“Karoline Leavitt can’t seem to shake her old campaign debt,” NOTUS reports.
“The White House press secretary’s 2022 congressional campaign still owes creditors more than $326,000, according to its most recent financial report, filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.”
“Most of that debt — more than $210,000 — is attributable to unpaid refunds to donors who made excessive contributions to Leavitt’s campaign, in violation of federal limits.”
“The Senate GOP campaign arm won a major Supreme Court boost in the party’s bid to hold congressional majorities on Tuesday,” Axios reports.
“Republicans’ reliance on mega-donors and their cash-flush committees positions them to benefit more than Democrats from the ruling, which allows committees to spend unlimited sums in coordination with candidates as they push against headwinds in November.”
“GOP officials reacted with glee to the Tuesday ruling, deriding Democrats who have criticized the decision for giving more power to the wealthiest donors.”
Bloomberg: Supreme Court opens midterm ad floodgates, giving GOP an edge.
Bloomberg: “Party committees like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the plaintiff in the case, can now spend unlimited sums on advertising in cooperation with campaigns after the court tossed out limits that were set as low as $130,600 for some Senate races.”
“The GOP will benefit more, at least in the current cycle. The Republican National Committee, the NRSC and the National Republican Congressional Committee, which focuses on House races, had $256 million in the bank at the end of May, twice as much as their Democratic counterparts. The party that holds the White House generally has an edge when it comes to raising money — though it also tends to lose seats in Congress in the midterms.”
“And political parties can now stretch their dollars further, because the ruling means both sides can buy the time at the same bargain-basement prices that stations are required to offer to candidates.”
“Just days before the 2022 midterm elections, as Democratic candidates were drastically outspending JD Vance and other Republicans running for the Senate, the future vice president and the Senate G.O.P. campaign arm filed a lawsuit to try to change the rules of the game,” the New York Times reports.
“They knew it was too late to affect that year’s elections. The lawsuit was part of a longer-term gambit to tilt the financial playing field in future elections in the Republican Party’s favor. The goal was to unshackle political parties from existing limits on what they could spend in coordination with the candidates they were supporting.”
“The plan paid off on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court rolled back decades-old restrictions on political party spending, further expanding the power of big money in American politics.”
CNBC: Supreme Court strikes down limits on political parties’ campaign spending, in win for GOP.
“Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is under federal investigation for suspected campaign finance violations,” Axios reports.
“The investigation could cast a shadow over Gallego’s political future as the freshman senator eyes a potential 2028 run for president.”
“Larry Ellison didn’t join the gaggle of CEOs that traveled with President Trump on his state visit to China. He wasn’t among the guests at a White House dinner Trump hosted with tech titans. He also skipped the UFC event on Trump’s 80th birthday,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
“The Oracle billionaire didn’t need to be at these public events. Ellison, 81, has developed a more-private friendship with Trump that has helped his tech company’s business as well as his son’s effort to assemble a media conglomerate. Key to the relationship: Ellison’s money.”
“Ellison gave roughly $45 million to a political nonprofit group supporting Trump’s election efforts in 2024, according to people familiar with the fundraising. Such funding isn’t subject to disclosure rules and hasn’t been previously reported.”
Politico: “A record number of groups are exploiting a gap in campaign finance law to flood this year’s primary elections with money — without disclosing their donors until long after the race is over.”
“More than $48 million has already been spent on House and Senate primaries this year by super PACs that did not have to reveal their donors before elections took place… That is more than double the total at this time in the 2024 cycle, and 10 times higher than in 2018.”
NOTUS: “Federal regulators have probed why former Rep. Devin Nunes — until recently CEO of Trump Media — has a whopping $14.5 million in campaign funds despite not running for office since 2020.”
“The Federal Election Commission reached out in April to Nunes’ mom, Toni Dian Nunes, who is also his campaign committee’s treasurer, for answers about her son’s stockpile. The amount is extraordinary for someone who is not a candidate or lawmaker and is rivaled by only a few in the House. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of Congress’ top fundraisers, reported on Thursday that her campaign has $15.9 million on hand.”
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.”
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.