Daily Beast: “Michael Avenatti on Thursday tweeted a link to Democratic donation platform ActBlue that appeared to be an O’Rourke donation page, but the fine print on the page noted that, by default, half of the money donated would go to Avenatti’s Fight PAC.”
The Hidden Money Funding the Midterms
Politico explains how it works: “Start a new super PAC after a deadline for reporting donors and expenses, then raise and spend money before the next report is due. Timed right, a super PAC might get a month or more undercover before being required to reveal its donors. And if a super PAC launches right before the election, voters won’t know who’s funding it until after they go to the polls.”
“The strategy — which is legal — is proving increasingly popular among Democrats and Republicans. The amount of super PAC spending during the 2016 congressional primaries in which the first donor disclosure occurred after the primary election totaled $9 million. That figure increased to $15.6 million during the 2018 congressional primaries and special elections.”
Raking In Campaign Cash While Running Unopposed
At least 26 legislative leaders in statehouses across America “are raking in cash despite running unopposed this year,” the Center for Public Integrity reports.
“Two of these power brokers have already raised more than $2 million apiece.”
“The safe legislators represent an attractive prospect for statehouse lobbyists and power-seekers: the sure bet. Contributions to these influential politicians can buy face time and favor with those who set state legislative agendas… The money also compounds their power: Legislative leaders use their pots of gold to buy presents to thank supporters, for example, or give to fellow lawmakers’ campaigns to reward them for voting with their party.”
Political Non-Profits Must Name Their Donors
“Advocacy groups pouring money into independent campaigns to influence this fall’s midterm races must disclose many of their political donors beginning this week after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a long-running case,” the Washington Post reports.
“The high court did not grant an emergency request to stay a ruling by a federal judge in Washington who had thrown out a decades-old Federal Election Commission regulation allowing nonprofit groups to keep their donors secret unless they had earmarked their money for certain purposes.”
Chief Justice Roberts Halts Campaign Finance Ruling
“Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in Saturday to halt a federal judge’s order last month that a conservative political group said threatened to discourage independent expenditures by raising the prospect that anonymous donors could be exposed,” Politico reports.
“It is not clear whether Roberts’ order is a short-term measure intended to allow further consideration of the issue by the justices, or whether it will remain in place through this fall’s midterm elections.”
Most Secret Campaign Money Controlled by 15 Groups
Just 15 groups account for three-quarters of the anonymous cash flowing into federal elections since the Supreme Court paved the way for corporate and union money in candidate races eight years ago, according to a new report provided first to USA Today.
Trump Executives Face Campaign Finance Probe
“Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether anyone in the Trump Organization violated campaign-finance laws, in a follow-up to their conviction last month of Michael Cohen,” Bloomberg reports.
“The inquiry, not previously reported, shows that the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office doesn’t intend to stand down following the guilty plea from Trump’s longtime personal lawyer.”
“Central to the inquiry will be longtime Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who has already provided narrow cooperation with authorities over Cohen’s activities and hush agreements… It’s not clear whether Weisselberg is a focus of the continuing inquiry.”
Kavanaugh May Soon Unshackle All Rich Political Donors
Rick Hasen: “By the time President Donald Trump runs for reelection in 2020, he might be able to accept unlimited campaign contributions to support his bid, thanks to his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. Documents released ahead of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings this week that date from his time in George W. Bush’s White House reveal that the judge just might be ready to strike down what’s left of federal law limiting contributions to candidates, as a First Amendment violation. There are two cases heading to the Supreme Court that would allow him to do just that.”
Father of Kentucky Politician Indicted in Conspiracy
“Longtime Kentucky Democratic operatives Jerry Lundergan and Dale Emmons were indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly making illegal contributions to the 2014 U.S. Senate campaign of Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) and then conspiring to cover them up,” the Lexington Herald Leader reports.
“The indictments strike at the heart of the Democratic establishment in Kentucky and raise serious questions about the political future of Lundergan’s daughter, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Grimes is considering a run for either attorney general or governor in 2019.”
Hunter Indicted for Campaign Violations
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and wife, Margaret, “were indicted Tuesday on charges related to the misuse of $250,000 worth of campaign funds for personal expenses and the filing of false campaign finance records,” CNN reports.
“The charges of wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations and conspiracy were the culmination of a Department of Justice investigation that has stretched for more than a year, during which the Republican congressman from California has maintained his innocence.”
The Hill reports it’s too late to remove Hunter from the ballot.
Super PACs Take Brash Steps to Hide Their Donors
Politico: “The scheme is part of a sharp escalation in super PACs avoiding reporting requirements and keeping voters in the dark about their funding until after key elections. Two other groups aired more than $3 million in attack ads in West Virginia’s GOP Senate primary this year and used the same method to dodge the FEC until after the May 8 vote. Overall, at least two dozen super PACs that spent millions of dollars in recent elections used loopholes to get out of revealing their donors.”
“It’s a sign that political operatives see more risk in revealing the big-money meddlers in congressional elections than in pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law — and many of the groups pushing the boundaries are aligned with Democrats, the party most associated with complaints about undisclosed ‘dark money’ affecting elections.”
PAC Money Is Suddenly a Campaign Issue
New York Times: “Campaign finance was once famously dismissed by Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, as being of no greater concern to American voters than ‘static cling.’ But since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 opened the floodgates for unrestricted political spending, polls have shown that voters are growing increasingly bitter about the role of money in politics.”
“The issue is now emerging in midterm races around the country, with dozens of Democrats rejecting donations from political action committees, or PACs, that are sponsored by corporations or industry groups. A handful of candidates… are going a step further and refusing to take any PAC money at all, even if it comes from labor unions or fellow Democrats.”
“Rather than dooming the campaigns, these pledges to reject PAC money have become central selling points for voters. And for some of the candidates, the small-donor donations are adding up.”
Complaint Says NRA Illegally Coordinated with Campaigns
A complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleges the National Rifle Association violated U.S. law by using a common vendor to illegally coordinate with Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) 2016 campaign as well as the campaigns of Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) in 2014, the Wisconsin Gazette reports.
The complaint says GOP consulting firm OnMessage “set up a shell corporation called Starboard. The corporation was located at the same site as OnMessage and was virtually indistinguishable from its parent firm. Starboard’s apparent purpose was to help the NRA evade FEC rules.”
“As a result, the NRA may have made millions in illegal and excessive in-kind contributions.”
Female Fundraisers Are Powering Women Candidates
“It’s one of the defining stories of the midterms: An explosion of Democratic women running for office in record numbers and outperforming male rivals in primaries, potentially reshaping the party for years to come,” NBC News reports.
“Behind the scenes, Democratic women are looking to fuel the trend by expanding their reach within another historically male-dominated field: Political fundraising.”
“Over several cycles, donors have helped lay the groundwork for a national network of women’s ‘giving circles,’ an informal organization in which mostly upscale members pledge a minimum amount of cash toward candidates for an election cycle. The model is adapted from the philanthropy world, where similar groups pool together charitable donations.”
Treasury Moves to Protect ‘Dark Money’ Donors
“The U.S. Treasury said on Monday that it will no longer require certain tax-exempt organizations including politically active nonprofit groups, such as the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood, to identify their financial donors to U.S. tax authorities,” Reuters reports.
Secret Money Funds 40% of Outside Congressional Ads
“Secret donors financed more than four out of every 10 television ads that outside groups broadcast this year to influence November’s high-stakes congressional elections,” according to a USA Today analysis.
“Leading the way: organizations affiliated with billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, whose conservative donor network plows hundreds of millions of dollars into politics and policy debates each election cycle.”
Anonymous Donors to Influence Supreme Court Fight
“Millions of dollars from anonymous donors are helping shape the fight over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee as Republicans and Democrats undertake a bruising battle for ideological control of the nation’s loftiest tribunal,” the AP reports.
“The anonymity is made possible by federal rules that permit groups structured as tax-exempt social welfare organizations to shield the identities of their benefactors. The upshot is that deep-pocketed donors may wield significant influence without ever revealing who they are, unless they choose to.”
A Fresh Approach or a Get-Rich Scheme?
McClatchy: “When the People’s House Project launched last May, founder Krystal Ball billed it as an organization that would defy old conventions and show Democrats a new model for winning campaigns. The former MSNBC host said her political action committee would support longshot candidates who embraced economic populism and lacked a political background — the kind of office-seekers who normally don’t receive support from party leaders.”
“But thus far, nobody has benefited more financially from the group than Ball herself. Of the $445,000 Ball raised for the group, she paid herself more than a third of that — $174,000 — in salary… That’s nearly eight times more than the nearly $22,000 the PHP has used to support its dozen endorsed candidates, some of whom have received just a single $1,000 contribution.”
“When first contacted, Ball said McClatchy’s questions were sexist and added that she was writing her own story about why male reporters were focusing on women’s salaries instead of men’s.”
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- …
- 35
- Next Page »