Tag: campaign finance

SAD TROMBONE: Democrats Blew a Cool $16 Million on Graham Platner’s Failed Senate Campaign

For the Democrats, when it comes to Graham Platner, the hits just keep on coming.

Not only is Graham Platner now being forced out of the Maine senate race, Democrats wasted a stunning $16 million on his train wreck of a campaign.

Their party is already struggling with fundraising, so this is a double-whammy for them. They were so excited by the idea of winning this race that they never paused to actually vet the guy. Now they’re paying for it in more ways than one.

Breitbart News reports:

Democrat Party Vaporized $16 Million Pushing Failed ‘Nazi Tattoo’ Candidate Graham Platner in Maine

The Democrat Party used up a mountain of cash in support of Maine’s Graham Platner, who suspended his campaign for the U.S. Senate on Wednesday in light of sexual assault allegations.

Platner was accused of breaking into Jenny Racicot’s home and sexually assaulting her in 2021 when the pair were in an “on-and-off relationship,” Breitbart News reported Monday, noting other women have accused him of targeting them.

Now, the Democrat Party and other organizations are no longer backing him, WGME reported Tuesday.

“According to the latest data from the Federal Election Commission, as of May 20, Platner has raised more than $16 million since last July. He managed to spend more than $14 million of that, leaving just over $2 million in the bank,” the outlet said.

“Under guidelines by the FEC, a candidate who drops out does have control over leftover funds,” the report continued, adding, “The candidate can return the money to donors, transfer up to $2,000 per election to other federal, state, local or foreign candidates, or donate to charitable organizations.”

And of course, most of it came from out of state.

Keep reading

Top Dem Senator Under Federal Investigation Over Campaign Spending

Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is under federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for suspected campaign finance violations, according to.

The probe originated from a whistleblower complaint filed from Southern California, the outlet reported.

The investigation centers on the use of funds from Gallego’s political action committee for family travel and related expenses. Specific examples cited in connection with the allegations include trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland, and Disney World.

These matters were previously examined as part of a separate congressional ethics process.

A review of federal campaign finance records from Politico detailed additional spending by Gallego’s campaign committee and his leadership PAC, Juntos PAC. The records show more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019, including payments to an au pair company and a $400 payment to Gallego’s mother-in-law for babysitting during a campaign fundraiser.

The leadership PAC covered costs for family travel to locations including a Miami Beach hotel stay exceeding $9,000 for a birthday celebration that also involved political events, a Chicago trip with nearly $1,500 in lodging that included a fundraiser, and meals and hotels at Disneyland and Disney World totaling nearly $1,500 (excluding flights).

Family members, including Gallego’s wife Sydney, their children, and an au pair, joined multiple trips. A joint fundraising committee with former Rep. Eric Swalwell also covered expenses related to the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona, including event tickets and a pre-game brunch.

Gallego has stated that the expenditures comply with Federal Election Commission rules. In response to the Politico reporting, he wrote that such travel with family members for campaign and fundraising purposes is permitted and occurs regularly among members of Congress from both parties, noting the rising costs of child care.

A spokesperson for Gallego described the Miami trip as part of a multi-stop political and fundraising swing and the Chicago trip as including a fundraiser and attendance at political events.

Juntos PAC, established in February 2024, has raised nearly $1.5 million, with more than half of the funds coming from corporate PACs. Leadership PACs are subject to different rules than principal campaign committees and allow greater flexibility for expenditures tied to fundraising activities.

Gallego’s office has noted that the senator proactively established a legal defense fund in the preceding month.

The investigation follows the closure of an inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. In a letter dated June 26, 2026, the committee informed Gallego that it “did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules or related standards of conduct.” The ethics inquiry stemmed from a complaint filed in April by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), which alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.

Keep reading

Sherrod Brown Took Nearly $4.9M from Wall Street-Affiliated and Billionaire Donors While Railing Against Them

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is running for U.S. Senate in 2026 against Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), has spent decades casting himself as a blue-collar populist, but donor data reviewed by Breitbart News shows he has taken at least $4,887,980 from donors affiliated with Wall Street, big banking institutions, investment firms, and billionaires throughout his political career

Brown has accused his opponent of taking money from “Wall Street” and “billionaires,” declared “Workers > Wall Street,” said “Wall Street does not believe in the dignity of work,” and claimed, “We continue to see the power Wall Street has over the political system.” He has also said that “making all Ohioans’ lives easier” is what he is “fighting for,” while saying his opponent is “fighting for billionaires” and arguing that Ohioans deserve a senator who fights for them, “not billionaires and special interests.”

A campaign donor list reviewed by Breitbart News includes liberal billionaires such as JB Pritzker, Tom Steyer, George Soros, Alex Soros, Steven Spielberg, James and Kathryn Murdoch, and George Lucas. 

The list also includes wealthy donors from finance, investment, and broader business circles, including Henry Laufer, Marsha Laufer, Seth Klarman, Katharine Rayner, Stewart Resnick, Jonathan Tisch, Donald Sussman, and Penny Pritzker.

Keep reading

Lack Of Intellectual Diversity! Close To 100% of Dartmouth Faculty Donations Went to the Political Left During 2026 Midterms

In the latest not-so-shocking campus news, it has been reported at Campus Reform, “Faculty at Dartmouth College sent nearly every dollar of political donations during the midterm election cycle to Democrats and related liberal causes.  

This bad news shows Woke Ideology remains dominant on so-called “elite” campuses, and the universities continue to disrespect the American people.

“A Campus Reform analysis of Federal Election Commission data found that the New Hampshire-based Ivy League school’s faculty gave $119,865.93 to the left, representing 99.8 percent of total contributions.”

No doubt if this percentage went to Republicans or conservative causes, there would be outrage throughout the media and the so-called liberal intelligentsia.

According to this sadly hardly surprising report, “ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising platform, received the most money from donors, pulling in $80,369.91 across 3,219 donations from 279 individual donors.”

“WinRed, the Republican fundraising equivalent, received 10 donations from 3 donors for a total of $162.14.”

This news is pathetic but hardly shocking, as the university has become an incubator for left-wing radicalism.

“The top donors to the left included Paul Guyre, former professor in the Geisel School of Medicine, who gave $17,925, and Albert Mulley, the managing director of the school’s Global Health Care Delivery Science Program, who contributed $7,120.”

“Bethany Moreton, a faculty affiliate of the school’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program, also donated $2,816 through 189 individual contributions.”

This all points to direct evidence that the professors have a liberal agenda and are intent on not educating but indoctrinating students.

Keep reading

Report: Ruben Gallego Used Campaign Donations for Babysitting and Luxury Family Trips, Including Disneyland, Disney World, Super Bowl

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) repeatedly used campaign cash for child care and luxury outings with his family since launching his campaign for Senate in 2023.

That according to a report Sunday by Politico that scrutinized the senator’s campaign finance records and spoke with an unnamed source familiar with the lawmaker’s spending.

The Arizona Democrat used his leadership political action committee (PAC) to fund recent trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland, and Disney World with his family, according to the report.

Federal Election Commission records also show Gallego tapped his PAC and his main campaign committee for more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019, including paying his wife’s mother $400 for babysitting.

Gallego also used a joint campaign account with disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) to attend the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona with his wife, Sydney, according to the political news outlet.

According to Politico:

Federal lawmakers can legally use campaign committee funds for travel, food, events and even child care, as long as those funds are not for “personal use,” meaning they may not cover activities that would exist irrespective of the campaign, according to the FEC. Leadership PACs are not even beholden to that “personal use” rule, meaning lawmakers have broad latitude to use the money they raise as long as it has some fundraising function. Ruben Gallego has leaned into that leeway, with his three children, Sydney Gallego, her mother and their full-time au pair frequently joining the senator on donors’ dime, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

“He just spends his campaign account like it’s his personal slush fund,” the source told the outlet. “He’s using campaign cash to live a luxury lifestyle.”

Gallego appeared unconcerned about donor funds being used to pay for family travel or child care and did not dispute the numbers.

“This is not breaking news,” he said in a statement to Politico. “With the rising costs of child care and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”’

Gallego is reportedly considering a presidential run in 2028.

The source familiar with the senator’s spending habits told the outlet there was concern among some of Gallego’s aids that he would fail the required vetting to be president or vice president.

Keep reading

Swalwell Ordered By FEC To Return Campaign Contributions

Former California congressman Eric Swalwell was ordered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) June 15 to return all donations received during his bid for governor before dropping out of the race.

The agency charged with enforcing federal campaign finance laws threatened Swalwell with an audit or enforcement action if he fails to give back $30,075 in contributions that 16 donors made to his campaign committee, according to a letter sent to the former candidate.

“Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act may also result in an enforcement action against the committee.“

In the letter, FEC Senior Campaign Finance Analyst Mary Seiler also stated Swalwell would not be eligible to request a time extension to give the money back.

According to the letter, the FEC requires candidates to return contributions to the donors if they drop out of a race. Swalwell did return some of the donations, but not all of them, according to the agency.

General election contributions can’t be used to pay off primary debts or other obligations, the FEC noted.

All refunds were required to be made by July 20. If not, the commission may take further legal action in the case, the FEC said.

Swalwell and his attorney, Sara Azari, didn’t return requests for comment about the FEC’s demands.

Swalwell dropped out of the governor’s race in April after multiple women stepped forward with sexual assault allegations, which he has denied. He also faced a U.S. House of Representatives ethics investigation over the accusations and a call from his party to resign.

The former congressman and candidate continues to face criminal and ethical investigations over the allegations.

His official state campaign finance disclosure information shows Swalwell collected donations from individuals and organizations until the day he resigned April 13. The last-minute donors included the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC, California Dairies, real estate developer Jeff Worthe, and Greater Anesthesia Service and PAC – each of which gave him $39,200.

Keep reading

I-194 Could Cost Montana Millions Without Fixing Campaign Finance

During this election cycle, you will likely be asked to sign petitions to place various proposals on the November ballot. Before signing, it is important to understand exactly what you are supporting. That is especially true for I-194, a proposed ballot initiative aimed at restricting “dark money” in elections.

I-194, known as The Montana Plan, is designed to sharply limit the role of corporations, nonprofits, LLCs, trade associations, and other “artificial persons” in Montana elections. Supporters argue it would reduce dark money in politics by preventing Montana entities, and possibly some out-of-state organizations, from contributing to or spending money on state and local campaigns. But even if this five-page law passes, major loopholes and legal problems would remain.

One of the biggest loopholes is that the proposal targets organizations, not individuals. Wealthy business owners, executives, and nonprofit leaders could still spend large sums of money personally, simply shifting political influence from corporate accounts to billionaire donors rather than reducing money in politics.

Another concern involves PACs and political committees. Depending on how courts interpret the law, organizations could still influence elections indirectly through layered committees or pass-through funding arrangements that hide the original source of the money, much like dark-money systems currently operate.

Out-of-state groups could also restructure themselves to avoid Montana’s definitions. National organizations may create affiliated entities, use contractors, or avoid technically “doing business” in Montana while still influencing public opinion and elections here.

The distinction between direct campaigning and issue advocacy creates another major loophole. Even if an organization cannot explicitly say “Vote for Candidate X,” it may still spend heavily on advertising campaigns criticizing policies, shaping public opinion, or mobilizing voters around political issues tied to an election.

Federal elections present another limitation. Montana may regulate state and local races more easily than federal campaigns for Congress or the presidency, which are governed largely by federal law and constitutional protections. Organizations could still spend heavily on federal races that influence Montana voters indirectly.

I-194 is also vulnerable politically because it is a statutory initiative rather than a constitutional amendment. Future legislatures could weaken, narrow, or partially repeal the law.

Finally, the measure would almost certainly face years of expensive litigation centered on Citizens United and First Amendment protections for political speech. Courts could strike down parts of the law while leaving others intact, creating confusion and weak enforcement. Defending I-194 could cost Montana taxpayers millions of dollars, with a strong possibility that the law would ultimately be ruled partially or wholly unconstitutional.

At first blush, I-194 may sound like a good solution, but as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.”

Keep reading

Human Rights Campaign Brags LGBTQ+ Voters Will Be 20% of U.S. Electorate by 2040, Has Record $15 Million War Chest to Help Democrats in Midterms

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), one of the nation’s most powerful LGBT lobbying organizations, is openly declaring that LGBT voters will explode from roughly 10% of the electorate in the 2026 midterms to a staggering 20% by 2040.

The far-left organization is also sitting on a record $15 million electoral war chest aimed squarely at flipping Republican-held House seats and undermining the Trump administration in the upcoming midterms.

The Post Millennial reports:

The comments came in response to California Governor Gavin Newsom moderating his stance with male children identifying as transgender and playing in girls’ sports. When asked by Politico about the how Newsom has appeared to change his stance, HRC President Kelley Robinson said, “As a baseline, anybody that wants to be president in 2028 needs to stand for the civil rights and protections of every person in this country. And yes, that includes trans people.”

“Look, LGBTQ+ people are a growing demographic. We’re going to be 10% of the electorate this year, 20% of the electorate by 2040. We are a powerful constituency, and we’re going to demand that folks who want to represent us represent all of us,” she added.

Robinson laid out HRC’s vision going forward for the midterm election cycle as well for Democrats to get their messaging right, for those in the LBTQ community. The group is looking to flip eight seats currently held by Republicans, which includes districts currently served by Reps. David Schweikert, Juan Ciscomani, David Valadao, Darrell Issa, Tom Barrett, Mike Lawler, Ryan Mackenzie, and Rob Bresnahan.

The $15 million investment, described by HRC as its largest-ever non-presidential-cycle spending, will target eight specific Republican-held House districts, fund heavy advertising, grassroots canvassing, and mobilization efforts, and support Democratic candidates in key states including Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas.

HRC claims the money will help “flip the House,” expand the number of openly LGBTQ elected officials, and defeat anti-LGBTQ ballot measures nationwide.

The group’s polling shows 92% of LGBT registered voters say they will “definitely vote” in November 2026, far higher than the 68% of non-LGBT voters who say the same.

HRC also claims it has identified more than 74 million “equality voters” whom it intends to turn out, according to a Politico interview.

However, HRC’s projections rely heavily on self-identification trends among younger generations, claiming nearly 30% of Gen Z now identify as LGBT, and assume continued rapid growth without accounting for potential cultural pushback or stabilization of identification rates.

Keep reading

Stacey Abrams Dragged Into Georgia Subpoena Showdown Over Massive Campaign Finance Scandal

Stacey Abrams is once again under a harsh spotlight as Georgia lawmakers dig deep into what they call blatant campaign finance violations tied to her voter outreach network.

The state Senate’s Special Committee on Investigations announced that Abrams and two key allies have been subpoenaed, promising that they “will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

The panel’s vice chairman, Senator Greg Dolezal, made it clear that the days of political favoritism are over in Georgia.

“Georgia law requires transparency and accountability in our elections,” he said.

For a state that has endured years of Democrat-fueled election drama, many see this latest subpoena as long overdue.

The subpoenas were issued to Abrams, along with New Georgia Project figures Lauren Groh-Wargo and Nsé Ufot.

Keep reading

Jon Ossoff silent on SPLC indictment after taking more than $700K from affiliate of indicted group

Federal prosecutors’ stunning indictment of a left-wing activist group for alleged financial crimes is reverberating in Georgia’s 2026 Senate race, with Republicans targeting Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., for his past ties to the organization. 

The Department of Justice brought criminal charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly defrauding its donors by secretly transferring money to extremist groups with the goal of infiltrating and monitoring their activities. 

Ossoff, the most vulnerable Senate Democrat running for re-election in 2026, is endorsed by the law center’s 501(c)(4) arm. The group contributed more than $700,000 to his campaign account in 2020, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.

The Georgia Democrat has also praised the group’s purported efforts to combat racism.

“Thank you for decades of work defending civil rights in the United States,” Ossoff said in a video celebrating the nonprofit group’s 50th anniversary in November 2021.

“I’m deeply concerned, like many of you, by the rising level of polarization, hatred and mistrust in our society,” he added. “We must recommit to the path of love, tolerance and peaceful coexistence if we are to flourish as a nation and as a world.”

During that time, federal prosecutors allege that instead of combating extremism, the SPLC was providing financial support to organizations that spread it.

Between 2014 and 2023, the Alabama-based organization paid more than $3 million to informants belonging to the United Klans of America, the Aryan Nation and other neo-Nazi groups, according to the 11-count indictment, which included charges of bank fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. The group allegedly concealed the payments by setting up bank accounts under fictitious names and did not inform federal law enforcement about their activities.

Keep reading