Tom Steyer became the least successful self-funding candidate in modern U.S. political history this week, David Weigel observes.
Rob Pyers: “Between his run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States and his 2026 run for California governor, Tom Steyer will have spent $557,781,638 for 0 delegates and a 3rd-place primary finish, respectively.”
NOTUS: “Democrat Al Franken is sitting on a small political fortune — and he’s preparing to use it.”
“Franken, who federal records indicate has more than $1.4 million in leftover cash sitting in his old U.S. Senate campaign account, is ‘likely to convert’ that committee into a political action committee ‘in the near future,’ Al Franken for Senate Treasurer Thomas Borman wrote in a letter to federal regulators this week.”
CNN: “The evidence is circumstantial, but the list is long. Supporters who have business with the federal government clearly see utility in contributing large amounts to President Donald Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc.”
“At least four of the five $1 million-plus donors to MAGA Inc. also have federal contracts or policy they’re trying to influence with the Trump administration, according to the most recent legally required monthly donor disclosure filing with the Federal Election Commission. But there are numerous other donors to MAGA Inc., which has raised more than $340 million, seeking to influence the administration during Trump’s second term.”
NOTUS: “To a degree without modern precedent, the Democratic Party’s House and Senate primaries are being inundated with spending from outside groups, which has frustrated Democratic voters and had a major effect on the outcome of some races.”
“In nearly every case, the funding source for the ads is unknown, and in many cases, an ad’s subject matter appears deliberately misaligned with a group’s actual goals.”
“The overall effect is such that these groups — backed by wealthy special interests, Democratic leaders or even Republican officials trying to affect their opponents’ races — have displaced campaigns themselves as the most influential entities in the campaign.”
Bloomberg: “Lawmakers who aren’t running for reelection can’t raise money for campaign committees, but they’re allowed to solicit cash for leadership PACs, separate funds for doling out to colleagues and party committees.”
“But there’s a catch: If they have any leftover money, they can take it with them. Leadership PAC funds have few restrictions for ex-lawmakers, campaign finance lawyers say.”
“Lobbyists and corporations sometimes balk at giving out money—or do so begrudgingly—to departing members, who could become competitors on K Street within months. But donations can offer valuable time with someone still in office.”
Punchbowl News: “Something strange is happening in several crucial House Democratic primaries.”
“Mysterious super PACs are quietly emerging and spending heavily to boost candidates whom many top Democrats view as less formidable, or even toxic, in general elections. Three of these stealthy groups spent a collective $4.3 million so far in five primaries in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, California, Texas and New Jersey.”
“The source of these groups’ funding is obscured. That’s somewhat common in the post-Citizens United era of dark money. But what’s truly baffling is that it’s nearly impossible to tell who is behind these super PACs. And their operators are becoming incredibly skilled at covering their tracks.”
If Rep. Tom Barrett’s (R-MI) mileage reimbursements are accurate, the Michigan Republican drove enough campaign-related miles to circle the Earth once with about 7,000 miles left to spare, the Detroit Metro Times reports.
The New York Times provides “a rare glimpse into the world of pay-for-play social media, where content creators and marketing firms are increasingly compensated to promote candidates or points of view and where there are few requirements for disclosure.”
“The paid advocacy exists outside the realm of traditional lobbying and campaigning, reaching younger, more online audiences unlikely to be swayed by television advertisements or glossy mailers.”
Michael Scherer: “Fifteen years after Mitt Romney stood on an Iowa hay bale and proclaimed that ‘corporations are people, my friend,’ his declaration is no longer mockable. The amount of money corporations spend anonymously to sway federal elections has increased from $359 million in 2012 to $1.4 billion in the most recent presidential cycle. All of that spending by ‘dark money’ nonprofits is protected by the same right to free speech enjoyed by ‘natural persons,’ because the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that U.S. corporations function as citizen associations under the Constitution.”
“But not all of these ‘people’ are created exactly equal. Whereas humans are automatically granted certain rights at birth, corporate personhood comes into existence under state laws that define its powers—a fact that opponents of corporate money in politics hope to use to transform how U.S. elections are funded.”
“Hawaii is the first state to try. Earlier this month, a nearly unanimous and bipartisan majority—well, as bipartisan as it gets in a state with so few Republicans—of Hawaii’s state legislature voted to change the powers of corporations doing business in the state and no longer grant them the ability to spend on most political causes.”
“Republicans have stockpiled well over $100 million more than Democrats in their party committees heading into the midterms, building a cash advantage in an otherwise tough election year,” the Washington Post reports.
“A looming Supreme Court decision could supercharge that fundraising gap.”
“GOP operatives are hopeful that the court’s conservative majority will soon strike down key restrictions on party committees’ coordination with candidates, allowing those committees to get far cheaper advertising rates and make their money go further. The Democratic National Committee’s fundraising woes could become more consequential as a result.”
“For a brief moment in American history, the rich didn’t control politics,” the New York Times reports.
“Back in 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed new campaign finance restrictions that would have largely eliminated the ability of wealthy people to buy elections. In addition to donor disclosure rules and contribution limits, the new legislation capped so-called ‘independent expenditures’ on behalf of political candidates at $1,000 a year. There were even curbs on what rich people could spend to get themselves elected…”
“Flash forward to the 2024 presidential campaign. Six of the nation’s wealthiest billionaires spent more than $100 million apiece to help get another billionaire, Donald J. Trump, elected president. Independent expenditures by wealthy outsiders for the first time in history exceeded what the candidates’ own campaign committees spent.”
Wall Street Journal: “The platform that is integral to the Democratic Party’s infrastructure is now enmeshed in controversy, in part fueled by the management of its CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones, whose spending and legal decisions have raised concerns among Democrats and employees, according to people familiar with ActBlue’s operations.”
“Wallace-Jones, a former tech executive, has tried to run the group not like the political nonprofit that it is, but like a Silicon Valley firm that is acquiring startups to stay relevant and offering executives some perks, the people said.”
“Massive amounts of money are flowing into Virginia’s redistricting referendum as Democrats and Republicans from across the nation wrestle for control of the House of Representatives, but the identities of individual contributors — and their agendas — remain cloaked in secrecy,” the Washington Post reports.
“About 95 percent of the total $93 million raised so far in Virginia, as of a Monday night filing deadline, came from nonprofit groups not required to disclose their donors.”
CBS News: “In 2024, ultra-wealthy donors poured more than $3 billion into elections, led by the world’s richest man — Elon Musk. He spent more than $290 million supporting President Trump and other Republicans, a record sum. And overall, that $3 billion was spent overwhelmingly to benefit the GOP — these donors gave five times as much to Republicans and groups aligned with them as they did to Democrats.”
“That trend appears to be continuing: Republican Party committees, super PACs, MAGA Inc. and other Trump-related groups had over $600 million in cash on hand in early February, while Democratic Party committees and congressional super PACs were short of $200 million.”
New York Times: “Three Republican-led House committees investigating the Democratic fund-raising platform ActBlue are increasing their pressure on the organization, sending a letter demanding documents that the committees say ActBlue improperly withheld from a subpoena request.”
“We’re spending a shitpile of money on elections right now, and I don’t think we’re getting a better informed public at the end when they go to the voter’s booth.”
— Former Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), quoted by Issue One.
New York Times: “The ultrawealthy donors who are backing the Democratic Party are increasingly impossible to identify. That’s kind of the point.”
“In the decade and a half since the Supreme Court opened the door to super PACs, which can take in unlimited contributions to support federal candidates, the amount of money coming in from undisclosed donors has grown at a stunning rate.”
“For the first decade after the court’s decision, Republicans dominated the so-called dark money game. But nowadays, it’s the Democrats who are running the table. That’s partly because some of their ultrarich donors fear retribution from President Trump and want to hide the fact that they are together spending hundreds of millions of dollars on liberal candidates and causes.”
New York Times: “Across America, there has been a remarkable shift in the type of people who fund politics.”
“The biggest thing is that they often aren’t people at all.”
“The 10 largest individual donations so far in the midterm elections? They total almost $300 million — and none of them came from a human being. Some of the origins can be deduced, but other checks came from a series of little-known nonprofits whose original donors will most likely never be known.”
Taegan Goddard is the founder of Political Wire, one of the earliest and most influential political web sites. He also runs Political Job Hunt, Electoral Vote Map and the Political Dictionary.
Goddard spent more than a decade as managing director and chief operating officer of a prominent investment firm in New York City. Previously, he was a policy adviser to a U.S. Senator and Governor.
Goddard is also co-author of You Won - Now What? (Scribner, 1998), a political management book hailed by prominent journalists and politicians from both parties. In addition, Goddard's essays on politics and public policy have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country.
Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University. He lives in New York with his wife and three sons.
Goddard is the owner of Goddard Media LLC.
“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”
— Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press”
“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”
— Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report
“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news and developments.”
— Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report
“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”
— Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia
“Political Wire is a great, great site.”
— Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”
“Taegan Goddard has a knack for digging out political gems that too often get passed over by the mainstream press, and for delivering the latest electoral developments in a sharp, no frills style that makes his Political Wire an addictive blog habit you don’t want to kick.”
— Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post
“Political Wire is one of the absolute must-read sites in the blogosphere.”
— Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit
“I rely on Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire for straight, fair political news, he gets right to the point. It’s an eagerly anticipated part of my news reading.”
— Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.