as much as humanly possible.”Ms. Dunn served as a consultant for Future Forward after Mr. Biden was inaugurated, according to her personal financial disclosure form. But she said she saw a key role in 2024 for other super PACs, including American Bridge, the party’s clearinghouse for opposition research, which also runs television ads.Ms. Dunn and other White House officials have attended American Bridge donor conferences this year. The shift away from Priorities USA has been telegraphed to donors for months, since before the group’s longtime leader, Guy Cecil, announced in March that he was stepping away. Priorities this spring announced a goal to spent $74 million on digital advertising in 2024.In a statement, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, a White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Biden’s 2020 campaign manager, said Future Forward had been “critical” in 2020 and would “again play a key role” in 2024.Unlike super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates that have built on-the-ground organizations in early presidential nominating states, Future Forward will have a narrow focus on “research and advertising,” Mr. McLean said.Mr. Biden is dispatching Katie Petrelius, the finance director on his 2020 campaign and recently a White House aide, to Future Forward to help the group raise money.There are no immediate plans for Mr. Biden to headline any fund-raising events for the super PAC, but Ms. Dunn said such gatherings could occur in the future.Mr. Biden, like many Democrats in the party’s crowded 2020 presidential primary, initially resisted soliciting the support of a super PAC but backtracked in the fall of 2019, when his campaign was short on cash and needed more presence on the airwaves. (“To speak to the middle class, we need to reject the super PAC system,” Mr. Biden had said that April.)Both super PACs and nonprofit groups can accept unlimited donations, but only super PACs must disclose the names of their contributors. Future Forward’s largest disclosed contributor has been Dustin Moskovitz, a Facebook co-founder, who has given more than $50 million to the group since 2020.The group has also received millions of dollars from Stephen F. Mandel Jr., a Connecticut hedge fund manager; Karla Jurvetson, a California philanthropist; Eric Schmidt, the former Google executive; and Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced cryptocurrency exchange founder, who gave $5 million in October 2020.Mr. McLean said Future Forward would be “giving back any money associated with” Mr. Bankman-Fried. The group said it had also received $1.65 million from Mr. Bankman-Fried in its nonprofit arm. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence Answers Jan. 6 Question From Iowa Voter

      by

      It was midway through a three-day swing of Iowa for Mike Pence when Luann Bertrand confronted him at a Pizza Ranch.Ms. Bertrand, a retired store manager whose family also farms corn and raises cattle outside Sioux City, had a question about Jan. 6, 2021, the date that looms under the Pence campaign like a land mine.Mr. Pence took questions from voters at a meet-and-greet at Pizza Ranch, a chain restaurant in Sioux City. Luann Bertrand, a retired store manager whose family also farms corn and raises cattle outside Sioux City, was among them.Jesse Brothers/Sioux City Journal, via Associated PressIn Iowa, the state whose caucuses next year are make-or-break for Mr. Pence, Ms. Bertrand accused the former vice president of putting President Biden in the White House. Seated at a table of G.O.P. voters in the restaurant, Ms. Bertrand, dressed in gray, shook a finger at Mr. Pence as she told him he should have rejected the electoral votes of certain states on Jan. 6.Mr. Pence, after listening with hands clutching his belt, offered a forceful rebuttal.A Question for Mike Pence“If it wasn’t for your vote, we would not have Joe Biden in the White House. Joe Biden shouldn’t be there. And all those wonderful things you and Trump were doing together would be continuing, and this country would be on the right path. Do you ever second-guess yourself? That was a constitutional right that you had to send those votes back to the states. It was not like you were going to personally elect him. We all know by the number of votes that were there who won that election. You changed history for this country.”The SubtextFor a former vice president, Mr. Pence holds a position in the Republican presidential race that is both credibly strong and incredibly weak: He ranks third in polling averages, but with only about 7 percent support, far behind former President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.Digging into the polls suggests why: About one in three potential Republican primary voters views Mr. Pence unfavorably. In a survey of registered voters nationwide, the same share says they would never vote for him.Anti-Trump Republicans are wary of Mr. Pence’s years of quiet servitude as the No. 2, while much of the G.O.P. base that embraces Mr. Trump and his continued lying about the 2020 election blames Mr. Pence for his actions on Jan. 6, when he refused to block certification of the results.Mike Pence’s Answer“The Constitution affords no authority to the vice president or anyone else to reject votes or return votes to the states. It had never been done before. It should never be done in the future. I’m sorry, ma’am, but that’s actually what the Constitution says. No vice president in American history ever asserted the authority that you have been convinced that I had. I want to tell you, with all due respect — I’ve said it before, I say it right now — that President Trump was wrong about my authority that day, and he’s still wrong.”The SubtextMr. Pence is not running a race focused on Jan. 6; he presents himself as a traditional conservative in the Ronald Reagan mold. Still, the exchange was a crucial moment for Mr. Pence, in the eyes of the candidate, his campaign, a super PAC that supports him and outside Republican strategists.What Other People Are SayingDevin O’Malley, a spokesman for the campaign, said it was the first time a voter openly queried Mr. Pence about “sending back” 2020 electoral votes to state legislatures, a common fallacy on the right. Mr. Pence decided to lean into his response to make a statement, Mr. O’Malley said.“I don’t think the moment was lost on him that the answer that he gave was going to be one that was kind of the answer of record and would be given a lot of attention.“We view it as an opportunity to set ourselves apart from other candidates. On the issue of who stands firmly with the Constitution of the United States under immense pressure, I don’t think there’s a moment in recent history that any one political leader has faced which has put on display their character and their judgment more than that one day.”On Friday, Mr. Pence returns to Iowa with other Republican candidates (but not Mr. Trump) for the Family Leadership Summit, a gathering of evangelical voters. These voters make up the most crucial bloc for Mr. Pence’s candidacy, but they retain a strong allegiance to Mr. Trump.Bob Vander Plaats, president of the Family Leader, the group sponsoring the summit, said Mr. Pence did the right thing by tackling Jan. 6 head-on in Sioux City, though there are many voters he might never bring around.“He has to own it and double down on it. Everybody’s got their hurdle, and this is going to be one that Mike Pence is going to have to clear.”“Because the former president has boastfully said Pence was wrong and he wimped out and he lacked courage, his base of supporters are going to believe that. Pence is not going to win that issue with Trump’s base. But Pence isn’t trying to win Trump’s base.”Scott Reed, co-chairman of a super PAC working to elect Mr. Pence through grass-roots organizing and advertising in Iowa, agreed. To him, Mr. Pence’s response to the voter was golden. “We put it in the can,” he said, meaning that the tape will show up in a future television ad.“There’s a segment of the party that we’re never going to get — the Steve Bannon crowd. And there’s plenty of the party left for us to get.”David Oman, a longtime center-right Republican strategist in Iowa who is unaffiliated with a campaign, said it was unclear whether Mr. Pence’s rebuttal of the voter — and his swipe at Mr. Trump — would help in the caucuses, which are Jan. 15, 2024.“Will it be helpful or unhelpful in six months? We’ll see.”“My personal view is history will be good to Mike Pence with respect to what happened on Jan. 6. Someday he’ll get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Probably from a Democratic president.”What the Voter SaysIn a follow-up interview, Ms. Bertrand, the voter who challenged Mr. Pence, repeated a falsehood that lawyers who told Mr. Trump that his vice president could refuse states’ electoral votes had won prior cases for Mr. Trump.(The Trump lawyer who advanced that fringe theory about the 2020 election, John Eastman, is facing disbarment in California. Mr. Pence’s legal advisers told him that Mr. Eastman was wrong, and one testified before a grand jury investigating Mr. Trump over the Jan. 6 riot.)Although Ms. Bertrand was a Trump supporter in 2020, she is uncertain whether she will back him in the caucuses next year and said she wanted to hear from other candidates. Mr. Pence, however, failed to convince her that he acted correctly on Jan. 6.“President Trump has been accused time and again and went to court and won every case, and so I’m under the assumption that in this case, when President Trump said he had a right to challenge Pence on his decision, it was his lawyers that told him that — the same lawyers who had come out on top before.”“But if I am right or I am wrong is not important. To me, the idea Pence needs to know is there are people in Iowa — and I think in the entire country — that still believe this. That’s a challenge he’s up against when he’s running.”“I did not feel that I was personally attacking him. I just wanted him to know, hey, there’s more of me than of you out there.” More