Showing posts with label money in politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money in politics. Show all posts

Sep 26, 2024

We Ain't Even


First, nobody gets to pretend "our side" is always the greatest, and "their side" is always nothing but dog-ass liars and thieves.

Second, I have to say I've allowed this Adams guy too much leeway - suspecting he's a dirtbag, but not knowing much about him, and thinking there's a possible "vast right wing conspiracy" angle to it.

Nope. Apparently the guy's just a fuckin' dirtbag.

And while we have to wait for the system to run its course, if they put all their little ducks in a row, and a jury turns him up guilty, then I hope they burn that fucker to the ground.

There's nothing worse than some dick in public office indulging himself in whatever corruption Adams is being accused of - which could include accepting campaign money from a foreign government - which could easily be a money laundering scheme.

Money is power, and power makes the corruptible more corruptible.

But - like I said - waiting.


New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted

The charges against Adams are expected to be made public Thursday.


Eric Adams calls federal charges 'entirely false' after indictment

NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors have indicted New York City Mayor Eric Adams, making him the first mayor in city history to be charged while in office.

The dramatic move comes after a lengthy investigation that has dogged the moderate Democrat for nearly a year. The revelation — along with several other law enforcement probes that have led to a spate of high-level resignations — stand to imperil Adams’ 2025 reelection prospects.

Shortly after news of the indictment broke, nearly all of Adams’ competitors called on him to resign.

The investigation is being led by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams. A spokesperson for his office declined to comment.

The specific charges in the sealed indictment were not yet known. Williams is expected to make the charges public Thursday.

Adams huddled with close aides, including former Chief of Staff Frank Carone, in the mayor’s official residence of Gracie Mansion on Wednesday evening, figuring out how to respond to the monumental news, which was rumored for most of the day, people familiar with the matter told POLITICO. As he exited the mansion late Wednesday night, Carone said Adams had not been informed by federal authorities of the pending indictment by the time news broke. Asked to describe Adams’ mindset, Carone replied, “very strong.”

“Sad day for the mayor and for the city,” he said.

Carone said Adams should “never” step down. “He deserves a day in court and he’ll have it,” he added.

After The New York Times first reported the indictment, the mayor preempted Williams’ expected announcement with a statement released Wednesday night in which he proclaimed his innocence and vowed to fight the charges.

“I always knew that if I stood my ground for New Yorkers that I would be a target — and a target I became,” he said. “If I am charged, I am innocent and will fight this with every ounce of my strength and spirit.”

In a subsequent video released by his office, Adams sought for a second time to get ahead of the details set to be released by prosecutors.

“It is now my belief the federal government plans to charge me with crimes. If so, these charges will be entirely false, based on lies,” Adams said.

“For months, leaks and rumors have been aimed at me in an effort to undermine my credibility and paint me as guilty,” Adams continued, referencing the FBI raid on the home of his newly installed interim police commissioner, who took over after the resignation of former NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban.

Caban stepped down after his phone was seized as part of a separate federal investigation.

“I will fight these injustices with every ounce of my strength and my spirit,” Adams said.

His declarations did not sway a suite of candidates looking to challenge him for the mayoralty next year.

“The most appropriate path forward is for him to step down,” City Comptroller Brad Lander said in a statement posted on X.

State Sen. Zellnor Myrie said the city needs “a leader who is fully focused, without distraction.”

“Today I am calling on him to resign,” he said.

Former Comptroller Scott Stringer made similar remarks.

“There is simply zero chance that the wheels of government will move forward from this full steam ahead. Instead, we are left with a broken down trainwreck of a municipal government,” Stringer said. “The mayor needs to resign for the good of the city.”

State Sen. Jessica Ramos stopped short of calling on Adams to step down, but suggested he has lost the ability to govern.

“Over the past two and a half years, this administration has made the city more expensive, while those close to the mayor have benefited financially,” she said in a statement posted to X. “That’s a betrayal of every hardworking New Yorker.”

While investigations around him have reached a fever pitch, Adams has insisted he will not resign.

“The people of this city elected me to fight for them, and I will stay and fight no matter what,” he said in a statement earlier Wednesday, responding to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s earlier call for his resignation.

If he did step down, New York City’s Public Advocate Jumaane Williams would become acting mayor, and a nonpartisan special election would be held to fill the seat.

“The news of this indictment is itself incredibly serious,” Williams’ spokesperson William Gerlich said in a statement. “As the facts emerge, the public advocate will have more to say.”

Calls for his resignation should come as no surprise. Aside from the obvious political calculations his rivals are applying, there is no precedent in New York City’s history for a mayor to be criminally charged while in City Hall.

“We’ve had some unseemly mayors who have left office before their terms have actually ended,” said Doug Muzzio, a retired Baruch College political science professor. “We’ve never had a mayor with criminal charges. The law-and-order mayor broke the law — allegedly. But they’re not going to indict a sitting mayor unless they have an airtight case.”

Adams and his campaign have maintained the mayor’s innocence for months following a series of FBI raids that targeted figures close to the mayor’s 2021 campaign.

On Nov. 2, federal agents fanned out to multiple locations around the city where they conducted raids and interviews at the homes of several people tied to Adams, including his former campaign treasurer, an aide focused on Turkish relations and a former Turkish Airlines executive who served on Adams’ transition team. Days later, the feds stopped Adams himself on the street and confiscated several electronic devices.

Throughout the process, Adams has maintained he broke no rules.

“It takes a great deal of discipline to defend yourself when you know you have done nothing wrong,” Adams said Aug. 16, a day after The Times reported a second round of subpoenas had gone to the mayor and City Hall earlier in the summer. “But I trust my team.”

That team includes attorneys from WilmerHale — including the mayor’s former chief counsel, Brendan McGuire — who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But his allies were defending him late Wednesday night. Adams has maintained support among prominent Black New Yorkers, including NAACP New York State Conference President Hazel Dukes.

“This is just unreal, and I am angry, and I will stand with him all the way,” said the 92-year-old Wednesday night, who has known Adams for three decades. “He should not resign. He should have his day in court.”

In the past, Adams’ allies had sought to characterize the investigation by Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District, as somehow politically or racially motivated. (Both Adams and Williams are Black.)

“I’ve been telling other people that I thought this was a witch hunt and the FBI’s going too far,” state Sen. Leroy Comrie told POLITICO weeks after the initial FBI raids.

People close to Adams, such as former Gov. David Paterson, have theorized the investigation run by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is meant as political punishment for Adams’ criticizing Biden’s border policy.

That the U.S. Attorney’s office would bring an indictment within just weeks of a presidential general election is remarkable. It is common practice within the Department of Justice to not take any overt investigative steps in political cases in the run-up to an election — typically known as the 60-day rule.

As POLITICO has previously reported, Adams has traveled to Turkey numerous times and has deep ties to the Turkish diaspora in Brooklyn, where he served as a state senator and then in the largely ceremonial role of Brooklyn borough president before he assumed the mayoralty in 2022.

Adams has already raised millions of dollars for his reelection campaign, and the effect this indictment will have on his efforts remains unclear. Several challengers have already opened campaign accounts, while former Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been watching from afar and may enter the fray should Adams be severely weakened by the forthcoming case.

Sep 25, 2024

Here's To You, Mr Robinson


It's revealed that the candidate has some pretty nasty secrets, and the voters - some of them anyway - get reluctant to stay with him. But the money guys know they can get 25 or 30 percent of those voters to swallow any little piece of shit that floats by as long as their favorite "news" readers and commentators say they should.

note: Let's be real clear - the GOP knew about all this shit way before CNN broke it. There's no way this comes as big surprise. So I have to suspect that Robinson's backers figured they could use it as leverage.

So the monied interests "take a second look", but instead of deciding not to back a slug like that guy, they stay in their default transactional mode, and figure, "We got him to commit to supporting our shitty harmful business model in exchange for the money we've already spent, so what more can we get from him now that the election calculus is changing?"

The money says, "we're pulling our support".

Robinson says, "what'll it take to get you back on board?" And then he proceeds to sweeten the pot.

Deregulation is the prize - full on unfettered private enterprise in the ultimate goal.

Robinson was spouting all kinds of crazy shit before. I suspect he'll double down again, which I think means he's made his deal.

And the big money sees a chance to win by losing. Robinson may be going down in flames, but the authoritarians can look forward to him doing further damage to a free press, which they'll continue to use as a tool to tear down democracy.



BTW - dark money is called dark money because the "donors" don't have to show themselves.
They can cluck their tongues and make a public show of withdrawing, but there's nothing that says they can't just go underground with it.

Sep 19, 2024

Sign Of The Times

Because of course.

Trump told the Dirty Fuels Cartel that if they "donated" a billion dollars to his "campaign", he'd make sure they got to do whatever they wanted.

Now apparently, he's made the same kinda deal with the Pro Lung Disease Consortium.



Why Big Tobacco is betting on Trump

As the industry fights a ban on menthol cigarettes, a Reynolds American subsidiary has become the largest corporate donor to the main pro-Trump super PAC.

America’s top tobacco regulator was on a work trip in the Netherlands in September 2019 when he got wind of President Donald Trump’s plan to take abrupt action on vaping, the booming business offering a substitute for smokers but presenting hazards of its own.

“This was coming out of left field,” said Mitch Zeller, at the time the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s tobacco center.

Zeller supported the plan Trump put forward the next day in the Oval Office: removing mouthwatering flavors, such as mango and mint, that were making e-cigarettes so popular with teenagers. But he feared that Trump’s hasty rollout would doom the effort, he said in a recent interview.

Indeed, Trump soon shelved the proposal amid pressure from lobbyists and political advisers who warned the move could endanger his 2020 reelection campaign because of the popularity of vaping, the heating of nicotine to make an inhaled aerosol.

Four years later, the tobacco industry is banking on Trump’s chaotic approach to public health — and pliable views on policy — as it confronts a new challenge to its bottom line: efforts by regulators in the Biden administration to ban menthol cigarettes, which represent 36 percent of the cigarette market.

The top corporate donor to the main pro-Trump super PAC is a subsidiary of Reynolds American, the second-largest tobacco company in the United States and the maker of Newports, the No. 1 menthol brand in the country. The subsidiary, RAI Services Company, has given $8.5 million to the super PAC, called Make America Great Again Inc., federal records show. The company does not appear to have contributed money to groups backing Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee.

Big Tobacco’s bet on Trump shows how corporate interests believe the former president can be swayed by campaign donations — and brought into line even on issues where he has shown some independence from GOP orthodoxy, said former U.S. officials and industry lobbyists. The contributions represent a muscular move by the company into presidential politics. A Reynolds PAC funded by employee contributions donated just $25,000 to a Trump campaign committee in 2016, and the company contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration in 2017. These entities do not appear to have made contributions in the presidential race in 2020. A Reynolds representative did not respond to detailed questions about the company’s political giving or its interactions with Trump.

Over the past three decades, political contributions by the industry have declined, especially at the federal level, as companies focused their efforts on state and local controversies over higher cigarette taxes and smoking prevention. Reynolds’s major pro-Trump move bucks that trend.

Brian Ballard, a prominent Trump-aligned lobbyist whose firm has represented Reynolds since 2017, suggested the company make the donations, according to a person familiar with the activity. Reynolds executives have met with Trump on multiple occasions in 2023 and 2024, including a lengthy meeting earlier this year in New York where they emphasized their concerns about a menthol ban, said the person, who, like some others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal sensitive details. The executives also raised other subjects with the former president, especially counterfeit vaping pens they said were flooding in from China through the Port of Los Angeles and cutting into their profits. Ballard did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Former company employees and lobbyists, as well as former Trump aides, said Reynolds sees Trump as its best hope of achieving a range of objectives, including fending off a proposed ban on menthol cigarettes, which is in limbo. The Biden administration has delayed a final decision after political advisers warned the president that it could cost him votes among Black smokers who studies show favor the products. The delay may give Trump authority over the ultimate policy if he returns to the White House.

The issue is now a thorny one for Harris. She has previously supported efforts to limit the products, though her campaign did not respond to questions about her current position. A Trump spokesman also did not respond to questions about his view. Conservatives believe the issue can be used to erode Black support for Harris: A Republican-aligned group is spearheading a $10 million ad campaign tying her to the administration’s proposed ban.

The advertising blitz is a further illustration of the political significance of Big Tobacco and its causes this November. The industry’s influence could carry over into policymaking next year.

Stephanie Grisham, who witnessed the back-and-forth over tobacco regulation as an aide to both Trump and his wife, Melania, said the GOP standard-bearer will see the Reynolds donations as a sign of “loyalty” and look to return the favor if elected.

“It would absolutely weigh on his thinking,” said Grisham, who has publicly disavowed Trump.

‘Bully him’

Trump is no fan of smoking.

“I tell people, ‘No drugs, no drinking, no cigarettes,’” he said in a podcast interview last month.

For years, he has expressed revulsion for the habit. “I watch people smoke; it looks terrible to me,” Trump said on the campaign trail in 2015. “It’s terrible.”

When he was elected, the teetotaling, cigarette-averse president seemed like a natural ally for antismoking advocates. In 2017, Trump’s FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, put forward a comprehensive tobacco strategy calling for reduced nicotine levels in cigarettes.

A year later, health officials received alarming new data that focused their attention on e-cigarettes. Vaping by minors was skyrocketing, driven by the popularity of products offered by Juul Labs that came with a range of flavors, such as mango and menthol. In 2018, Gottlieb labeled teen vaping an “epidemic” and proposed ways of curbing flavored e-cigarettes, saying he wanted to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars as well.

The issue caught the attention of Kellyanne Conway, senior counselor to the president and Trump’s onetime campaign manager, according to Grisham, Trump’s press secretary at the time and also an aide to the first lady.

According to Grisham, Conway brought her concerns about flavored e-cigarettes to Melania Trump, knowing the first lady wanted to work on issues involving children.

“She knew Mrs. Trump would be able to influence her husband,” Grisham said.

Conway said she never favored banning flavors but “protecting kids,” including a proposal to raise the age to 21 for e-cigarette sales and other tobacco products, which Trump signed into law in December 2019. Conway said she doesn’t favor prohibiting products including vapes and menthol cigarettes, adding, “The Democrats are the party of bans.”

But when Trump gathered his top health officials in the Oval Office in September 2019 to act on the issue of teenage vaping at the urging of his wife and Conway, senior officials framed their action as a sweeping ban. Alex Azar, the health secretary, said the aim was to “clear the market” of flavored e-cigarettes, including mint and menthol, allowing the products to be sold only once they gained formal approval from federal regulators.

Zeller, the top tobacco regulator, who was in the Netherlands when the hasty meeting was called back in Washington, said he believed right away that Trump’s approach was a mistake. His staff hadn’t drafted anything, Zeller said; they weren’t prepared with regulations or policies to make good on the announcement.

“I knew there would be a vacuum in the aftermath of the announcement that would be filled by all those who oppose a flavor ban, creating a political nightmare for the White House,” said Zeller, who is now retired from government and advising a pharmaceutical start-up developing technology to treat tobacco dependence.

Within two months, Zeller’s prediction had come to pass. As health officials readied plans to take most flavors off the market, Trump’s campaign advisers presented him with data showing that vaping was popular among his supporters. On Nov. 4, the day before a planned news conference to launch the decisive action, Trump balked, refusing to approve a one-page memo advancing the policy.

Conway was frustrated, as was the first lady, recalled Grisham, though she said Melania Trump understood how her husband would view the matter. “I think Mrs. Trump threw up her hands because she knew that if anything was going to impact a potential second term, he wasn’t going to do it.”

A Trump spokesman did not respond to questions about the former first lady.

Looking back, Grisham added, the policy was bound to fail because of the chaotic way it came about.

“We rarely did things through a process with agencies as you should,” she said. “So this was more of, ‘Let’s get him in a room, let’s convince him or bully him with his wife there, let’s get him to say yes and say it publicly.’”

Early the following year, the Trump administration moved forward with a scaled-back plan to limit flavored e-cigarettes, notably exempting the popular menthol flavor from the regulation. Public health groups were incensed. The American Lung Association said the lack of more decisive action would “compromise the health of our nation’s children.”

Alienating the base

Public health experts turned their hopes to Joe Biden, who had emerged as a major advocate for cancer prevention in the waning days of the Obama administration.

“If I could be anything, I would have wanted to have been the president that ended cancer, because it’s possible,” Biden said in October 2015, as he announced that he would not seek the presidency that cycle while grieving his son Beau’s death from brain cancer.

Biden oversaw the Obama administration’s cancer moonshot and, after leaving office, stood up his own cancer initiative in 2017, in which he repeatedly warned about the risks of smoking. Biden also signaled that fighting cancer would be a presidential priority, vowing on the 2020 campaign trail to renew his efforts to address the disease.

“Once we beat covid, we’re going to do everything we can to end cancer as we know it,” Biden said in February 2021, several weeks after taking office. Two months later, federal regulators announced their intention to ban menthol products, and, in April 2022, the FDA released its proposed rule.

The political sensitivities of banning menthol were immediately apparent, with some Black lawmakers and advocates saying it represented an unfair crackdown on products favored by the Black community. White House aides, meanwhile, stressed that Biden was deferring to public health experts, as the administration asserted that the planned ban could prevent as many as 654,000 deaths in the United States — including as many as 238,000 among African Americans — over the next 40 years.

Menthol, a chemical found in mint plants that can also be made in a lab, provides a cooling sensation when added to cigarettes, making smoking less harsh. A study based on Canada’s experience outlawing menthol cigarettes in 2017 concluded that a similar ban in the United States would lead 1.3 million Americans to quit smoking and save hundreds of thousands of lives.

According to two current U.S. officials and one former senior official, Biden had support for his cancer efforts inside the White House from Harris, the daughter of a cancer researcher, who as a senator had signed a 2018 letter supporting a ban on menthol cigarettes. Fighting cancer “is an issue of personal significance to so many and for me,” Harris said in February 2022 remarks, reflecting on her mother’s death from breast cancer. “You see, after a lifetime working to end cancer, cancer ended my mother’s life.”

The vice president’s office declined to address her position on the menthol ban. A Harris aide said that the issue “is being taken very seriously” but that no decision had been reached.

But as regulators worked to finalize the administration’s menthol rule, warnings of the political blowback became more acute. Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster, issued a memo last year arguing that a ban risked alienating Biden’s “base supporters” in the 2024 election, citing his own polling in battleground states. Belcher’s poll and analysis were funded by Altria, a tobacco company. Neither Belcher nor Altria responded to requests for comment.

There has been effectively no progress on the menthol ban over the past year, officials said, with the White House repeatedly missing its self-imposed deadlines to finalize it. In April, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra released a terse, two-sentence announcement that the administration needed “significantly more time” to consider debate over the ban. Asked this month about the status of the ban, federal officials referred back to Becerra’s statement.

Even if Biden belatedly moves to finalize the rule, it could now be blocked or rolled back by a newly elected Trump because it requires one year to be fully implemented.

Meanwhile, Harris is already facing well-funded attacks over the administration’s proposed ban.

A memo circulated by a group called Building America’s Future — which is staffed by veterans of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination — describes menthol as “The Niche Message That Can Reverse Harris’ Consolidation of Black Voters.” The nonprofit is part of an effort to spend $10 million on ads linking her to the stalled rule and targeting Black voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Changing the debate

Black smokers have similarly been at the heart of a lobbying campaign undertaken by Reynolds, according to internal documents obtained by The Washington Post.

One document, marked “confidential,” outlined the “objectives” of the company’s influence efforts. Among them: “Change the debate on menthol in DC.”

Advocates for prohibition say banning menthol would reduce chronic disease and save lives, especially among Black Americans. Reynolds has sought to flip that argument on its head. In another memo circulated to company lobbyists, Reynolds argued that a ban would weaken relations between communities of color and law enforcement. The one-page memo bluntly warns of an “increased likelihood the police will use force on a person of color” if police were required to enforce a ban, which it calls “counter to progressive policing principles.”

The memo includes statements from prominent civil rights activists, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is quoted in the memo arguing that any consideration of banning menthol cigarettes must “include a candid discussion about racial disparities and selective prosecution in communities of color.” The National Action Network, which Sharpton founded, has received donations from Reynolds, as both the civil rights leader and the company have acknowledged. They have declined to detail the amount. Sharpton’s organization did not respond to a request for comment.

The company has used a similar argument on Capitol Hill, telling lawmakers that a menthol ban would “create another Eric Garner situation,” said a former Reynolds lobbyist, referring to the 43-year-old Black man killed in 2014 by police after he was stopped on suspicion of illegally selling single cigarettes.

Public health advocates and policymakers have dismissed those arguments as false and inflammatory, noting that the crackdown targets retailers, wholesalers, distributors and other businesses — not individual smokers.

Claims that a menthol ban would lead to abusive policing in Black communities are “unfounded,” 21 attorneys general wrote to Biden in January. “The FDA plainly states that federal authorities will not enforce the proposed menthol ban against individual consumers.”

At the same time, Reynolds has been eyeing what the former lobbyist said the company views as a more potent tool to prevent prohibition of menthol cigarettes: putting Trump back in the White House.

When he was first elected in 2016, Trump wasn’t seen as friendly to the industry, said a former Reynolds executive. “We all knew his profile: doesn’t drink, never smoked,” the former executive said.

The company gave little to his campaign but donated to Trump’s inauguration, which secured executives a spot at a dinner with the newly minted president, said a person who attended. In 2017, Reynolds also put $1.5 million into the pro-Trump nonprofit America First Policies, according to a corporate disclosure.

Though the company has made bipartisan political donations, senior leaders appreciate that Republicans are more lenient with the industry than are Democrats, said a former longtime employee. “The mindset of the organization was, ‘If we can get a conservative leader in place — at the local level, at the state level and at the federal level — it would benefit the industry,’” this person said.

That preference became more pronounced as the Biden administration pursued its menthol ban, said the former lobbyist. The issue is critical for Reynolds: A ban would spoil one of the company’s most significant recent ventures — the acquisition in 2015 of the Lorillard Tobacco Company, which makes the Newport brand of menthol cigarettes.

“The whole reason they bought this company is about to be banned,” said the former lobbyist.

Reynolds executives feel they narrowly escaped a ban under Biden and can’t count on their good fortune should Harris win the presidency, said the former lobbyist and other former employees. They said the aim now is not just to help elect Trump but also to deepen the company’s relationship with him.

Zeller, the former top tobacco regulator, said the company’s plan could work. Trump’s expressed disinterest in the fine points of public policy and the anti-regulatory agenda of the people likely to staff his potential second term would make him “susceptible to outside interests, financial or otherwise,” he argued.

Regulators made modest but surprisingly significant gains in antismoking efforts when Trump was last in the White House, Zeller said. A second Trump term, he predicted, would be different.

“Those days are long gone,” Zeller said.

Aug 26, 2024

The Trump Scam



Republican Donors, Do You Know Where Your Money Goes?

We long ago blew past any meaningful controls on political giving in American elections. Now we should focus on the rules governing political spending, which are in equally terrible shape. For that we can blame the Trump campaign and the federal government’s feeble enforcement efforts.

Anyone who has spent time reviewing Donald Trump’s campaign spending reports would quickly conclude they’re a governance nightmare. There is so little disclosure about what happened to the billions raised in 2020 and 2024 that donors (and maybe even the former president himself) can’t possibly know how it was spent.

Federal Election Commission campaign disclosure reports from 2020 show that much of the money donated to the Trump campaign went into a legal and financial black hole reportedly controlled by Trump family members and close associates. This year’s campaign disclosures are shaping up to be the same. Donors big and small give their hard-earned dollars to candidates with the expectation they will be spent on direct efforts to win votes. They deserve better.

During the 2020 election, almost $516 million of the over $780 million spent by the Trump campaign was directed to American Made Media Consultants, a Delaware-based private company created in 2018 that masked the identities of who ultimately received donor dollars, according to a complaint filed with the F.E.C. by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. How A.M.M.C. spent the money was a mystery even to Mr. Trump’s campaign team, according to news reports shortly after the election.

All but 18 of the 150 largest expenditures on a Trump campaign’s 2020 F.E.C. report went to A.M.M.C. None of the expenses were itemized or otherwise explained aside from anodyne descriptions including “placed media,” “SMS advertising” and “online advertising.” F.E.C. rules require candidates to fully and accurately disclose the final recipients of their campaign disbursements, which is usually understood to include when payments are made through a vendor such as A.M.M.C. This disclosure is intended to assure donors their contributions are used for campaign expenses. Currently, neither voters nor law enforcement can know whether any laws were broken.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
A.M.M.C.’s first president was reported to be Lara Trump, the wife of Mr. Trump’s son Eric. The New York Times reported that A.M.M.C. had a treasurer who was also the chief financial officer of Mr. Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner signed off on the plan to set up A.M.M.C., and one of Eric Trump’s deputies from the Trump Organization was involved in running it.

Ms. Trump is now a co-chair of the Republican National Committee, which, soon after her arrival, announced it would link up with the Trump campaign for joint fund-raising. The joint entity prioritizes a PAC that pays Mr. Trump’s legal fees over the R.N.C., The Associated Press has reported, making assurances from Mr. Trump’s campaign co-manager that R.N.C. funds wouldn’t be used to pay Mr. Trump’s legal bills seem more hollow.

This election, the Trump campaign and four of its PACs have paid Red Curve Solutions, another private company, at least $18 million. The Campaign Legal Center says Red Curve appears to pay Mr. Trump’s legal bills and then gets reimbursed by the PACs. (The law is murky on what types of legal bills can be paid by campaigns, but some are allowed.) The head of Red Curve also serves as the treasurer for the Trump campaign as well as the affiliated PACs.

What percentage of donor contributions go to lawyers defending Mr. Trump? It’s impossible to know.

In June, NBC revealed the existence of a new mystery company, called Launchpad Strategies. Launchpad took in almost $15 million in Trump political cash via the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee and the Trump National Committee. Little is known about this new group. It was created in 2023 and the Trump campaign says it is related to fund-raising. We don’t know who owns it, who runs it or where the $15 million went.

It seems likely Mr. Trump is keeping close tabs on donations flowing through campaign vehicles controlled by family members and loyalists. But from early March through July of this year, the Biden and now Harris campaign outspent the Trump campaign three to one on advertising. By late May, the Democratic campaign had opened 200 field offices and hired 1,000 staff members in key states. The Trump campaign didn’t open its first office in the crucial battleground of Pennsylvania until June. The Biden campaign had 24 there in April.

Mr. Biden’s campaign also spent donor cash on legal bills, though apparently in far smaller quantities. It paid over $1 million for attorneys during a special counsel probe of the president’s handling of classified documents, The Associated Press reported in April.

Maybe the Trump campaign is saving up for a post-Labor Day blitz to the finish line. Or perhaps Brad Parscale, whose strategy firm took in $94 million from Trump-affiliated groups in the 2016 campaign, spent every cent of that to re-elect the president. We know he seems to have paid himself handsomely. He bought a $2.4 million Fort Lauderdale waterfront property, a BMW X6, a Range Rover and a Ferrari. When Mr. Trump learned of Mr. Parscale’s high-rolling lifestyle, he reportedly exclaimed, “That’s my money!” according to Michael Bender’s book on the Trump campaign. Concerns about Mr. Parscale reportedly drove Mr. Kushner to ensure A.M.M.C. was fully controlled by the Trump family and trusted lieutenants.

Donors should demand more information about how their money is spent. But that would most likely offend the Trump family and confidants running the campaign. And the whole point of donating to Mr. Trump is to get on his good side.

And — just hypothetically, of course — if Vice President Kamala Harris opens up her lead in the polls and the odds fall that Mr. Trump could win, who would be surprised if the unknown owners of the mystery companies paid themselves more while the campaign spigots are blasting cash and the future uncertain?

The Federal Election Commission should demand that all campaigns disclose recipients of more than $200 in campaign cash. At least that’s what the law says. Campaign Legal Center tried to get the F.E.C. to enforce disclosure rules on the Trump campaign. The commissioners voted 3 to 3 to dismiss the matter, and federal courts have declined to step in. The legal center has appealed the case to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The commission, long famous in Washington for its dysfunction, now seems incapable of its most basic enforcement role. The agency reportedly had only three open investigations in June despite the proliferation of hundreds of new campaigns and PACs. Congress should demand it better police the recipients of campaign contributions. And if the law is inadequate, Congress should make new ones.

Jun 23, 2024

That Dark Money Thing


As long as the bad guys can hide the amounts, and the recipients, and the donors, we're going to have bigger and bigger problems with getting good decent people elected, and with understanding just what the fuck is wrong when we know with near certainty that everybody voted one way, but somehow the result went in the other direction.


AN EGYPTIAN BANK CLAIMED DETAILS OF A SUSPECTED $10 MILLION PAYMENT TO TRUMP MIGHT BE IN CHINA

Back on September 19, 2018, then DC Chief Judge Beryl Howell denied a motion brought by an Egyptian bank to quash a subpoena for information on a suspected $10 million payment made to then-candidate Trump in fall 2016. That set off litigation that continued, at the District, Circuit, and Supreme Courts, for at least nine months.

As CNN described in 2020, not long after the investigation got shut down under Bill Barr, investigators had been trying to see whether Egypt (or some entity for which Egypt served as go-between) provided the money that Trump spent on his campaign weeks before the election.

For more than three years, federal prosecutors investigated whether money flowing through an Egyptian state-owned bank could have backed millions of dollars Donald Trump donated to his own campaign days before he won the 2016 election, multiple sources familiar with the investigation told CNN.

The investigation, which both predated and outlasted special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, examined whether there was an illegal foreign campaign contribution. It represents one of the most prolonged efforts by federal investigators to understand the President’s foreign financial ties, and became a significant but hidden part of the special counsel’s pursuits.

The investigation was kept so secret that at one point investigators locked down an entire floor of a federal courthouse in Washington, DC, so Mueller’s team could fight for the Egyptian bank’s records in closed-door court proceedings following a grand jury subpoena. The probe, which closed this summer with no charges filed, has never before been described publicly.

Prosecutors suspected there could be a link between the Egyptian bank and Trump’s campaign contribution, according to several of the sources, but they could never prove a connection.

It took months of legal fight after Judge Howell denied that motion to quash before the Egyptian bank in question complied, and once they got subpoena returns, prosecutors repeatedly complained that the bank was still withholding information, which led prosecutors to reopen the investigation with a new grand jury.

That much we know from documentation unsealed back in 2019 (part one, part two, part three), in response to a Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press request for unsealing.

On August 17, 2023, while she was still Chief Judge, Beryl Howell ordered the government to post newly unsealed sets of some of the orders she issued during the litigation. On Thursday, Chief Judge Boasberg ordered that newly redacted set of opinions to be released. While Howell released six opinions in June 2019 along with the other materials from the case — with redactions done digitally, thereby hiding the length of redactions — just three new versions of her orders got released last week:
These may be limited to orders incorporated as appendices in prior appeals, which might also explain why the first two appear twice in the newly-released materials.

Much of the newly unsealed material pertains to a fight over how much Alston & Bird, the law firm representing the Egyptian bank, could say about the litigation publicly. Among other things, prosecutors under Robert Mueller objected to their own names appearing publicly, out of a desire to tie this litigation to the narrow scope of Mueller’s investigation into interference in 2016.

One thing made clearer by a redaction in that January 2019 opinion on public comments is that the DC Circuit considered what public comments the two sides could make, in addition to SCOTUS, as part of its denial of cert.

It’s possible that the DC Circuit has weighed in, secretly. Among the details newly unsealed in the original opinion are the names of two of the bank’s other lawyers: Ashraf Shaaban (who appears to be or have been in-house counsel) and Mona Zulficar (who runs a Cairo corporate law firm). Those lawyers were named in conjunction with declarations they submitted arguing some part of the claim that Egyptian Anti-Money Laundering law would prohibit compliance with the subpoena as would unspecified law in a third country, described as Country B.

Howell described that Alston & Bird are relying on,

conclusory declarations by [redacted] own Country A in-house and retained counsel, which themselves cite no legal authority on this question of [redaction] See Decl. of Ashraf Shaaban,, Mov’s Group Legal Counsel (“Shaaban Decl.”)¶7, ECF No. 3-6; Suppl. Decl. of Mona Zulficar, “Suppl. Zulficar Decl.”)¶ 4, ECF No. 12. The Court gives these declarations little weight. [bold newly unsealed, compare this passage with this one]

So if we can figure out who Shaaban works or worked for to ID the bank.

It’s the unspecific third country, Country B, that is the most interesting new disclosure, however.

The newly unsealed passages do not identify which country, described as Country A and which CNN identified as Egypt, owns this bank. But they do show that the bank or its lawyers wanted to share the subpoena with personnel in Cairo.

The newly unsealed passages do identify which third country’s laws, unspecified laws, might prohibit lawyers from searching for responsive documents in that country: China.

In other words, a bank owned by Egypt said it couldn’t comply with a subpoena seeking information on a suspected payment to Trump during the 2016 election, in part, because China’s laws would prevent that.

Mar 12, 2024

I Will Stop You

I think Trump has been worried that he might not get the old money Republicans to go along with his hare-brained schemes, so he's emphasizing his intentions to serve the plutocracy by telling us straight out that he's all for shit-canning every progressive policy that's been put in place since FDR.
  • Privatize Social Security
  • Voucherize Medicare
  • Kill Obamacare outright
  • Eliminate EPA and OSHA (and the departments of Energy and Education, et al)
In a democracy, even very poor people have power thru the various agencies and regulatory bodies that their votes got politicians to create, and push those politicians to maintain.

In a plutocracy, people who don't have the money don't have the power.


Mar 11, 2024

Say What Now?


There's a definite probability that Trump is trying to do his usual Pay-For-Play thing, but I think it's at least as likely that Trump turned against it because it signals an effort in Congress to get something done, and Trump's whole schtick is that nobody can do anything without him. ("Only I can fix it")

And of course, there's some probability that Trump is playing monkey in the middle again, setting up the conflict and looking for his profit opportunity, which kinda knits the whole thing together.


Steve Bannon Suggests Donald Trump Has Been Bought

Steve Bannon, the one-time adviser to Donald Trump, suggested on Saturday that the former president was paid off after a shift in stance on TikTok.

TikTok, the immensely popular video-sharing app known for its predominantly young audience, has once again come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. The app is currently owned by Chinese tech company, ByteDance, which has spurred significant suspicion that its abundance of user data is being furnished to the Chinese government.

While ByteDance and TikTok have dismissed these accusations, lawmakers have continued to consider their options. A bipartisan bill put forward by members of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party last week would work to "incentivize divestment of TikTok" by ByteDance by blocking it from appearing in American app stores and granting Executive Branch authority to take similar action in the future against social media companies operated by a "foreign adversary."

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce advanced the legislation last week in a 50-0 bipartisan vote to the full U.S. House of Representatives. TikTok, meanwhile, characterized the bill as a ban, and urged users to encourage their local representatives to block it.

Despite his past stances in favor of action against TikTok for its Chinese ties, Trump, the leading candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, wrote in a Truth Social post on Thursday that he opposed the recent bill, citing his oft-repeated false claims about widespread voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election.

"If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck [CEO Mark Zuckerberg] will double their business," the former president wrote. "I don't want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!"

In response to this post, reports noted that the seeming shift in stance from Trump came after a meeting with Jeff Yass, a conservative hedge fund manager who has a $33 billion stake in TikTok. Yass, according to Intelligencer, has been allegedly threatening to pull support from GOP lawmakers who back the bipartisan divestment bill.

American Plutocracy 101: The rigging of the system lies in a rich guy exerting influence over policy by waving his checkbook at the decision-makers.

Bannon, who led Trump's successful 2016 presidential campaign and served as a White House adviser for the first several months of Trump's presidency, took to Gettr to make his suspicions about the situation clear.

"Simple: Yass Coin," he wrote in a post that included a link to an Axios story about Trump's flip on TikTok, without providing further evidence. Newsweek has not seen any evidence that Trump's meeting with Yass and his stance on TikTok are connected.

Newsweek reached out to Trump's office via email for comment on Saturday afternoon. Any responses received will be added to this story in a later update.

In August 2020, Trump issued an executive order ordering ByteDance to sell its U.S. assets and destroy all data within 90 days.

"There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that ByteDance Ltd.... through acquiring all interests in musical.​ly...might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States," the order read.

Mar 6, 2024

Vote Your Values

... and recognize that your values guide your interests - but sometimes it has to go the other way, and your interests drive your values.

Don't abandon your belief in your better self. Just understand that you have a lesser chance to be that better self if you don't survive some of the more mundane - even crass and distasteful - things in life along the way.


It may involve issuing a few fat lips and bloody noses.


In the meantime, the plutocracy is rollin' along, singin' a song.


Nov 24, 2023


We're told that publicly disclosed campaign money is a determinant factor in an election. And there's still some truth to that, but this is not 2009 (ie: before Citizens United v FEC), and we've drifted away from being the kind of democracy we keep telling ourselves we are.

Press Poodles need to start looking beyond what a candidate (particularly a GOP candidate) has in their "campaign war chest".

Any given Republican running for any given office can be pretty sure that whatever they spend on ads and such will be supplemented 3- or 5- or 10-fold by private (and anonymous) "donors" who are basically buying that candidate's vote at whatever level of government they're going to "serve".

And while there's a good bit of that on the Dems' side as well, I estimate a very large majority of it goes to the benefit of the GOP.

Nov 3, 2023

Today's Beau

Has has to know there's little chance for it, so it makes me wonder if Hawley is signaling his intention to directly challenge McConnell.


Jul 8, 2023

The Buck Stops


Here's a flash: The GOP signed their souls over to Trump. He has control over "the base" so he can practically dictate who runs in certain races and who doesn't, and he's got a solid strangle hold on the small donor fund-raising. Throw in what I'm pretty sure he collects from the Russian mob, and whatever help he gets from the rest of Putin's gang, and you've got a party that's not getting back to "normal" any time soon probably ever.

I haven't found solid confirmation, but it's being reported that he's bumping the price he charges Republicans to use WinRed.

The party committed to using WinRed as their main vehicle for general public fund-raising about 4 years ago. He takes a cut by way of a company (Revv) that one of his lackeys set up. As little as half of the money sent in by Mom and Pop ends up going to either the GOP or the GOP's candidates.

Anyway.


Republicans Are Losing Money Because of Trump

Six top GOP donors stopped giving money to the Michigan or Arizona Republican parties because of their perceived support for the discredited claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against Donald Trump, according to a new report.

One former Michigan donor, real estate tycoon Ron Weiser, told Reuters it is "ludicrous" to claim Trump won the state in 2020, as supporters of the former president are continuing to do.

Trump is currently running to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, with polling giving him a commanding lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is his closest rival. Concerns about the former president's impact on fundraising are likely to help DeSantis, who is attempting to convince voters he's the party's best bet for returning to the White House after the November 2024 election.

In November 2020, Joe Biden defeated Trump by 306 electoral college votes to 232, resulting in him being inaugurated as president the following January. Trump is continuing to insist the contest was "rigged" against him, though this claim has been repeatedly dismissed in court and by independent legal and election experts.

Reuters reported that six former donors had stopped giving to Republican parties in Michigan and Arizona over their backing of candidates who questioned the 2020 election's legitimacy and what they regard as extreme positions on other issues, such as abortion.

Referring to the Michigan GOP's support for election conspiracy theorists Weiser, who used to chair the party, commented: "I question whether the state party has the necessary expertise to spend the money well."

In Arizona, Jim Click, from a family of longstanding GOP donors, told Reuters that "it's too bad we let the right wing of our party take over the operations," and said he would switch to backing individual candidates rather than the state Republican party.

According to campaign finance filings the Arizona GOP had just $50,000 in its state and federal bank accounts on March 31, down from nearly $770,000 four years ago. Filings also show the Michigan GOP had around $116,000 in its federal account on March 31, compared to almost $867,000 on the same date in 2021.

Newsweek reached out to the Michigan and Arizona Republican parties via email, and Donald Trump via the press contact form on his official website for comment.

A number of Arizona Republican candidates in the 2022 midterms endorsed Trump's claims of electoral fraud including Kari Lake, who lost the state gubernatorial election to Democrat Katie Hobbs. Lake is still refusing to concede.

Republican Kristina Karamo lost her bid to become Michigan secretary of state, which would have given her substantial influence over how the 2024 presidential election is conducted. Karamo had falsely claimed Trump really won the 2020 election in Michigan and blamed the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol on "Antifa posing as Trump supporters."

Mar 1, 2023

Who's Your Daddy?



House approves measure targeting Biden rule allowing money managers to consider ESG in retirement investing

The House on Tuesday approved a resolution that would repeal a Biden administration rule for retirement investments, marking the latest flashpoint in Republicans’ crusade against environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution was approved 216-204, with Rep. Jared Golden (Maine) as the only Democrat voting with Republicans in favor of the measure.

But while a Democratically controlled Senate and White House mean that the measure is unlikely to amount to more than messaging, it is part of a broader Republican effort to oppose ESG investing.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) in a floor speech on Tuesday characterized the regulation as being part of a “woke ESG agenda.”

“Democrats and their radical environmental NGO allies will continue to work in the shadows, strong-arming and intimidating corporations and investors alike, using any means necessary, to conscript the life savings of pensioners and retirees to implement a dangerous … investment strategy,” Burgess said.

The Biden rule Republicans are seeking to repeal clarifies that money managers can weigh climate change and other ESG factors when they make investment decisions.

ESG is a broad term for attempts to invest in an environmentally conscious or otherwise ethically manner. Proponents argue this type of investing allows people to do well for themselves while also doing good for the world, and also contend that it could mitigate some of the financial risks caused by climate change.


But many Republicans argue that ESG investing could harm the fossil fuel industry — and that consideration of additional factors by money managers could come at the expense of profits.

The Dirty Fuels Cartel is a senior partner in the ownership structure of the GOP, and their yacht money is sacrosanct.

The Trump administration previously imposed a rule that said money managers could only make investments based on financial considerations.

And there's the kicker - profit über alles.



But critics said that rule was confusing, and the Biden administration contends in its rule that its predecessor discouraged managers’ consideration of ESG factors “even in cases where it is in the financial interest of plans to take such considerations into account.”

“The Trump rule, it’s extremely convoluted and just confusing,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a group that seeks to use shareholder power to push action on climate and environmental issues.

- more -

Nov 18, 2022

A Small Win


Wondering why the Republicans are so eager to start "investigating" everything from unicorns and pixies to laptops and puppy farms?

And yes - we could see them bring back Benghazi.

They have to keep our focus away from the shitty things they're helping to facilitate for assholes like Vladimir Putin and Bob Mercer and Charlie Koch and the NRA and and and.

Keep your dirty money
outa my elections 

(pay wall)

GOP operative found guilty of funneling Russian money to Donald Trump

A Republican political strategist was convicted of illegally helping a Russian businessman contribute to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Jesse Benton, 44, was pardoned by Trump in 2020 for a different campaign finance crime, months before he was indicted again on six counts related to facilitating an illegal foreign campaign donation. He was found guilty Thursday on all six counts.

Elections “reflect the values and the priorities and the beliefs of American citizens,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Parikh said in her closing argument this week. “Jesse Benton by his actions did damage to those principles.”

The evidence at trial showed that Benton bought a $25,000 ticket to a September 2016 Republican National Committee (RNC) event on behalf of Roman Vasilenko, a Russian naval officer turned multilevel marketer. (Vasilenko is under investigation in Russia for allegedly running a pyramid scheme, according to the Kommersant newspaper; he could not be reached for comment.) The donation got Vasilenko a picture with Trump and entrance to a “business roundtable” with the future president.

Vasilenko connected with Benton through Doug Wead, an evangelical ally of the Bush family who was also involved in multilevel marketing. Vasilenko sent $100,000 to Benton, who was working for a pro-Trump super PAC at the time, supposedly for consulting services. Benton subsequently donated $25,000 to the RNC by credit card to cover the ticket.

Witnesses from the RNC and the firm hired to organize the event said they weren’t told Vasilenko was a Russian citizen. Benton said in an email to his RNC contact that Vasilenko was “a friend who spends most of his time in the Caribbean”; he described Vasilenko’s interpreter as “a body gal.” In fact, according to the testimony, Benton and Vasilenko had never met.

Benton argued that he followed the advice of his previous counsel, David A. Warrington, who has also represented Trump. Warrington testified that Benton contacted him at the time to ask if he could give a ticket to a political fundraiser to a Russian citizen. Warrington said he told Benton “there is no prohibition on a Russian citizen receiving a ticket to an event” and that “you can give your ticket that you purchased to a fundraiser to anybody.”

Prosecutors said Benton failed to tell Warrington that he was getting reimbursed by the Russian citizen for the donation. Benton asked for the advice only “to cover his tracks,” Parikh said.

Benton also claimed that he earned the $100,000 acting as a tour guide in Washington for Vasilenko, whose interest was not politics but self-promotion.

Wead — who died at age 75 last December after he was indicted with Benton — had previously discussed with Vasilenko the possibility of a photograph with Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama or Steven Seagal before suggesting Trump.

“If Oprah was available,” defense attorney Brian Stolarz said in his closing argument, “we wouldn’t even be here.”

Vasilenko posted the photograph of himself with Trump on Instagram with a banner that said “Two Presidents” and advertised his own company. He said Benton “delivered on what he was asked to do,” which was “get him in a picture with a celebrity” so Vasilenko “could brag on Instagram.” To Vasilenko, he said, Trump was not a politician but “the guy who used to be on ‘The Apprentice.’ ” At the roundtable, he said Trump appeared only briefly and “just talked about polls.”

Stolarz emphasized that there was no evidence Vasilenko ever engaged with Trump outside the single event, and no evidence the RNC ever returned the donation. Witnesses from the RNC said they were in the dark about the origin of the funds.

“He wants to be an influencer,” Stolarz said. “This is just shameless self-promotion from a guy who can afford to take this picture.”

But prosecutors said that once it was offered, Vasilenko saw the value of an introduction to Trump. He was running for parliament in Russia at the time, according to the Justice Department, and after Trump’s election was invited on Russian television.

“He’s sophisticated,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Wasserman told jurors. “He got access to someone he helped elect.”


Benton’s defense downplayed the $25,000 as “nothing” in an election that cost billions.

“This is not some nefarious backroom scheme to funnel millions of dollars from Russia,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that every dollar counted in a race where Democrat Hillary Clinton was far ahead in fundraising, and that Benton knew Trump needed money at the time.

Stolarz said Benton was also paid to organize a charity dinner Vasilenko attended on his U.S. trip, which prosecutors dismissed as a cheap meal at a chain restaurant.

“They may try to downplay it, but Maggiano’s is good,” Stolarz said.

Benton began his career on the GOP’s libertarian fringe as an aide to former congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose granddaughter is Benton’s wife. He gained mainstream credibility helping Paul’s son, Rand Paul (R-Ky.), win a Senate seat in 2010 and was hired by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) 2014 reelection campaign.

But Benton resigned before that election amid an investigation into whether an Iowa state senator was bribed to support Ron Paul in the 2012 presidential race. Benton was convicted in May 2016 of conspiracy and involvement in filing of false campaign finance reports — not long before the new scheme began.

“He knew the law,” Wasserman said. “He knew the rules.”

After the verdict, Stolarz said Benton “maintains his innocence and plans to appeal.”

Sep 5, 2022

Where Did All That Money Go, Rick?


Today's reminder never to put a Republican in charge of the money.

The party that always bragged about being pragmatic and clear-eyed and competent is now officially the party you can't trust to manage a middle school car wash.

But it's more than that.

It's possible that the main problem with GOP fundraising is that people are turning away from Republicans in general because the MAGA gang has become so toxic. I think there's an awakening of distrust of a party that's spent the last 35 years fucking things up on purpose in their attempt to tear down our democracy, while disguising that project with the standard Myth of Former Greatness.

The social stigma attached to being swindled makes fraud one the most under-reported crimes. People you've been conned are likely to be very quiet about it because it's embarrassing to admit you fell for some bullshit that an awful lot of your friends and family tried to warn you about.

Republicans have been railing against "the collective" forever, so why is anyone surprised to learn they're behaving in a totally self-serving manner?

    (pay wall)

How a Record Cash Haul Vanished for Senate Republicans

The campaign arm of Senate Republicans had collected $181.5 million by the end of July — but spent 95 percent of it. A big investment in digital, and hyperaggressive tactics, have not paid off.


It was early 2021, and Senator Rick Scott wanted to go big. The new chairman of the Senate Republican campaign arm had a mind to modernize the place. One of his first decisions was to overhaul how the group raised money online.

Mr. Scott installed a new digital team, spearheaded by Trump veterans, and greenlit an enormous wave of spending on digital ads, not to promote candidates but to discover more small contributors. Soon, the committee was smashing fund-raising records. By the summer of 2021, Mr. Scott was boasting about “historic investments in digital fund-raising that are already paying dividends.”


A year later, some of that braggadocio has vanished — along with most of the money.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has long been a critical part of the party apparatus, recruiting candidates, supporting them with political infrastructure, designing campaign strategy and buying television ads.

By the end of July, the committee had collected a record $181.5 million — but had already spent more than 95 percent of what it had brought in. The Republican group entered August with just $23.2 million on hand, less than half of what the Senate Democratic committee had ahead of the final intense phase of the midterm elections.

Now top Republicans are beginning to ask: Where did all the money go?

The answer, chiefly, is that Mr. Scott’s enormous gamble on finding new online donors has been a costly financial flop in 2022, according to a New York Times analysis of federal records and interviews with people briefed on the committee’s finances. Today, the N.R.S.C. is raising less than before Mr. Scott’s digital splurge.


Party leaders, including Senator Mitch McConnell, are fretting aloud that Republicans could squander their shot at retaking the Senate in 2022, with money one factor as some first-time candidates have struggled to gain traction. The N.R.S.C. was intended to be a party bulwark yet found itself recently canceling some TV ad reservations in key states.

The story of how the Senate G.O.P. committee went from breaking financial records to breaking television reservations, told through interviews with more than two dozen Republican officials, actually begins with the rising revenues Mr. Scott bragged about last year.

The committee had squeezed donors with hyperaggressive new tactics. And all the money coming in obscured just how much the committee was spending advertising for donors. Then inflation sapped online giving for Republicans nationwide. And the money that had rolled in came at an ethical price.

One fund-raising scheme used by the Senate committee, which has not previously been disclosed, involved sending an estimated millions of text messages that asked provocative questions — “Should Biden resign?” — followed by a request for cash: “Reply YES to donate.” Those who replied “YES” had their donation processed immediately, though the text did not reveal in advance where the money was going.

Privately, some Republicans complained the tactic was exploitative. WinRed, the party’s main donation-processing platform, recently stepped in and took the unusual step of blocking the committee from engaging in the practice, according to four people familiar with the matter.

The texts had been part of a concerted push that successfully juiced fund-raising, though it used methods that experts say will eventually exhaust even the most loyal givers.

One internal N.R.S.C. budget document from earlier this year, obtained by The Times, shows that $23.3 million was poured into investments to find new donors between June 2021 and January 2022. In that time, the contributors the organization found gave $6.1 million — a more than $17 million deficit.

Mr. Scott declined an interview request. His staff vigorously denied financial struggles, said some of the canceled television ads had been rebooked, and argued the digital spending would prove wise in time.

“We made the investment, we’re glad we did it, it will benefit the N.R.S.C. and the party as a whole for cycles to come,” said Chris Hartline, a spokesman for Mr. Scott and the committee.

Yet as Republican chances to retake the Senate have slipped, a full-blown case of finger-pointing has erupted across Washington, with Mr. Scott a prime target. His handling of the committee’s finances has become conflated with other critiques, especially a flawed field of Republicans who have found themselves outspent on television.

Mr. Scott’s please-all-sides decision to stay out of contested 2022 primaries has been second-guessed, including by Mr. McConnell.
Mr. Scott’s detractors accuse him of transforming the N.R.S.C. into the “National Rick Scott Committee” — and a vehicle for his presidential ambitions.

“The spending wouldn’t matter if the polling numbers looked better,” said Liam Donovan, a Republican lobbyist and N.R.S.C. donor. “To the extent the red wave is receding, people look for someone to blame.”

The financial fortunes of the group alone will not sink Republican chances in November. A super PAC aligned with Mr. McConnell has more than $160 million in television reservations booked after Labor Day.

Mr. Hartline dismissed those questioning the group’s digital spending as “disgruntled former staff and vendors.” He said the $28 million invested had tripled its file of email addresses and phone numbers and added 160,000 donors.

“Our goal is to build the biggest G.O.P. digital file to help the party now and in the future,” he said. He declined to discuss the texting scheme.

Mr. Hartline said the Senate Democratic arm has more money because it had not yet spent significantly on television. Mr. Scott, he said, had strategically spent early, with nearly $30 million on ads aiding Republicans through July.

That sum, however, is actually less than the $37.4 million the G.O.P. committee reported in independent expenditures for candidates as of the same date two years ago.

A huge online outlay

For months last year, the National Republican Senatorial Committee was far and away the nation’s biggest online political advertiser, outspending every other party committee combined and pouring money into platforms like Google at levels almost unseen except in the fevered final days of 2020.

The sums were so breathtakingly large — peaking at more than $100,000 a day on Facebook and Google — that some concerned Democrats began to study the ads, fretting that somehow Republicans had unlocked a new sustainable way to raise money online.

They had not.

The Senate Republican bet had been this: By spending vast amounts early, the party could vacuum up contact information for millions of potential donors who could then give repeatedly over the coming months.

The internal budget document showed the shortcomings of the approach. The first month of outreach investment, June 2021, was projected to generate $3.2 million for the committee by November 2022. But the other $22 million in investments over the next seven months combined were projected to add up to a narrow net loss by Election Day.

Still, the document showed the digital department was asking for more: an additional $12 million in February and March. Mr. Hartline dismissed the document as a “potential draft budget.”

Not long after, the spending spigot was cut off. The committee went from being the biggest political spender on Facebook to being completely absent on it. No Facebook fund-raising ads ran from April to late August, company records show.

Digital fund-raising has dried up across the Republican spectrum in recent months, and the N.R.S.C. has been hard hit. Online donations to the committee plunged by 37 percent between the first and second quarters of this year. If not for $10 million in transfers from the Republican National Committee, the Senate arm would have spent more than it raised this cycle.

In the most recent six months that fund-raising data is available, the N.R.S.C. in 2022 has raised $15 million less than during the same six-month period in 2020.

The tight finances stand in contrast to the House Republican campaign arm, which entered August with $110 million — spending 57 percent of the money it had collected, compared with the Senate committee’s 95 percent.

In its pursuit of cash, the Senate committee has increasingly adopted a pro-Trump tone: Of the more than 1,500 emails sent this year, more than 900 have invoked Donald J. Trump in the sender line. Zero have mentioned Mr. McConnell anywhere, despite the fact that the committee’s ostensible goal is to make him majority leader.

In August, four Senate candidates, including J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee in Ohio, trekked to Nantucket, Mass., for an event that netted each an initial $25,000.Credit...Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times

The N.R.S.C.’s larger donor program has struggled at times, too. In August, four Senate candidates, including J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee in Ohio, trekked to Nantucket, Mass., for an event that netted each an initial $25,000, according to multiple officials, a paltry payout for the far-flung event.

Tensions are high. Mr. Vance recently snapped at Mr. Scott over a different issue with committee staff in a phone call, according to two people with knowledge of the conversation.

Though the committee exists chiefly to help Republican Senate candidates, under Mr. Scott it has only occasionally leveraged its enlarged email list to fund-raise directly for them. And when it does, the fine print indicates the N.R.S.C. keeps 90 percent of the proceeds.

‘Reply YES to donate’

The unsolicited text messages seeking contributions to the Senate Republican committee began buzzing phones in mid-2021 — often without identifying whom they were coming from.

“This is URGENT!” read one such flurry of messages. “Do YOU support Trump?”

Then came the key line: “Reply YES to donate $25.”

Those who wrote back “YES” automatically had a $25 donation to the National Republican Senatorial Committee charged to their credit cards, though the initial message said nothing about the destination and there were no links to click to find out. The committee used a tool that paired donors’ phone numbers with credit-card information saved on WinRed.

The Times documented the practice through interviews with people who had received such texts and made donations, Republican officials familiar with the tactic and a review of thousands of messages flagged by the spam-blocking app RoboKiller.

RoboKiller used the volume of texts marked as spam to estimate that tens of millions of “reply YES to donate” messages were sent from an 855 phone number that has been used by the Senate Republican committee.

Giulia Porter, a spokeswoman for RoboKiller, described the practice as predatory because it used donors’ saved credit card information to send money without telling them where it was going. “It does speak to how quickly the tactics have evolved technologically,” she said.

It is not clear how many people donated in response to the texts. But demands for N.R.S.C. refunds, a key metric of donor dissatisfaction, have soared, with the amount returned to donors quadrupling, from less than $2 million in 2020 to more than $8 million now.

The Senate Republican refund rate equals 6.6 percent of direct individual donations this cycle; the Senate Democratic committee’s rate is 1.67 percent.

WinRed declined to comment on stopping the Senate committee from using the tactic. The committee is still using the “reply YES to donate” function in texts, but it is now disclosing itself as the sender of the messages.

All told, the Senate committee has poured more than $26 million into expenses marked as texting-related since 2021, part of a digital budget that ballooned so quickly that Republicans, even inside the committee, are talking about a financial autopsy to examine whether there have been potential conflicts of interest.

Gary Coby, Mr. Trump’s longtime digital director, is an adviser to the committee and widely seen as the main behind-the-scenes influence on the N.R.S.C.’s current digital operations. Two of his companies, Direct Persuasion, a digital agency, and Opn Sesame, a texting firm, have been paid by the Senate committee more than $4.6 million combined. Two others that he has promoted, DirectSnd and Red Spark Strategy, have received another $9.2 million.

The N.R.S.C.’s digital director, Daria Grastara, worked for Mr. Coby during the Trump 2020 campaign. She was a director for Direct Persuasion, according to her LinkedIn page. While at the Senate committee, Ms. Grastara has maintained financial ties to at least one firm that has been paid committee funds and informed the N.R.S.C. of the arrangement, according to a person briefed on the situation.

Mr. Hartline called Ms. Grastara a “fantastic employee” but declined to discuss any specifics, adding only, “She has been open and transparent with all parties involved since the beginning of the cycle.” Ms. Grastara, who attended Direct Persuasion’s Miami Beach retreat this year, did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Coby referred questions to the N.R.S.C., which declined to discuss his financial relationships.

In a broad statement, Mr. Hartline said Mr. Scott had “instituted the toughest conflict of interest policy at the N.R.S.C. for our staff and vendors to clean up issues from the past.”

Scott versus McConnell

Mr. Scott has taken to saying that money could be the party’s greatest impediment to taking control of the 50-50 Senate in November, and he has been acting to make up financial ground.

Committee staff beyond the finance department have been asked to devote an hour per week to calling donors for cash. “Everyone plays a role in fund-raising,” Mr. Hartline said.

Under campaign finance law, a portion of the committee’s funds are supposed to be walled off for legal expenses, and are not to be used for campaigning. Yet in July, the committee’s biggest expense — a $1 million media buy, apparently for Colorado and Washington ads — came from those restricted legal funds, according to federal records.

“We will always find the most effective, efficient and creative way to get our message out and stretch every dollar, in accordance with the law,” Mr. Hartline said about the expenditure. “If the Democrats don’t like that, tough.”

Prior to politics, Mr. Scott led a major for-profit hospital chain. He was forced out in the late 1990s and the company went on to pay $1.7 billion in federal civil and criminal penalties for health care fraud.

He has clashed with Mr. McConnell, who recently lamented Senate “candidate quality” in 2022. Mr. Scott shot back that “trash-talking our Republican candidates” was “an amazing act of cowardice.”

Mr. Scott also rolled out his own “Rescue America” agenda despite Mr. McConnell’s desire to keep the policy focus on Democrats. Mr. Scott’s initial openness to taxing more Americans and letting Social Security expire has been used repeatedly by President Biden to bludgeon Republicans.

Mr. Scott’s sharp elbows have earned him enemies. His family vacation on a yacht outside Italy, for instance, promptly leaked.

Just after Labor Day, Mr. Scott has another trip planned. It is not to a key Senate battleground. He is headed to Iowa, helping a House candidate in the leadoff state on the presidential nominating calendar.