US political financing

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shots

      by

      In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shotsMembers of the Uihlein dynasty are pouring millions into opposite sides of one of this year’s most important electionsWhen Wisconsinites vote on Tuesday in primary elections for a justice’s seat on the state’s supreme court, few will be aware that much of the big money pouring into this race hails from just one family whose fortunes flow from beer.‘Stakes are monstrous’: Wisconsin judicial race is 2023’s key electionRead moreMillions of dollars have been injected into the battle by members of the Uihlein family, a manufacturing dynasty with roots in Milwaukee. The huge sums could help determine the balance of power on the state’s top court and in turn influence critical areas of public life – from abortion to voting rights, and potentially even the 2024 presidential election.The source of the Uihleins’ fabulous wealth traces back to 1875, when Joseph Schlitz, the owner of a brewing company, died in a shipwreck off the Isles of Scilly. Control of the firm passed to four Uihlein brothers who were next in the line of inheritance and who went on to build the brand into the largest beer producer in America. Schlitz became ubiquitous under the jingle: “The beer that made Milwaukee famous.”Though its star has fallen, Schlitz beer is still popular in the midwest, and the Uihleins have gone on to become even richer and more powerful. They have also diversified their wealth and in recent years have started to wield it as a political weapon.Tuesday’s election for a Wisconsin supreme court position has been the target of huge amounts of Uihlein money – surprisingly, on both sides of the political divide. On one side stand the billionaire couple Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, owners of the Wisconsin-based shipping supplies company Uline, who are on track to pump millions of dollars into the race in support of a conservative judicial candidate, Dan Kelly.On the other side, Richard’s cousin Lynde Bradley Uihlein, a prominent funder of progressive causes, has already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the liberal-leaning judges vying for the supreme court seat.An expensive raceHow just one family rose to such pre-eminence in political spending, only to become split between opposing factions, is a very Wisconsin story. The state once prided itself on its campaign finance rules that put voters before donors, bore down on conflicts of interest and corruption, and required openness and transparency.But in 2010, the US supreme court unleashed untold amounts of corporate and individual wealth into elections through its controversial ruling Citizens United. Five years later the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature lifted the ceiling on personal donations to political parties in the state.The result was an avalanche of outside spending on elections in Wisconsin, which in recent cycles has become an increasingly key battleground state with the ability, through its 10 electoral college votes, to make or break presidential campaigns. The abundance of money has now reached even the lesser-known contests over judicial positions, as Tuesday’s primary amply illustrates.Four candidates are running in the primary: two conservatives, Kelly, a former supreme court justice, and judge Jennifer Dorow; and two liberals, the county court judges Janet Protasiewicz and Everett Mitchell. The two candidates who gain most votes in the primary will face off in the general election in April.Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Read moreConservatives currently command a 4-3 majority on the Wisconsin supreme court, but with the retirement of one of the conservative justices there is now a chance to flip the court. That would potentially allow progressives to legalise abortion, push back extreme Republican gerrymandering in the drawing of electoral maps and resist any election-denying challenges in next year’s presidential battle.With stakes so high, vast sums are already being channeled by outside groups into political TV and radio advertising. The Brennan Center’s Buying Time 2023 database has already recorded more than $6m of political ad orders for the primary alone – a statistic that might be overshadowed once the general election gets underway.A slew of special interests have waded into the race, with an offshoot of the anti-abortion group Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America promising to invest six figures in Kelly’s campaign. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Kelly himself has predicted that total outside donations could reach $20m – a sum that dwarfs anything Wisconsin has ever seen – bragging that he was the candidate best placed to attract the cash.The Brennan Center’s counsel Douglas Keith said that the supreme court election was on track to be the most expensive in Wisconsin history, “and could very well end up being the most expensive in the country’s history”.“It’s escalating rapidly,” said Barry Burden, a political science professor at University of Wisconsin – Madison. “If $15m, $20m, $25m is spent on this race it’s more than you see in governor’s races in some states.”A family dividedAmid the millions being flung at the election, the Uihlein family name stands out – both for the sheer scale of its spending and for the fact that family members are fighting each other across the political schism.Over the past decade, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have joined the top five biggest Republican mega-donors in the US. They have lavished more than $230m on federal candidates alone.Among the politicians they have championed are some of the most notorious allies of Donald Trump. They include Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, who ran a racially charged re-election campaign last November, and Marjorie Taylor Green, the extremist congresswoman from Georgia.The Uihleins live in a suburb of Chicago, but their heritage lies in Wisconsin. Richard’s great-grandfather was August Uihlein, one of the four brothers who inherited the Schlitz beer empire following the fateful shipwreck.According to the Brennan Center’s database of ad spending and official Wisconsin campaign finance records, Richard and Elizabeth have already given $40,000 of their own personal fortune to support Kelly, while injecting almost $2m more into the supreme court race through an outside group. Fair Courts America, a Super Pac largely bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, was created in 2020 with the aim of combatting the “woke mob” by shifting the balance of state and federal courts towards the far right.Latest figures compiled by the Brennan Center show that Fair Courts America has already placed TV and radio ad orders of $1.8m backing Kelly. “Madison liberals are trying to take over the Wisconsin supreme court,” one of the Super Pac’s ads says. “That’s why we need to elect conservative justice Dan Kelly.”Deploying her vast wealth in the opposite direction is Lynde Bradley Uihlein, another direct heir to the Schlitz brewing empire. Her grandfather, Harry Lynde Bradley, founded the Bradley Foundation, a rightwing powerhouse that has created a network of thinktanks and dark money groups that has helped transform Wisconsin over the past decade into a conservative bastion.Like her cousin Richard, Lynde Uihlein operates largely in the shadows, to the extent that it remains unclear why she would have bucked the family tradition and sided with progressive rather than conservative causes. She has given $20,000 of her own wealth – the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law – directly to the campaign coffers of the liberal-leaning judge Protasiewicz.In addition, she has donated $200,000 to Democratic groups in the past year as well as $250,000 to A Better Wisconsin Together, a political fund that funnels dark money – contributions whose origins cannot easily be traced – to progressive statewide candidates.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreA Better Wisconsin Together has become the main financial backer of the two liberal candidates in the state supreme court race, pumping almost as much cash into the election as its conservative rival, Fair Courts America. The latest tally from the Brennan Center shows A Better Wisconsin Together ordering $1.6m of political TV and radio ads in the primary election alone.Keith of the Brennan Center said that the financial injection of rival Uihlein money in the election raised a profound question: “Do we want who sits on our state supreme courts to be decided as a result of a fight between the members of one of the wealthiest families in the state?”Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a non-profit monitoring money and politics, said this week’s election was a “grotesque example of what happens when you get rid of campaign donation limits that restrict how much the super-rich can throw around.“We’re suffering the results: the voice of the average person is being drowned out.”TopicsWisconsinLaw (US)US politicsUS political financingfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’

      by

      Revealed: Trump secretly donated $1m to discredited Arizona election ‘audit’ Funding for controversial review of state’s vote count in 2020 election can be traced to former president’s PacOne of the enduring mysteries surrounding the chaotic attempts to overturn Donald Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential battle has been solved: who made a secret $1m donation to the controversial election “audit” in Arizona?The identity of one of the largest benefactors behind the discredited review of Arizona’s vote count has been shrouded in secrecy. Now the Guardian can reveal that the person who partially bankrolled the failed attempt to prove that the election was stolen from Trump was … Trump.Documented logoAn analysis by the watchdog group Documented has traced funding for the Arizona audit back to Trump’s Save America Pac. The group tracked the cash as it passed from Trump’s fund through an allied conservative group, and from there to a shell company which in turn handed the money to contractors and individuals involved in the Arizona audit.Cyber Ninjas, the Florida-based company that led the Arizona audit, disclosed in 2021 that $5.7m of its budget came from several far-right groups invested in the “stop the steal” campaign to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential victory. It was later divulged that a further $1m had supported the audit from an account controlled by Cleta Mitchell, a Republican election lawyer who advised Trump as he plotted to subvert the 2020 election.But who gave the $1m to Mitchell? In September 2021, as Cyber Ninjas was preparing to deliver its findings, the New York Times reported that unnamed “officials” had denied that Trump had played any part in securing the funds.Republican leaders of the Arizona senate who asked Cyber Ninjas to carry out the audit also publicly denied that Trump was involved, saying “this absolutely has nothing to do with Trump”.Documented’s analysis pierces through that denial. Basing its research on corporate, tax and campaign finance filings, as well as emails and text messages obtained by the non-partisan accountability group American Oversight through public records requests, the watchdog has followed the money on its circuitous journey from the former US president’s Pac to the Arizona review.‘Highly hypocritical’Cyber Ninjas’ widely lambasted inquiry was focused on Maricopa county, Arizona’s most populated area. Biden won the county by 45,109 votes.The purported investigation was suffused with wild conspiracy theories, including the claim that bamboo fibers found in ballot sheets proved they had been printed in Asia. The review was decried even by local Republicans as a “grift disguised as an audit”.Arizona: elections director in county that refused to certify results quitsRead moreBill Gates, the Republican vice-chair of the Maricopa county board of supervisors at the time of the Cyber Ninjas audit, said he was “disappointed, but not surprised” by the Guardian’s revelation that Trump had helped to pay for it. “I have no problem with audits,” Gates said.“What I have a problem with is an audit that is undertaken with a goal in mind, and that is literally being funded by one of the candidates. This is absolutely what we do not want to happen.”Gates pointed out that under Arizona law, electoral candidates are not allowed to fund vote recounts which have to be financed with taxpayer dollars. Though the Cyber Ninjas review was technically not a recount, it served a similar purpose.“At the very least, it is highly hypocritical for the Arizona state senate to have allowed the audit to be funded in this fashion,” Gates said.Diagram of the flow of money and communication that led to Donald Trump’s super Pac paying $1m to the Arizona 2020 election auditThe money trail exposed by Documented begins with Trump’s loosely regulated leadership Pac, Save America, which raised millions in the wake of Trump’s 2020 defeat on the back of the false election fraud narrative. In its final report released in December, the bipartisan January 6 committee investigating the insurrection at the US Capitol highlighted how Save America Pac gave $1m to the Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI).The committee did not say what the money was for, or where it ended up.Top CPI officials include Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, along with other senior Trump insiders after they left the White House. The organization is developing a political infrastructure to sustain the former president’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement.Documented’s research shows that discussions around a possible payment from Trump to the Arizona audit began in June 2021. Records obtained by American Oversight reveal that on 27 June, the retired army colonel and arch election denier Phil Waldron texted the CEO of Cyber Ninjas, Doug Logan, saying: “Kurt is going to talk to 45 today about $$.”The “45” in the text is a reference to Trump – the 45th president of the US – and “Kurt” may have been a reference to the election-denying lawyer Kurt Olsen. Waldron added: “Mike L talking to Corey L” – alluding to Mike Lindell, chief executive of MyPillow who is a devotee of Trump’s stolen election lie, and the former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.On 16 July 2021, Waldron asked Logan if he had received “a 1mil [payment] from Corey Lewendowsk [sic]”. He went on: “Supposedly Kurt talked to trump and they got 1 mil for you,” but that “I couldn’t verify who sent and who received.”Logan responded that he had not yet received payment from Trump.Ten days later, on 26 July 2021, Trump’s Save America Pac made its $1m transfer to CPI, according to Federal Election Commission records. Two days after that, on 28 July, a new group called the American Voting Rights Foundation (AVRF) was registered as a corporation in Delaware.Tax filings obtained recently show that CPI in turn gave $1m to AVRF in 2021 – the only known donation that the group has ever received. The date of CPI’s donation to AVRF is not a matter of public record, but other details – including CPI’s relationship with AVRF, the timing and amounts of the known transfers, and the discussion among Trump allies about the former president’s plans to give $1m to the audit 10 days before Trump gave $1m to CPI – clearly indicate that it was the money that came from Trump’s Pac.Arizona’s new attorney general to use election fraud unit to boost voting rightsRead moreRecords obtained by American Oversight showed that AVRF was connected to Mitchell, the former Trump lawyer who is now a senior fellow at CPI. She is best known for having taken part in the infamous phone call in January 2021 that is now being weighed by an Atlanta prosecutor, in which Trump tried to pressure Georgia’s top election official to “find 11,780 votes” needed for him to win.Documented has discovered that the ties between CPI and AVRF went even deeper. CPI entities effectively controlled AVRF.Tax records show that AVRF’s “direct controlling entity” is America First Legal, the CPI-launched project led by Trump’s former speechwriter Stephen Miller. Tax records also show that another CPI project, the Center for Renewing America, lists AVRF as one of its “related organizations”.The final stage in the money’s journey was from AVRF to Cyber Ninjas and the audit itself. The same day that AVRF was registered in Delaware – 28 July 2021 – Mitchell sent an email connecting the Cyber Ninjas CEO Logan, together with the spokesman of the audit Randy Pullen, to AVRF’s treasurer, Tom Datwyler.The email, contained in the documents obtained by American Oversight, spelled out that money was about to be transferred from AVRF to Arizona contractors approved by Cyber Ninjas.The last step was recorded in an email sent the following day, 29 July, in which Mitchell itemized $1m split into three separate payments going to two entities supporting the audit and to individuals “working at the audit site”. CPI’s president, Ed Corrigan, is cc’ed on the email.The money had reached its destination, with no Trump fingerprints anywhere in sight.The Guardian has invited both Save America Pac and CPI to comment but they did not immediately respond.‘Counter to transparency’A final mystery remains: why would Trump and his inner circle go to such lengths to keep the former president’s bankrolling of the audit secret? One theory is that Trump might have been worried that the audit would look less credible should he be seen to be funding it.Another possible scenario is that he feared that the review might prove to be such a shambles that he wanted to keep his distance.On Thursday, the Arizona Republic reported further fresh evidence that despite the denials Trump was intimately involved in the audit. New records obtained by the newspaper show that Trump was being directly informed about the progress of the audit as it was being conducted.‘I see things now that I’ve never seen before’: the Maricopa county attorney fighting false election claimsRead moreNewly released messages from the Cyber Ninjas chief Logan also show that he discussed the need for any Trump donation to be made in secret. “I told them there was no way I could take funds directly,” he said in a private digital chat.In the end, the Cyber Ninjas audit not only lacked credibility, it also spectacularly failed to meet its goal. In September 2021, the firm released the results of its investigation and found that Biden had indeed won Maricopa county by 360 more votes than the official count.No conclusive evidence of fraud was uncovered, and the claims raised by the audit were thoroughly debunked in a 93-page report. Cyber Ninjas went out of business in January 2022.Gates, the Maricopa county supervisor, said that a large portion of the $1m that ended up with the Arizona audit would have come from small donations to Trump’s Pac.“It’s sad that so many small donors had their money used for this effort, and Trump’s attempt to hide that was certainly counter to transparency.”This article was produced in partnership with Documented, an investigative watchdog and journalism project. Brendan Fischer is a campaign finance specialist with DocumentedTopicsDonald TrumpThe fight for democracyArizonaUS politicsUS political financingRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      George Santos admits ‘personal’ loans to campaign were not from personal funds

      by

      George Santos admits ‘personal’ loans to campaign were not from personal fundsNew campaign finance filings reported by Daily Beast do not shed light on real source of $600,000 in funding In a new twist to one of the most bizarre American political scandals in decades, the New York Republican congressman George Santos appeared to admit on Tuesday that more than $600,000 in loans to his campaign did not come from personal funds, as was originally claimed.‘We don’t know his real name’: George Santos’s unravelling web of liesRead moreBut new campaign finance filings first reported by the Daily Beast did not shed light on where the funds actually came from.One expert said he had “never been this confused” by a campaign finance form.Santos, 34, won election to Congress last year in New York’s third district, which covers parts of Long Island and Queens.But he swiftly came under pressure over a résumé which has been shown to be largely made-up; local, state, federal and international investigations; and increasingly picaresque allegations and revelations including an alleged past as a drag queen in Brazil.Republican House leaders have stood by him, however, not least because he supported Kevin McCarthy through 15 rounds of voting for speaker earlier this month, a process which installed the Californian atop a slim GOP majority prey to hard-right rebels. Last week, Santos was installed on two House committees.As well as joining New York Republicans in calling for Santos to quit, Democrats have demanded investigation of Santos’s campaign finance filings.This week, the saga continued at a familiar pitch as Santos complained about impersonations on late-night TV – a sure sign of fame, or infamy, in the American public square.“I have now been enshrined in late-night TV history with all these impersonations,” the congressman tweeted on Monday, “but they are all TERRIBLE so far.“Jon Lovitz is supposed to be one of the greatest comedians of all time and that was embarrassing – for him not me! These comedians need to step their game up.”Lovitz, who impersonated Santos on NBC’s The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, responded: “Thanks the review and advice! You’re right! I do need to step my game up! My pathological liar character can’t hold a candle to you!”It was also reported on Monday that Santos once claimed to be the target of an assassination attempt, and that in a 2020 interview he claimed to have met Jeffrey Epstein, while suggesting the financier and sex offender did not kill himself in jail but was murdered or even alive.On Tuesday morning, Santos promised a surprise to reporters staking out his office in Congress – then served them coffee and donuts.Later, the Beast reported on weightier matters, spotting that on new campaign finance filings, a $500,000 loan was no longer listed as “personal funds of the candidate”, as was another for $125,000.The Beast said no indication was given as to where the loans actually came from.Amid questions about his apparent wealth, Santos has been linked to a Russian oligarch. It has also been reported that he was once hired by a Florida-based investment firm that was accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of being a multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme.Santos previously told a New York radio host the loans were “the money I paid myself” through his company, the Devolder Organization.Santos’s activities under the name Anthony Devolder are also the subject of intense scrutiny.He has admitted “embellishing” his résumé but denied wrongdoing. He has said he will not resign.Speaking to the New York Times, a lawyer for Santos, Joe Murray, said it “would be inappropriate” to comment on the new filings, because of pending investigations.Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or Crew, a watchdog group, told the Times: “I have never been this confused looking at an [Federal Election Commission] filing.”Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of Documented, another watchdog, told the Beast: “I don’t know what they think they are doing.“Santos’ campaign might have unchecked the ‘personal funds of candidate’ box, but it is still reporting that the $500,000 came from Santos himself.“If the ‘loan from candidate’ didn’t actually come from the candidate, then Santos should come clean and disclose where the money really came from. Santos can’t uncheck a box and make his legal problems go away.”TopicsGeorge SantosUS politicsUS political financingRepublicansUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesNew YorknewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      George Santos says he won’t resign as fellow Republicans call on him to quit

      by

      George Santos says he won’t resign as fellow Republicans call on him to quitChair of Nassau county committee says Santos ran ‘a campaign of deceit, lies and fabrication’ to win third district The Republican George Santos said on Wednesday he would not resign from Congress less than a week after being sworn in, despite calls to do so from the chairman of his district committee and a fellow New York representative, amid continuing scrutiny of Santos’s mostly made-up résumé and growing calls for campaign finance investigations.In Santos’s district, reactions to brazen lies remain mixed: ‘I might let him slide’Read moreIn a tweet, Santos said: “I was elected to serve the people of the New York third district not the party and politicians, I remain committed to doing that and regret to hear that local officials refuse to work with my office to deliver results to keep our community safe and lower the cost of living.“I will NOT resign!”He was responding to remarks to reporters by Joseph Cairo, chair of the Nassau county Republican committee, who said Santos ran “a campaign of deceit, lies and fabrication” to win the third district last year.At the same time, a first sitting Republican congressman, Anthony D’Esposito, also of New York, called on Santos to quit.Santos has faced a barrage of negative coverage.He has admitted to “embellishing” his résumé, including lying about his college record – he did not attend Baruch and New York University – and saying a “poor choice of words” created the impression he worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.He has claimed a tragic link to the Pulse nightclub shooting and said the attacks on New York on 11 September 2001 “claimed my mother’s life”. His mother died in 2016.He has claimed to have Jewish roots and to be descended from Holocaust survivors.He is under investigation in New York and in Brazil, in the latter case over the use of a stolen chequebook.His Democratic predecessor in the third district has called him a “conman”.Cairo said Santos “deceived the voters of the third congressional district, he deceived the members of the Nassau county Republican committee, elected officials, his colleagues, candidates, his opponents and even some of the media.“His lies were not mere fibs. He disgraced the House of Representatives. In particular, his fabrications went too far. Many groups were hurt. Specifically, those families that were touched by the horrors of the Holocaust. I feel for them.“He has no place in the Nassau county Republican committee, nor should he serve in public service nor as an elected official. He is not welcome here at Republican headquarters for meetings or at any of our events. As I said, he’s disgraced the House of Representatives, and we do not consider him one of our congresspeople.“Today, on behalf of the Nassau county Republican committee. I am calling for his immediate resignation.”In his own statement, to Politico, D’Esposito said Santos’s “many hurtful lies and mistruths … have irreparably broken the trust of the residents he is sworn to serve. For his betrayal of the public’s trust, I call on [him] to resign”.Santos was sworn into Congress last weekend, almost a week late after backing Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, through 15 votes for speaker.Casting one vote, Santos appeared to flash a “white power” sign. He has previously claimed to be partly Black. He also told the New York Post he was “Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish’.”Another newly elected New York Republican, Nick LaLota, has called for an investigation. On Tuesday, two New York Democrats who hand-delivered a request for an ethics investigation of Santos, Daniel Goldman and Ritchie Torres, said they had heard from Republicans who supported such a step.But Republican leaders have not acted.On Tuesday, Politico reported that Republicans were discussing what to do. Santos told the site he expected to be given committee assignments. On Wednesday, asked if Santos would sit on top committees, McCarthy said: “No.”Seizing on Cairo’s remarks, Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted that McCarthy’s “spine found a new home in Nassau county”.Harrison added: “It is shameful that a New York county party chair has to protect and defend the honor of the House of Representatives against the lies of Santos while McCarthy is too scared to even utter his name.”In Washington on Tuesday, Goldman and Torres delivered to Santos their demand for an investigation by the House ethics committee.Goldman, like Santos elected last November, said: “Santos, we have a complaint for you.”Santos said: “Sure.”In their complaint, Goldman and Torres cited “extensive public reporting – as well as Santos’s own admissions … that Mr Santos misled voters in his district about his ethnicity, his religion, his education, and his employment and professional history, among other things”.They requested an investigation of Santos for “failing to file timely, accurate and complete financial disclosure reports as required by law”.Santos’s campaign finances are the subject of a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a non-partisan watchdog.George Santos scandal: Democratic predecessor calls him a ‘conman’Read moreThe CLC complaint questions the source of Santos’s personal wealth and the propriety of loans to his own campaign.Torres and Goldman called Santos’s financial reports for a failed run in 2020 and his win in 2022 “sparse and perplexing”, adding: “At a minimum it is apparent he did not file timely disclosure reports for his most recent campaign.”They wrote: “If Mr Santos’s 2020 and 2022 financial disclosures are to be believed, his salary increased from $55,000 in 2020 to $750,000 in 2021 and 2022, of which he gave a whopping $705,000 to his campaign.“The committee should investigate the veracity of these claims and whether Mr Santos has engaged in fraudulent activity.”Santos told reporters that though Goldman and Torres were “free to do whatever they want to do”, he was not concerned, as he had “done nothing unethical”.Asked if he had done anything wrong, he said: “I have not.”Torres and Goldman also said Santos had “failed to uphold the integrity expected of members of the House of Representatives”.TopicsGeorge SantosRepublicansDemocratsNew YorkUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS political financingnewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican George Santos faces campaign finance complaint

      by

      Republican George Santos faces campaign finance complaintControversial newly elected congressman who appears to have made up most of his résumé is subject of FEC complaint The newly sworn-in Republican congressman George Santos, whose campaign résumé has been shown to be largely made-up, is the subject of a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission.In Santos’s district, reactions to brazen lies remain mixed: ‘I might let him slide’Read moreThe complaint concerning the New York representative was filed with the FEC on Monday by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a non-partisan watchdog group.Santos won his seat, which covers parts of Long Island and Queens, in November.He has since been the subject of relentless scrutiny, exposing claims about his education, business career and family background, including claims to be descended from Holocaust survivors and that his mother’s death was a result of the 9/11 attacks.Santos has admitted “embellishing” his CV. He is under investigation by authorities in New York and in Brazil, in the latter case over alleged use of a stolen chequebook.His Democratic predecessor in the New York seat has called him a “conman” and members of Congress have called for action against him.But Republican leaders have taken no action and after last week’s five-day standoff over Kevin McCarthy’s bid for speaker, Santos – who cast one vote for McCarthy while appearing to make a white supremacist sign – is now a member of the US House of Representatives.In a statement on Monday, the CLC alleged that Santos and his 2022 campaign committee, Devolder-Santos for Congress, “violated federal campaign finance laws by engaging in a straw donor scheme to knowingly and willfully conceal the true sources of $705,000 that Santos purported to loan to his campaign”.The group also said Santos “deliberately report[ed] false disbursement figures on FEC disclosure reports, among many other reporting violations; and illegally us[ed] campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, including rent on a house that Santos lived in during the campaign”.The complaint notes multiple campaign expenditures, widely reported, of $199.99, one cent below the $200 FEC threshold for the provision of receipts.It also notes that Santos has struggled to explain the source of his wealth, and says it is “likely” that after losing an initial run for Congress in 2020, he “and other unknown persons worked out a scheme to surreptitiously – and illegally – funnel money into his 2022 campaign.“The concealed true source behind $705,000 in contributions to Santos’s campaign could be a corporation or foreign national – both of which are categorically barred from contributing to federal candidates – or one or more individuals, who would be precluded from contributing such a large amount, far in excess of [official] contribution limits.”Citing reporting by outlets including the New York Times, the CLC complaint says: “Particularly in light of Santos’s mountain of lies about his life and qualifications for office, the [FEC] should thoroughly investigate what appear to be equally brazen lies about how his campaign raised and spent money.”Santos did not comment, CBS News reporting that he declined several requests.Adav Noti, senior CLC vice-president and legal director, told the same network: “Voters deserve the truth. They have a right to know who is spending to influence their vote and their government and they have a right to know how the candidates competing for their vote are spending those funds.“George Santos has lied to voters about a lot of things, but while lying about your background might not be illegal, deceiving voters about your campaign’s funding and spending is a serious violation of federal law.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS political financingnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump seems to have a large war chest – but is he struggling to raise money?

      by

      Trump seems to have a large war chest – but is he struggling to raise money? Some high-profile mega-donors have fled, small-dollar donor stream that fueled his past runs is drying up, and he is accused of violating ‘soft money’ lawsWith his 2024 presidential candidacy officially kicked into gear, Donald Trump would seem poised to enter the Republican nomination race a step ahead: his Pacs and committees boast a war chest of about $95m, enough to give pause to the Republican candidates jockeying against him.But a scratch beneath the surface reveals a different reality. About $78m of the $95m cannot be directly used for Trump’s campaign, according to a Guardian analysis of the Trump fundraising web.What’s more, there’s evidence the small-dollar donor stream that fueled his past runs is drying up. Some high-profile mega-donors have fled. And a campaign finance watchdog has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over Trump allegedly violating “soft money” laws as he appears to play a shell game with his cash.“There are a lot of moving parts, but there are a lot of reasons to believe that Trump is struggling more than he has in recent years to raise money,” said Robert Maguire, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Trump’s fundraising in recent years has raked in eye-popping sums. During the 2020 cycle he raised $882m, and another $500m since then. But the savings have been depleted by Trump spending on his own legal defenses, on Melania Trump’s personal designer, and on helping the January 6 rioters.In recent years, the Trump team and its close allies have worked off an ever-expanding web of at least a dozen similarly named Pacs and committees. Typical examples: the “Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee” and the “Save America Joint Fundraising Committee”.The most prolific entity over the current cycle has been the Save America leadership Pac, which raised about $111m and has about $21m left over post-midterm. But federal rules prohibit Trump from using leadership Pac funds for his campaign because leadership Pacs exist to support other candidates. It can, however, be used to support the large rallies that are a central campaign strategy.Various Super Pacs hold another $57m, and though those can be used to support Trump’s campaign or attack his opponents, the Pacs legally cannot coordinate with the campaign.In total, that means about $78m of the $95m on hand as of 28 November cannot be directly used for Trump’s campaign.Still, that isn’t stopping the former president from trying to move money from leadership Pacs to Super Pacs via a legally questionable shell game. On 3 October, the Save America leadership Pac made a $20m contribution to Make America Great Again, Inc because the latter can spend more freely.But that caught the attention of legal observers who say the move clearly violated “soft money” provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. On 14 November, the campaign finance watchdog Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the FEC.It alleges that Trump, based on multiple statements and fundraising totals, was already a presidential candidate when he made the transfer from the leadership Pac to the Super Pac.“Therefore Trump violated federal law that prohibits that kind of soft money transfer,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for the CLC.Moreover, Trump seems to be circumventing the Super Pac rules that prohibit coordination with his campaign.“Super Pacs are nominally independent of the candidate, but with Trump it is heavy-quotes ‘independent’,” Ghosh said. “Clearly when you have a Super Pac like this, which is organized by allies and folks who worked on prior Trump campaigns, the independence is illusory.”Trump has expressed his disdain for these rules, telling Fox News in an August 2021 interview that “campaign finance laws are extremely complicated and unbelievably stupid”. He also used the interview to strongly hint at his candidacy.“The interview tells you all you need to know,” Ghosh said.The new committee that will act as Trump’s official fundraiser is “Donald J Trump for President 2024”. Filling it with funds from the usual sources, however, may prove more difficult than in the past.That’s because low-dollar donations that fueled previous campaigns – some of which were raised through questionable recurring payments plans – seem to be dwindling. The Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee has fused his Save America leadership Pac and official candidate committee.The joint committee boasted about its $24m haul from July to September, but it spent $22m to get there, records later showed. All told, his Pac network ran $13m in the red over the three-month period leading up to the midterms, fuelling speculation of small-donor fatigue.Moreover, the campaign showed $111m in receipts prior to the election, and is down to about $95m post election as its spending exceeds its fundraising.“He captivates a huge population of small-dollar donors willing to keep giving their money to him,” Maguire said. “He still has the capacity to raise money off the Maga crowd, but the question is ‘Is that going to cool off? Is there enough in the till?’, and that remains to be seen.”Among those defecting from Trump’s large-donor battalion are his top 2016 contributors, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, CNBC reported. The billionaires have instead donated to his likely primary rival, the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis.The hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, who threw around $67m in the midterms, has also backed DeSantis: “I’d like to think that the Republican party is ready to move on from somebody who has been for this party a three-time loser,” Griffin told Bloomberg’s New Economy Forum in September.Meanwhile, Blackstone financier and CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who spent $34m in the midterms, expressed a similar sentiment.“America does better when its leaders are rooted in today and tomorrow, not today and yesterday,” Schwarzman said in a statement. “It is time for the Republican party to turn to a new generation of leaders and I intend to support one of them in the presidential primaries.”But DeSantis faces a similar predicament as Trump. He has raised an enormous amount of money through his state-level Pac, but that can’t be transferred to a federal campaign. Ghosh said he suspects DeSantis will try to transfer the money to a Super Pac, as Trump did.That could prompt another complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, but it’s unlikely to go anywhere: with an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners, the agency has been stuck in partisan gridlock for years.“These are serious violations because the federal system is designed to be insulated from spending outside of limits,” he said. “But the FEC rarely enforces the laws, and in the case of Trump they have a particularly awful track record, so I don’t expect that they’re going to change here. Obviously I hope they do as this is a clear violation, but we recognize what we’re up against.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2024US politicsUS political financingfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting law

      by

      Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawGroups submitting amicus briefs to supreme court case in support of Republican lawmakers received $90m in anonymous donations Conservative donors poured tens of millions of dollars of anonymous “dark money” into groups supporting Republican lawmakers in a supreme court case that could upend American election law.The donors backed several groups that have filed supreme court amicus briefs in support of North Carolina legislators in Moore v Harper, according to a recent analysis. They are pushing for a ruling that would take ultimate decisions about voting rights and congressional gerrymandering away from state courts and hand those powers to state legislatures, of which Republicans now control the majority.Could the US supreme court give state legislatures unchecked election powers? Read moreEight conservative groups that submitted amicus briefs in the supreme court case have received close to $90m from dark money donors since 2016, according to Accountable.US, a liberal leaning watchdog group that tracks government corruption.Several of these conservative bastions are also champions of restrictive voting laws.Conservatives want the supreme court to adopt the independent state legislature theory, a once fringe idea now promoted by a coterie of conservative groups that filed amicus briefs, including the Honest Elections Project, the Claremont Institute, and the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The groups boast strong ties to rightwing lawyers Leonard Leo, John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell respectively. Eastman and Mitchell were allies in Donald Trump’s baseless crusade to overturn the 2020 election.Sparked by a North Carolina gerrymandering fight, Moore v Harper has attracted strong opposition from many liberal and some conservative legal experts, who call it a partisan attack on voting rights by prominent conservative groups. Opponents of the case say they’re using a discredited legal theory to boost GOP political fortunes in coming elections.The leading dark money financier of the conservative groups that filed amicus briefs was DonorsTrust, which contributed a whopping $70.5m, Accountable data shows.Other top dark money donors to groups that filed amicus briefs include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and America First Works, which, respectively, gave $6.1m and $4.8m to outfits that supported the independent state legislature theory. The long time conservative Bradley Foundation boasts Mitchell on its board, while the non-profit America First Works has been allied with Trump since its founding in 2016 under another name.The dark money routed to some of these groups took circuitous routes. For instance, America First Works gave $4.8m to DonorsTrust that was earmarked for the Honest Elections Project, according to Accountable.The Honest Elections Project, which has been a leading advocate for tougher voting laws in recent years, was founded by Leo, a legendary fundraiser, lawyer and co-chairman of the powerful Federalist Society. Leo was instrumental in advising Trump on his three conservative supreme court nominees.DonorsTrust, known as the ATM of the right, has been very generous with other projects Leo has helped spearhead. In 2021, for example, Leo’s 85 Fund – a dark money conduit for conservative legal campaigns and other priorities – received its largest single grant of $17.1m from DonorsTrust, which doled out close to $190m that year.US supreme court hears case that could radically reshape electionsRead moreCritics of the right’s drive to push the independent state legislature theory note the strong influence of well-financed conservative groups along with several like-minded justices.“The ISLT [independent state legislature theory] has been fueled by several conservative justices’ dissents, and other statements, coupled with amicus briefs and public arguments supporting the theory from think tanks, litigation shops, and partisan political organizations,” Thomas Wolf, the deputy director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian.Two key Democrats in Congress, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, submitted an amicus brief arguing forcefully against the independent state legislature theory, highlighting the role of conservative groups funded by dark money who have supported voter suppression efforts.“Many of the petitioners’ amici actually attempted to undermine the 2020 election by relying on this theory,” Whitehouse and Johnson wrote. “Other amici share connections with groups and individuals who played a role in those attempts. Still others are presently engaged in voter-suppression and election-subversion efforts.“Rarely has such a noxious assemblage of amici appeared before this court, and their secrecy about their funders and connections does this court a grave disservice,” they added.The high stakes for democracy behind Moore v Harper and other recent supreme court cases involving dark money funded groups trouble Whitehouse, he said.In tandem with Johnson, Whitehouse has introduced legislation that would require amicus filers to disclose funders who donated $100,000, or more than 3% of their gross revenues.In an interview, Whitehouse said his proposed bill coincides with other efforts he has made to have the supreme court change its reporting rules for amicus filers backed by dark money.“I’ve been pushing the supreme court to update their reporting requirements,” he said about the dark money behind several high-stakes cases, but to date the court has “shown no interest”.The independent state legislature theory played a key role in Trump’s failed crusade to get states to invalidate the 2020 election results and was the handiwork of Eastman, who filed the amicus brief for the Claremont Institute, a conservative California based thinktank, that made a similar argument.Eastman’s involvement with Trump’s baseless drive to overturn the 2020 election results, which included promoting an alternative elector scheme to block Congress certifying Joe Biden’s as president, could lead the January 6 panel investigating the Capitol insurrection to file a criminal referral to the justice department for him, as well as Trump and others, according to a recent CNN report.On a related legal front, Eastman’s refusal to turn over 101 documents to the House panel led federal judge David Carter to rule this year that there was substantial evidence Eastman had conspired with Trump to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election results. The “illegality of the plan was obvious”, Carter wrote.Just how much the amicus briefs from Claremont and other conservative outfits backed by dark money will influence the supreme court’s ruling on the independent state legislature theory is hard to discern.Oral arguments in Moore v Harper were heard by the supreme court on 7 December. The court’s three liberal-leaning justices expressed their strong opposition to North Carolina lawmakers’ position, and some conservative justices including Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh also indicated their skepticism about some maximalist versions of the theory.Billions in ‘dark money’ is influencing US politics. We need disclosure laws | David Sirota and Joel WarnerRead moreThe genesis of the Moore v Harper case was a ruling by the North Carolina state supreme court in early 2022 that invalidated districts drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature on the grounds they were an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander”, unfairly favoring the GOP.North Carolina legislator Timothy Moore appealed the state supreme court ruling, and a voter named Rebecca Harper was a named plaintiff in a challenge to the state’s gerrymandered maps.Significantly, North Carolina is one of six states where state courts have ruled in recent years that partisan redistricting plans for Congress violated state constitutions.Moore v Harper has also sparked significant legal blowback from some prominent lawyers with conservative pedigrees including J Michael Luttig, a former appeals court judge who is a co-counsel for litigants opposing the independent state legislature theory.“This case swarms with amicus briefs supporting petitioners that elide a salient fact: the doctrine they encourage this Court to adopt – the ‘independent state legislature’ theory – is one of the fringe legal theories deployed in a failed legal plot to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Whitehouse and Johnson wrote in their brief.TopicsUS supreme courtThe fight for democracyUS political financingUS politicsRepublicansLaw (US)North CarolinanewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The biggest losers in the US midterm elections? Republican mega-donors

      by

      The biggest losers in the US midterm elections? Republican mega-donorsDonors like Peter Thiel poured millions into candidates that no amount of money could sell to voters while Mehmet Oz self-funded a failed run With the power balance in Congress at stake in this year’s midterm elections, the GOP money machine kicked into high gear. Spending on advertisements and drumming up votes was fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s mega-donors and Super Pacs. Many donors’ spending figures marked new records.Their return on investment, however, is probably not what they had hoped: some donors who spent eight figures notched zero wins in the Senate, while others spent far more money on losing candidates than winners. In the midterms, some of the biggest losers were Republican donors.‘Hatred has a great grip on the heart’: election denialism lives on in US battlegroundRead moreAmong the clearest of those losers is Mehmet Oz, who self-funded much of his own failed run for office – loaning his Pennsylvania US Senate campaign about $22m, or about 55% of the roughly $40m he raised.Meanwhile, candidates backed by Peter Thiel, the rightwing tech investor hyped pre-election as a new GOP “kingmaker”, lost in Arizona and Washington, calling into question his judgment and contributions’ value.Other mega-donors and Pacs came out behind despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars collectively on multiple candidates who lost, according to Open Secrets, a campaign finance watchdog, and federal campaign records. Among those is Mitch McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund Super Pac, which spent $239m; the billionaire financier Jeff Yass, who spent $47m; the hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, who spent $67m; the packaging giants Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein, who spent $77m; and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who spent $34m.By contrast, Democratic candidates in high-profile Senate races generally had a larger share of small donations. GOP mega-donor and Super Pac money couldn’t overcome weak candidates that many swing voters viewed as extreme.The results highlight that “candidate strength matters”, said Gunner Ramer, political director at Longwell Associates, a conservative communication firm. “Voters have real concerns over crime, inflation, gas prices and the economy … but all these really poor candidates – these crazy, extreme Republicans – got beat up hard.”In Pennsylvania, Oz’s self-funding functioned as a double-edged sword that benefited him in the primaries and made him attractive to GOP base voters “who still think that you can buy a race”, said Sam Chen, a political strategist in Allentown. But once in the general election, Chen said, it meant that Oz received relatively few small donors in part because he was viewed as a self-funder.Still, he wasn’t alone: McConnell’s Pac put up $47m. That combined with Oz’s personal spending accounted for nearly half of the stunning $140m Oz forces spent in the campaign. Two largely billionaire-funded single-candidate Pacs also went all in on Oz: Honor Pennsylvania spent about $15m, and its largest donor was Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, who gave it at least $8.8m; and American Leadership Action Pac, funded by Wall Street tycoons or mega-donors like Susquehanna International Group CEO Jeff Yass, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Actua CEO Walter Buckley, dropped another $15m.Though the outside spending in Pennsylvania set a new record, Oz was a “uniquely weak candidate”, Chen noted, and his failure highlights how wealth and Super PAC money “is not the end all be all”.“Small dollar donations, the grandma who writes you a $5 check, they are locked in and voting for you … and they are probably the type of person who tells their neighborhood, their soccer mom group, their bible study that they gave you contributions,” Chen said. “Those contributions mean a lot more.”In Arizona, Thiel spent at least $17.5m backing Blake Masters’ failed US Senate bid, while Thiel’s Pac, Saving Arizona, which received significant funding from mega-donor Richard Uihlein, spent at least $21.5m.Thiel’s potential to become a powerbroker was the subject of intense media attention in part because he funded a breed of rightwing populist GOP candidate that broke with the party establishment. Voters, however, were “completely repelled” by Masters, Ramer said, and though Thiel had success in primary races across the country, his money couldn’t overcome swing voter skepticism in the Arizona general election.McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund ended with a mixed record, but spent far more on losing races. Data released just ahead of the election by a marketing industry analyst found McConnell had shelled out $178m for advertising in five states – New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia and Ohio.Campaign finance records show the Senate Leadership Fund spent nearly $140m in four of those five states in which GOP candidates did not win, though Georgia is yet to be decided.The Club For Growth Super Pac, one of the nation’s most prolific outside spenders, also fared poorly. Its primary funders were Uihlein and Yass, who put at least $46m into the Pac. It backed Masters with over $7m and spent $15m in Nevada attempting to unseat Democratic senator Catherine Cortez Masto. It also spent $12m total on winning campaigns in Ohio and North Carolina.Meanwhile, the Sentinel Action Fund spent over $10m in Nevada and New Hampshire, and didn’t put any money in winning Senate races. Its primary funder is Tim Mellon, grandson of banking tycoon Andrew Mellon, who spent about $40m during the election cycle.Focus groups run by Longwell Associates found Pacs’ ads were probably ineffective because voters didn’t like the Trump-backed, extreme GOP candidates that the Pacs supported – such as Adam Laxalt in Nevada, Don Buldoc in New Hampshire or Masters.“You can hit Catherine Cortez Masto on gas prices and tie it to Joe Biden, but at least a meaningful slice of voters just were not buying it,” Ramer said. “At the end of the day, if they don’t like the Republican candidate, and it becomes a lesser-of-two-evils thing, then it may not move the votes the way that Club for Growth was hoping, and that is a reflection on Adam Laxalt.”Many of the mega-donors’ spending totals come with a caveat. They may not include all the donors’ contributions, and Pac records may omit spending by some individuals altogether. Pacs are required by law to disclose their donors, but more are shielding their contributors’ identities by exploiting a loophole that allows donors to give to a Pac’s affiliated dark money nonprofit, which does not have to disclose its donors. The nonprofit then gives those donations to the Pac, circumventing disclosure laws.Pacs only “have the facade of being transparent”, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of Open Secrets, adding that the loophole adds another layer of uncertainty to the nation’s already murky campaign finance disclosure laws.Regardless, the money means little to the GOP if the party continues nominating extremist and Trump-backed candidates in swing states, Ramer said. “The gap between what it takes to win in a Republican primary and what it takes to win in November is continuing to grow, and that is a difficulty the party will be dealing with in future elections.”Whether the funders will have a change of heart is another matter. Republican mega-donors “clearly have money to burn and they may lose, and they may be dissatisfied with their return on investment, but they are also clearly risk takers – and it’s a low risk to them because of how much money they have”, said Krumholz. “It shows the limits of their money.”TopicsRepublicansUS midterm elections 2022US political financingUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More