A Washington, D.C. watchdog group accused former Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) on Tuesday of spending nearly $2 million in campaign cash after leaving office, $1.3 million more than was reported last month.
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a formal complaint Tuesday, and is asking the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate the nearly $2 million in campaign funds reportedly spent on staffing, travel, events, and other miscellaneous costs. The group says there&#8217;s a reasonable chance Sinema violated federal law by using the money for personal benefits. 
Sinema’s Senate term ended in 2024, but FACT says her campaign committee continued spending into 2025. The complaint includes a table summarizing the expenditures. According to FACT’s analysis, staff and payroll expenses totaled $653,555. Other listed expenditures include credit card payments and bank fees, air travel, security, office and administrative expenses, lodging, meals, and events. 
<iframe loading="lazy" class="scribd_iframe_embed" tabindex="0" title="FACT Sinema Complaint" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/1010409820/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-x6ddRQikjNAu5LXbKKPR" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488"></iframe>
<a style="color: #098642; text-decoration: underline;" title="View FACT Sinema Complaint on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/1010409820/FACT-Sinema-Complaint#from_embed"> FACT Sinema Complaint </a> by <a style="color: #098642; text-decoration: underline;" title="View Daily Wire Investigations Team's profile on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/user/694252498/Daily-Wire-Investigations-Team#from_embed"> Daily Wire Investigations Team </a>
The watchdog acknowledges that federal law allows former senators to use campaign funds for a limited period to close down office operations, but the complaint argues that “the amount alone is significant and suggests it is not related to official duties.” It further states that “many of the expenses do not appear to have any relation to winding down an office, but rather they appear quite clearly to be for personal purposes, namely makeup services, alcohol, catering and lodging. Thus, there is reason to believe that Kyrsten Sinema and Sinema for Arizona have violated federal law.”
FACT highlights approximately $9,000 spent at resorts in Beverly Hills, Montauk, Wyoming ski country, and the Grand Canyon. The complaint also raises concerns about staff payments made to a security guard with whom Sinema allegedly had a personal relationship.
When Sinema left office on January 3, 2025, her campaign account had a balance of <a href="https://azmirror.com/briefs/kyrsten-sinema-fec-complaint-illegally-spending-700000-in-campaign-funds-on-personal-expenses/">$4.2 million</a>, but that money was gone when she filed the termination report for her campaign committee.
This isn&#8217;t the first formal complaint about Sinema&#8217;s spending habits. In 2024, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) filed a complaint alleging Sinema spent more than <a href="https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-12-17-Sinema-for-Arizona-complaint-signed.pdf">$100,000</a> on travel expenses between March and September 2024. CREW said the reported trips to Italy and Boston were not connected to Sinema&#8217;s campaign or work in the Senate.
The FEC has not yet formally addressed the 2024 complaint.
Typically, after the FEC reviews a complaint, it determines whether there is “reason to believe” a violation occurred. If the agency finds merit, it may impose civil penalties, including monetary fines or the repayment of improperly used funds. In cases where violations are found to be knowing and willful, the matter can be referred to the Department of Justice, which could pursue criminal charges.
FACT filed the complaint just after news broke of Sinema joining the Washington Reporter as a columnist. Sinema did not immediately respond to comment regarding the post office expenditure spending.

Sinema

Watchdog Exposes Nearly $2 Million In Suspicious Spending By Former Dem Senator After Leaving Office

Federal Election Commission (FEC)

Kyrsten Sinema

News

Vice President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kamalas-campaign-paid-oprah-1m-during-her-failed-white-house-quest-report">Kamala Harris</a>’ campaign didn’t pay $1 million dollars for that star-studded Oprah Winfrey interview, but closer to $2.5 million for the sit down, a new report shows.
Two people with knowledge told the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/harris-campaign-finances.html">New York Times</a> that Winfrey’s company Harpo Productions was paid nearly $2.5 million for the September Harris town hall which saw host Oprah joined by such stars as Meryl Streep, 
When the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kamalas-campaign-paid-oprah-1m-during-her-failed-white-house-quest-report">initial report</a> came out that the Harris camp had paid Harpo Productions $1 million for the town hall event, Winfrey hit back and said she did not get any personal payment from the VP’s team. The former TV talk show host claimed that the money went to pay her production team, the <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/11/17/us-news/harris-campaign-paid-oprah-winfreys-production-company-nearly-2-5-million/">New York Post</a> noted.
“I was not paid a dime,” Winfrey <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DCP3b5ihehr/">wrote </a>on Instagram. “For the live-streaming event in September, my production company Harpo was asked to bring in set design, lights, cameras, crew, producers and every other item necessary (including the benches and the chairs we sat on) to put on a live production. I did not take any personal fee.”
“However, the people who worked on that production needed to be paid,” she added. “And were. End of story.”
A former advisor for Harris’ also said they never paid any celebrity for their support, after a report surfaced showing Winfrey was part of a host of stars who got paid big bucks for their appearances with Harris on the campaign trail. The spending decisions are documented in the Federal Elections Commission records, the Times noted.
Harris’ campaign also decided to host several star-studded concerts in various swing states on the eve of the election with stars like Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, James Taylor, and Katy Perry. Officials made it clear that while the stars didn’t actually get personally paid for their support of the Democratic nominee, their support staff did get paid, with the tally for the rallies before the election coming to more than $10 million, the Times noted.
During Harris&#8217; 15 weeks on the campaign trail, the VP spent $1.5 billion, far surpassing the $1 billion raised after President Joe Biden stepped aside and made her the nominee.
It has also been reported that Harris spent six figures building a set for the interview she did on Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” podcast. The set was built in a hotel room in Washington, D.C., but made to look like Cooper’s actual set in Los Angeles, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3222249/how-kamala-harris-plowed-through-1-billion/">The Washington Examiner</a> reported.
The Harris campaign declined to comment on finances for The Examiner&#8217;s report, but a post-election report will be available within 30 days, as mandated by the Federal Election Commission.
While they’re not revealing specifics now, the campaign already disclosed in October that it had spent more than $880 million. This number was much greater than the amount spent by the Trump campaign, which was an estimated $354 million.
Amanda Harding contributed to this piece.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-HARRIS

Kamala Paid Closer To $2.5 Million For Oprah Sit Down, Report Shows

2024 Election

Kamala Harris

Oprah

Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies outspent former President Donald Trump and Republicans by nearly $600 million, a disjunction that did not translate into victory.
Harris and allied outside groups spent around $1.7 billion, compared to $1.1 billion by Trump and allies, according to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race" target="_blank" rel="noopener">OpenSecrets. </a> Based on the number of votes tallied thus far, that means Democrats spent $24 for every Harris vote while Republicans spent $15 for every Trump vote.
It&#8217;s not the first time Trump defeated a candidate who outspent him In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign and its allies outspent Trump by 78%. In 2020, Joe Biden’s side outspent him by 49%. The figures suggest that big money operations may no longer be the key to securing victory in a presidential election.
Post-election news <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-campaign-20m-debt-what-we-know-1981936">reports</a> said that despite Harris raising more than $1 billion — in addition to more than $600 million from outside sources — the campaign is now $20 million in debt.
The Harris campaign spent $430 million on media buys and production, and $26 million on text messages, according to Federal Election Commission filings. More than $100 million each was disbursed to Gambit Strategies, Bully Pulpit Interactive, and Dupont Circle Strategies. 
Most of Harris’s outside spending — about $400 million — came from Future Forward USA, according to OpenSecrets. The group, designed to accept contributions larger than the campaign could legally accept, was funded by multi-million dollar donations from people like LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, Google’s Eric Schmidt, and Ilinois’ Jay Pritzker. A union representing government workers also chipped in $1 million.
Elon Musk’s America PAC, by comparison, spent some $130 million on Trump&#8217;s behalf.

VP Kamala Harris

Democrats Spent $9 More Per Vote Than Republicans — And Kamala Still Lost

Donald Trump

Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sherrod-brown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sherrod Brown</a> (D-OH) is under scrutiny after a dead person was reported to have donated to his campaign, according to Ohio election officials.
The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/06/us-news/sherrod-brown-took-campaign-donations-from-dead-ohio-woman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> on Friday that Brown’s campaign reported two donations from May 2024 totaling $350 from Carol Ann Baker of Toledo, Ohio, who died in December 2023. The donations were flagged to the office of Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose who passed it onto the Federal Election Commission for further investigation.
“Our office received a complaint identifying that the Friends of Sherrod Brown committee reported receiving two contributions from an individual that was confirmed to be deceased,” LaRose spokesman Dan Lushek said. “But, as that committee is a federal entity and not a filer with our office, we referred the complaint and our findings to the Federal Elections Commission for further action.”
In a letter to the FEC, head of investigations at the Ohio Secretary of State’s office Huan Yi included an affidavit from Baker’s husband confirming her death. Before her death, Baker was an English teacher at Rossford High School and a trustee for Harris Township.
Yi added that Ohio&#8217;s Election Integrity Unit would be available to help as needed.
“Ohioans deserve absolute confidence in their elections,” he said. “The purpose of this letter is to refer to your office potential violations of federal law for your investigation, as appropriate.”
According to the complaint filed with Ohio election officials, the man who flagged the donations said he had reached out to the FEC in August, but did not hear anything back from them.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1724361346607000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1ZhyOQfEkxcMH_D1Ago3CQ">Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.</a>
Brown is currently defending his seat from Republican challenger Bernie Moreno, whose campaign criticized him over the donations.
“Brown’s scheme to fund his campaign with contributions from dead people isn’t just creepy, it’s illegal,” Moreno Press Secretary Reagan McCarthy said. “This conspiracy deserves more scrutiny. How far does it go?”
While Ohio went comfortably for former President Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020, Brown currently maintains a 3.6 point average advantage in the polls heading into November. The Ohio seat could prove to be one of the pivotal races that determines control of the Senate as Democrats have just a two seat advantage.

Lawmakers On Capitol Hill Face Questions About President Biden’s Fitness To Run For Re-Election

Dem Senator Facing Tough Re-Election Campaign Accepted Donations From Dead Person

Elections

Ohio

Politics

Sherrod Brown

U.S. Politics

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI) urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) this week to immediately initiate a rule that would close a &#8220;serious loophole&#8221; that is allowing Democrats&#8217; ActBlue fundraising platform to potentially raise money from illegal campaign contributions.
The formal request comes as ActBlue has helped to give Democrats a fundraising advantage over Republicans in recent years and helped Vice President Kamala Harris raise tens of millions of dollars overnight for her presidential campaign.
The rule would force political campaigns to verify the card verification value (CVV) of donors who contribute online using a credit or debit card and prohibit them from accepting online contributions from gift cards or other prepaid credit cards.
<a href="http://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1722702091491000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3dzILUu8JkHbwoxyGwS0qT">WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI</a>
Steil said in a letter to the FEC that his formal request follows &#8220;widespread allegations of fraudulent donations being reported to the FEC by ActBlue, one of the largest fundraising platforms in the country, this emergency rulemaking is necessary to reassure the American people that ActBlue is taking the necessary steps to protect its donors.&#8221;
ActBlue confirmed to the Committee &#8220;that it does not require a CVV to donate,&#8221; the letter said. &#8220;However, the vast majority of online transactions, including a donation to most political campaigns and to other large fundraising platforms, require a CVV number to reduce fraud and prevent unlawful foreign transactions. ActBlue&#8217;s donor procedures are painfully outside the norm, and an emergency rulemaking is required to address them.&#8221;
&#8220;ActBlue&#8217;s practices invite the possibility of foreign donations, and allowing political committees to accept donations from gift cards or other prepaid credit cards promote the appearance and the very real possibility that straw donors are making campaign donations with funds provided by another person or an unlawful donor including a foreign national,&#8221; the letter concluded. &#8220;These issues present a serious loophole to the transparency and integrity of the campaign donation process, and an emergency rulemaking is required to rectify these issues.&#8221;

‘Serious Loophole’ Allowing Democrats’ ActBlue To Potentially Accept Illegal Political Contributions: Congress

campaign donation

Congress

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission arguing that Vice President Kamala Harris cannot legally gain control of nearly $100 million donated to President Joe Biden by changing the name of his campaign committee.
“This is little more than a thinly veiled $91.5 million excessive contribution from one presidential candidate to another, that is, from Joe Biden’s old campaign to Kamala Harris’s new campaign,” Trump general counsel David A. Warrington wrote in a complaint obtained by The Daily Wire. “Contributions by federal candidate committees to other federal candidates are limited to $2,000.”
&#8220;Kamala Harris is in the process of committing the largest campaign finance violation in American history and she is using the Commission’s own forms to do it,&#8221; the complaint alleges.
Candidates for office must create a campaign committee which includes their name, and file a statement of candidacy designating that committee as their fundraising vehicle. Harris did neither. Instead, on Sunday, the campaign treasurer <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/filings/?data_type=processed&amp;form_type=F2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;amended&#8221;</a> Biden&#8217;s statement of candidacy to swap his name with Kamala&#8217;s, and pointed to Harris for President as her committee, using the same ID as the Biden for President committee. It also filed amended paperwork <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00703975/1805326/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">changing the name</a> of that committee.
&#8220;There is no provision in federal campaign finance law for Kamala Harris to take over Joe Biden’s candidacy now by quite literally attempting to become him via an amendment&#8230; and making off with all of his cash,&#8221; Trump&#8217;s lawyers say. &#8220;Ms. Harris’ actions constitute a massive excessive contribution from Biden for President to Ms. Harris.&#8221;
With few exceptions, a campaign committee can only be linked to one candidate. Harris&#8217;s name has appeared on the Biden committee&#8217;s forms since 2020, but Trump&#8217;s lawyers argue that does not entitle her to the funds. Had Harris dropped off the ticket to challenge Biden for the presidential nomination, they note, she would not have been able to claim half of the campaign&#8217;s war chest.
“If the Commission were to deem Joe Biden to have ended his candidacy before transferring his campaign funds to Kamala Harris, then this only creates another violation. Federal candidates are prohibited from keeping contributions for elections in which they do not participate,” the complaint said.
Trump&#8217;s lawyers accuse Harris and committee treasurer Keana Spencer, who is in charge of submitting forms to the FEC, of committing &#8220;an attempted fraud on the Commission and should be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and prosecution&#8221; as &#8220;a conspiracy to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States.&#8221;
Spencer also submitted a <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00703975/1805325/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;miscellaneous document&#8221;</a> to the FEC informing the agency that &#8220;Vice President Harris is now a candidate for United States President in the 2024 election and will henceforth be conducting campaign activities only in pursuit of that office.&#8221;
The FEC is currently chaired by a Republican and is comprised of six commissioners, three from each party. The commission cannot take action unless a majority of commissioners vote to do so.

Vice President Kamala Harris

Harris Can’t Legally Touch Biden’s $100 Million Campaign War Chest, Trump Lawyers Argue

Joe Biden

A former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/federal-election-commission-fec" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federal Election Commission</a> paralegal specialist was caught with a massive stash of pornography on his government laptop, some of it “potentially unlawful,” according to the FEC inspector general. 
The employee <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Investigative-Summary-I22INV00002.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> had 687 pornographic videos and 8,166 sexually explicit or suggestive images stored on his FEC-issued laptop. Additionally, an investigation from the IG found that the employee had searched for “adult tourism guides and maps” to locate prostitutes in Italy, Costa Rica, Mexico, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. 
The inspector general’s office opened up an investigation into the employee in January 2022 after a source pointed them to a file in a shared FEC drive that allegedly contained a video of a naked person. The investigation found that the employee had uploaded pornographic videos onto a shared FEC drive. &#8220;The files consisted of five video clips that featured a nude female performing various sexually suggestive acts,&#8221; the FEC report says. 
An investigation by an external law enforcement organization was also initiated after the IG flagged potentially unlawful content during its search of the hundreds of pornographic videos found on the employee&#8217;s laptop, potentially referencing child porn or other illegal content. The employee resigned from the agency in June 2022, about six months into the IG investigation. According to the IG&#8217;s report, the employee downloaded pornographic materials between 2018 and 2022. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1703186412954000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2wa_Ye43X_JsIDS19y_dtB">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“OIG investigators identified evidence of sexually explicit images that were potentially unlawful. Accordingly, the OIG referred the matter to external law enforcement agencies for possible criminal charges. In addition, during the OIG investigation, the agency took prompt action to remove the subject’s access to FEC information systems,” the report said. 
The law enforcement investigation was ultimately closed due to insufficient evidence. 
The IG report added that the employee gave misleading statements when being interviewed by investigators and that he downloaded pornographic files during scheduled work hours. The content also included “inappropriate animated drawings.” 
The report said that the employee had violated FEC policies by using government resources for unauthorized purposes and for violating “agency policies that prohibit the use of agency information resources to access sexually explicit material.”

Hacker working on laptop at night under blue light.

Federal Elections Employee Caught With Massive Stash Of Porn On Government Laptop: IG Report

Inspector general

Pornography

Prostitution

U.S.

<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/hillary-clinton-lands-professor-and-presidential-fellow-gig-at-columbia-university-benjamin-zeisloft/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hillary Clinton</a>&#8216;s failed 2016 presidential campaign illegally failed to report millions of dollars in in-kind contributions from a political group it coordinated with, a lawsuit alleges.
Clinton’s campaign, Hillary for America, and a group run by longtime pro-Clinton operative David Brock, Correct the Record, are accused of coordinating between a super PAC and a campaign and not disclosing it in campaign finance records. Their defense involves a radical interpretation of campaign finance law that would effectively negate hard-fought restrictions pushed by Democrats to cut back on the influence of big money in politics.
The arguments pushed by the Clinton team are so contrary to Democrat rhetoric, and more in line with Republicans who think there should be few campaign finance restrictions, that the complaint against Clinton was brought by a left-leaning group and killed by Republican commissioners while Democrat commissioners, alongside FEC lawyers, sided with the complainants.
The allegations in the lawsuit dwarf those alleged against former President Donald Trump by a New York prosecutor, which similarly revolve around a payment that allegedly should have been reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)&#8211;in Trump&#8217;s case, for $130,000.
The Clinton lawsuit progressed through a step in the Court of Appeals for the Washington D.C. Circuit this week after a long, winding journey, with judges asking to hear more before ruling on a motion to dismiss.
During the presidential campaign, Brock openly boasted that Correct the Record was coordinating with the Clinton campaign, even though in most cases super-PACs are banned from coordinating with candidates.
In October 2016, a complaint was filed with the FEC by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group that is often associated with the Left. The initial FEC and DOJ complaint against Donald Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen for failing to disclose <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-indictment-is-vague-about-a-key-requirement-the-underlying-crime-that-would-make-it-a-felony" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hush money</a> to porn star Stormy Daniels was also brought by a former CLC lawyer, Paul S. Ryan, who contended that the hush money was for political purposes. At the time, Ryan was working for the liberal group Common Cause, which <a href="https://www.commoncause.org/media/president-trump-added-to-amended-doj-and-fec-complaints-related-to-stormy-daniels-hush-money-payment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that “Transparency in political spending is something Americans deserve and have come to expect since the Watergate scandal and the law is clear that it is not optional for federal candidates.”
Campaign Legal Center maintained a consistent view in the Clinton case, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/clc_192336_complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">telling</a> a federal appeals court that Brock’s coordinated pro-Clinton activities extended to rampant and wide-ranging help including “paying staff to produce and circulate memos to reporters ‘detailing Republicans’ stance on prescription drugs’ on the same day that Clinton announced her health care policy” and “paying staff to run a ‘30-person war room’ to defend Clinton during hearings before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.” Apparent coordination allowed for a good-cop, bad-cop dance, with Clinton’s campaign stating that she would not smear primary rivals, while Brock’s group did it for her.
Brock&#8217;s organization contended that it was allowed to coordinate by citing an exemption for unpaid, internet communications, as opposed to buying TV ads. But the FEC&#8217;s top lawyer found that “[Correct the Record] raised and spent approximately $9 million on a wide array of activities, most of which are not fairly characterized as ‘communications.’”
&#8220;The bulk of [Correct the Record]’s reported disbursements are for purposes that are not communication-specific,'&#8221; FEC staff wrote. And they were decidedly paid expenditures, staff wrote, recommending that the FEC take enforcement action. “The fact that [activities] were subsequently transmitted over the internet does not retroactively render the costs of [those activities] a ‘communication’ cost,” the agency&#8217;s general counsel concluded.
Democrat appointees to the FEC agreed. But ironically, Republican appointees blocked it. Republicans are often critical of campaign finance regulations, and they seemingly wanted to set a standard that would apply to both sides.
In August 2019, Campaign Legal Center filed a lawsuit in federal court in D.C. against the FEC for allegedly failing to enforce campaign finance law and causing voters to be deprived of information about the true state of the Clinton campaign&#8217;s finances. In still more twists, the FEC declined to defend its position in court, and the Hillary Clinton campaign and Correct the Record asked to intervene in the case and argue the defense themselves, even though they weren&#8217;t parties to it.
The D.C. judge noted that the case is extremely important because the defense rested on the idea that campaigns could coordinate with super PACs as long as the work eventually reached the internet&#8211;which would include virtually anything.
“Any expenditure could be exempted from regulation if it ultimately resulted in an unpaid internet communication,&#8221; the judge said, writing that it “creates a loophole that effectively vitiates the plain language of FECA.”
This interpretation was invalid &#8220;because it ignored clear evidence of coordinated expenditures between [the Clinton campaign] and [Correct the Record] even apart from those claimed to be exempt under the internet-communications regulation.”
Then the court dismissed the lawsuit anyway on technical grounds, saying the Campaign Legal Center didn&#8217;t have standing to sue.
The Campaign Legal Center appealed to the federal Court of Appeals for D.C., which found that CLC <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/clc_opinion_04-19-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">does have standing</a>. It said that because of the lack of disclosure, the public doesn&#8217;t know the financial extent to which Clinton coordinated with an outside entity, and &#8220;we find that Appellants have established a cognizable informational injury.&#8221;
This week, the Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/clc-uscoadc-per-curiam-order-04-10-2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">responded</a> to a motion to dismiss by the Democrat groups by referring it to a &#8220;merits panel&#8221; to be further argued.
Brock did not respond to a request for comment through his new group, Facts First USA.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Argues Against Campaign Finance Disclosure While Defending Against 2016 Violation

Alvin Bragg

David Brock

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has dismissed a complaint from Republican groups alleging that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/google" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Google</a> unfairly targeted GOP fundraising campaigns by marking emails as spam at a far higher rate than those sent by Democrats.
The FEC sent a letter to Google last week notifying the company that the government “found no reason to believe” the Republican allegations. The agency said any discrepancy between Republican and Democratic fundraising emails being marked as spam was inadvertent, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-didnt-show-bias-in-filtering-campaign-ad-pitches-fec-says-11673918655?mod=hp_lead_pos4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>.
“The Commission’s bipartisan decision to dismiss this complaint reaffirms that Gmail does not filter emails for political purposes,” Google spokesman José Castañeda told WSJ. “We’ll continue to invest in our Gmail industry-leading spam filters because, as the FEC notes, they’re important to protecting people’s inboxes from receiving unwanted, unsolicited, or dangerous messages.”
The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed an FEC complaint against Google in April. The GOP group cited a March 2022 <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.16743.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> by North Carolina State University’s Department of Computer Science researchers.
“The study’s findings are shocking,” the RNC <a href="https://prod-static.gop.com/media/documents/RNC_NRSC_NRCC_-_Complaint_Against_Google_04.26.22_1651002862.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaint</a> says. “All three services displayed some disparity, with Outlook marking Democrat emails as spam approximately 27% more than Republican emails, and Yahoo marking Democrat emails as spam approximately 14% more. In comparison, however, Google’s Gmail truly stands apart, as it marked Republican emails as spam at more than an 820% higher rate than it marked emails from Democrat candidates.”
“Moreover, Gmail’s disparity increased as Election Day neared, with the percentage of Republican candidate emails marked as spam going up, while the percentage of Democrat emails marked as spam stayed constant,” it continues. “The study also finds that Gmail continued to mark Republican emails as spam even after users opened and read similar messages. This means that Gmail effectively blocked users from receiving messages from Republican candidates, even after those users took actions indicating that they wanted to receive them.”
The FEC concluded that the disparity was not intentional; it happened as a result of Google’s spam filter that is meant to target malware, phishing scams, and other abusive or dangerous online behavior.
“Though the NCSU Study appears to demonstrate a disparate impact from Google’s spam filter, it explicitly states that its authors have ‘no reason to believe that there were deliberate attempts from these email services to create these biases to influence the voters,’” the FEC said in its letter to Google, according to WSJ.

Google Gmail

FEC Says Google’s Email Filter Did Not Intentionally Target GOP

Big Tech

Google

Republican National Committee (RNC)

Washington D.C.

No, former Vice President Mike Pence did not file to run for president in 2024.
His spokesman, Devin O&#8217;Malley, quickly snuffed out early buzz stemming from a Statement of Candidacy form <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P40010233/1673381" target="_blank" rel="noopener">submitted to the Federal Election Commission</a> in Pence&#8217;s name on Monday.
&#8220;Former Vice President Mike Pence did not file to run for President today,&#8221; O&#8217;Malley said in response to a reporter who tweeted Pence had entered the race.
The denial didn&#8217;t come fast enough, as some media outlets already went ahead and <a href="https://twitter.com/MSN/status/1607524344229695490">published stories</a> announcing Pence filed with the FEC.
&#8220;Someone filed a Pence filing. But it wasn’t Pence, his spokesman says, suggesting it was a prank,&#8221; tweeted New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Someone filed a Pence filing. But it wasn’t Pence, his spokesman says, suggesting it was a prank <a href="https://t.co/iGT4Ur4GS0">https://t.co/iGT4Ur4GS0</a>
&mdash; Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) <a href="https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1607507287886766085?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Despite what appears to have been a stunt, Pence said last month he is giving &#8220;<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/14/pence-2024-run-prayerful-consideration-00066877" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prayerful consideration</a>&#8221; to a 2024 presidential bid.
If he does enter the fray, Pence would be setting himself up for a clash against his old boss, former President Donald Trump, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-launches-third-bid-for-white-house" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared his third campaign</a> for the White House last month.
Prior to serving four years as vice president, a tenure which ended with what Pence said was Trump <a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-committee-hearing-trump-updates/card/pence-says-trump-reckless-on-jan-6-but-shouldn-t-face-charges-aXILaSHoKHwPYi6ICaob" target="_blank" rel="noopener">acting &#8220;reckless&#8221;</a> on the day of the Capitol riot, Pence served as governor of Indiana and a member of the House of Representatives.

Mike Pence

Pranked? Pence Spox Denies Former VP Filed For Presidential Campaign

Democrats spent more on pro-<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> candidates in Republican primaries than Trump himself directly ponied up to help his favored candidates get over the finish line, according to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daily Wire</a> analysis.
The findings, taken from Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, are a black mark for Democrats &#8212; who claim that Trump-esque candidates are threats to democracy, but helped them win primaries because they viewed them as easier to defeat in the general election compared to more moderate candidates.
But they also potentially reflect badly on the former president, who raised hundreds of millions of dollars but has steered little of it to fellow Republicans with only two weeks until the 2022 elections. Trump backers said money is just a small portion of the equation, and that Trump has helped candidates by hosting rallies aimed at energizing GOP voters. He also attends fundraisers for candidates, serving as a major draw to entice donors.
Trump raised huge sums as he vowed to challenge the results of the 2020 election, and as of the end of September – the most recent FEC report &#8212; <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00762591/1645837/">$92 million</a> was sitting in a political action committee called Save America PAC.
During the 2022 primaries, Trump-controlled PACs donated $315,000 to Republican candidates for federal office. At the state level, it also gave $2.8 million to <a href="https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/david-perdue-is-getting-another-2m-boost-ahead-of-may-primary/FGBFMCNJGBCTLNEBD6EZ2T2KIA/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Take Back Georgia</a> and $1.5 million to <a href="https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/04/14/television-ad-attacking-brian-kemp-makes-unsubstantiated-georgia-election-claim" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get Georgia Right PAC</a>, both of which attacked Republican governor and Trump nemesis Brian Kemp, who nonetheless won the Republican primary for governor against former Sen. David Purdue. After Purdue lost to Kemp, the Trump group sent $95,000 to an entity called Georgians PAC. But that PAC has not reported running any ads &#8212; or filed any quarterly report at all, drawing a <a href="https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/463/202208020300150463/202208020300150463.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rebuke</a> from the FEC.
For the general election, Trump-controlled PACs gave $150,000 to the Republican National Committee and $425,000 to federal candidates, as of the end of September, the latest report on record with the FEC. As a traditional political action committee, it is limited to donating $5,000 to candidates. It donated to 63 candidates in the primary election, and 85 in the general.
Getting around these restrictions merely required creating a “super PAC,” which could spend unlimited amounts supporting candidates on its own, and transferring Save America PAC funds to it. But it wasn&#8217;t until September 23, 2022 that such an entity was <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00825851/?tab=filings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">incorporated</a>. Called Make America Great Again Inc., it shares some staff with Save America PAC, but staff declined to say whether any of the $92 million has been transferred to it.
<table style="background: black;color: #ccc;width: 100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 30%">Democrats backing Trump-aligned candidates in Republican primaries</td>
<td style="width: 70%">
<div style="background: red;width: 44%">$44M</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 30%">Trump spending in primary</td>
<td style="width: 70%">
<div style="background: red;width: 5%">$5M</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 30%">Trump spending in general</td>
<td style="width: 70%">
<div style="background: red;width: 9%">$9M</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width: 30%">Trump war chest</td>
<td style="width: 70%">
<div style="background: red;width: 93%">$92M</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
When a super PAC spends money boosting candidates, it must report the expenditures to the FEC within 24 hours. But with just over two weeks before the November 8 election, it has reported spending $8.5 million total, in five Senate races. MAGA Inc. spent about $2.3 million in Ohio; $1.8 million in Arizona, $1.6 million in Pennsylvania, $1.5 million in Georgia; and $1.2 million in Nevada, according to FEC records.
The super-PAC is likely to continue to spend more in the coming days. But a problem with not creating a super PAC until so late in the cycle is that much of the TV ad time has already been bought, and buying election-eve ads at the last minute can require paying highly inflated prices, if it is possible at all. It also has no effect on early voters, and all of the Senate races it has bought ads in offer early or mail-in voting.
As control of the Senate hangs in the balance in a series of tight races, Save America PAC has spent heavily on fundraising and rallies. The PAC has also paid nearly a half million dollars in rent to Trump Tower, a quarter-million dollars to Trump Hotel Collection, and $52,000 to the Mar-A-Lago Club, according to FEC records.
Taylor Budowich, who runs MAGA Inc. and serves as a spokesman for Save America PAC, said the rallies Trump holds, which often include praising local candidates, are priceless. Trump is &#8220;introducing millions of new voters to his endorsed candidates and energizing voters who usually sit-out midterms. At this point, the entire Republican Party, from fundraising, to data, to get-out-the-vote, is on Donald Trump’s shoulders and together they will deliver massive GOP victories come November 8,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire.
Save America PAC said that at recent rallies, more than half of registrants were attending their first rally, and 38% of those who were registered to vote did not vote in the last midterms.
“These are people who are less likely to vote in 2022, if it wasn&#8217;t for President Trump, his endorsement, and his encouragement of attendees to vote in 2022,” it said.
Trump has also served as a draw at party fundraisers at least seven times this election cycle. He has done the same for other candidates, including 22 events for candidates who were navigating primaries, and 36 for candidates who were either incumbents or were in general election season.
Still, some moves by Trump have seemed to prioritize his own finances over those of Republicans who are headed into races that could determine whether Republicans control the Senate. When people donated online to a fundraiser that said &#8220;Your contribution will benefit Save America Joint Fundraising Committee and Blake Masters for Senate,&#8221; what donors didn&#8217;t see &#8212; unless they clicked the fine print &#8212; is that a $100 donation defaulted to <a href="https://secure.winred.com/save-america-joint-fundraising-committee/final-countdown-fund-7x-bm/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$99 for Trump and $1 for Masters</a>.
Katie Miller, a spokesman for the Masters campaign&#8211;which will have the list of donors and can solicit future donations from them, a valuable item for a campaign&#8211;said she wasn’t troubled by the arrangement and that the solicitation was only a small part of Trump’s contribution to the race.
“Blake is extremely grateful for all of President Trump’s support both financial and his energy and time spent campaigning in Arizona,” Miller said.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-453681" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/split4.png" alt="" width="465" height="512" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/10/split4.png 465w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/10/split4-272x300.png 272w" sizes=" (max-width: 465px) 100vw, 465px" /></div>
The outside spending could be especially welcomed because <a href="https://www.fec.gov/data/spending-bythenumbers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">all six</a> of the highest-spending candidates this cycle are Democrats, according to the FEC.
Other national kingmakers with massive war chests, however, have plunged more of it into the current election. The Senate Leadership Fund, which is controlled by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has spent $181 million on the 2022 general election, according to FEC independent expenditure data. Trump’s $8.5 million in federal independent expenditures is less than even obscure groups like the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund.
More surprisingly, the amount is far less than the $44 million that Democrats spent boosting Trump-aligned candidates in the primary election, according to <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries" target="_blank" rel="noopener">OpenSecrets.org</a>. For example, Illinois Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association spent $35 million successfully boosting Trump endorsee Darren Bailey against his more moderate Republican primary opponent &#8212; more than three times what the candidate himself spent. In Pennsylvania, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro spent $840,000 on TV ads successfully helping Trump endorsee Doug Mastriano get the nomination &#8212; more than Mastriano spent. In both cases, the reason is that the Democrats thought they could beat the Trump-aligned candidate more easily in the general election.
Of course, this put Democrats in the ethically dubious position of setting up candidates that they painted as extremist threats to democracy to actually win the election.
But Democrats’ calculation also signaled that polling suggested these candidates could have an uphill battle prevailing in the general election, making it all the more important for Trump’s primary support to turn into robust support to help them win the general elections.
FEC records do not show any expenditures from Trump-affiliated PACs to or on behalf of Bailey or Mastriano to help them beat their Democrat opponents. During the general election, Trump has appeared with Mastriano at one <a href="https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-09-28/mastriano-gets-a-boost-from-trump-to-end-a-difficult-campaign-day" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rally</a> and one <a href="https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2022-09-04/trump-returns-to-familiar-issues-and-teases-a-presidential-run-in-election-rally-in-wilkes-barre" target="_blank" rel="noopener">online event</a>. After endorsing Bailey in June, Trump has not joined him at any events, with Bailey appearing to <a href="https://www.wnns.com/2022/10/10/report-bailey-distancing-himself-from-trump/">calculate</a> that while the Trump connection was valuable in a primary, it could be a liability in a general election.

Former President Trump Holds Rally In Ohio Ahead Of State’s Primary

Democrats Spent More Backing Trump-esque Candidates In Primaries Than Trump Has

Blake Masters

Mitch McConnell

Readers Pass

U.S. Senate

A new report from Axios reveals that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) decided to allow foreign funding of ballot initiatives, a move some argue could give undue influence to foreigners on citizen-generated ballot campaigns. 
Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/fec-foreign-money-referendum-dcc92322-05ad-4093-8bb8-35446ef6c964.html">reported</a>, “The Federal Election Commission has ruled foreign donors can finance U.S. referendum campaigns, opening the door to foreign spending on fights over high-profile policy issues.”
The decision came on the heels of a controversial case in Montana over hard rock mining in 2018. During a citizen-generated effort to ban the process, proponents of the initiative argued that a Canadian company shouldn’t have been allowed to give money to opponents of the measure. The Canadian company was a subsidiary of Sandfire Resources, an Australian firm. 
In an email to Axios, David Brooks of Montana Trout Unlimited said that he found the ruling “surprising and scary.” 
&#8220;Are we, as U.S. citizens, really OK with letting foreign money go directly to state lawmaking via citizen initiative campaigns?&#8221; he reportedly said. 
In the 4-2 <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21096628-fec-ballot-measure-ruling">decision</a>, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) “dismisses the allegations that Sandfire and Sandfire NL violated” U.S. law “by making prohibited foreign national donations.”
While the Commission noted that foreign funding had been given to the opposition to the hard rock mining ban, it said that the ballot measure was not an election. 
“Under these circumstances and consistent with the relevant court and agency precedents construing the foreign national prohibition, the Commission declines to further pursue this matter,” the Commission explained. 
Three Republicans alongside Democrat and FEC Chair Shana Broussard voted to dismiss the allegations, arguing that the ballot initiative did not constitute an “election” under federal law. 
While foreign nationals are banned from giving to candidates and support committees, it appears that they can now donate to ballot initiatives. The Axios report raised the issue of whether foreign nationals would be able to contribute to certain types of ballot initiatives, specifically those dealing with congressional redistricting. 
&#8220;This FEC decision reflects a big loophole in the federal ban on foreign money in U.S. elections,&#8221; <a href="https://www.axios.com/fec-foreign-money-referendum-dcc92322-05ad-4093-8bb8-35446ef6c964.html">said</a> Brendan Fischer, the director of federal and FEC reforms at the Campaign Legal Center. 
Some states have chosen to prohibit foreign spending in their state-registered ballot measures, while others have declined.
Earlier this year, Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) vetoed a bill put forth by the legislature that prohibited foreign spending in elections after some were concerned about Canadian influence in state ballot measures. 
“Even more troubling is this bill’s potential impact on Maine voters,” Mills <a href="https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2021-06-24/mills-vetoes-bill-that-would-have-barred-donations-from-foreign-government-owned-entities-to-ballot-campaigns">said</a>. “Government is rarely justified in restricting the kind of information to which the citizenry should have access in the context of an election, and particularly a ballot initiative.”
Many were not happy with the governor’s decision. 
“We are disappointed that the governor has vetoed this important legislation to get foreign government money out of Maine politics,” Anna Kellar, of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said.
She continued,  “LD 194, which received overwhelming public and bipartisan lawmaker support at its public hearing, would close an important loophole in our laws by preventing foreign governments from spending in ballot question campaigns.”

Voters In California Head To Polls To Cast Ballots In State’s Primary Election

‘Surprising and Scary’: Federal Election Commission Allows Foreign Funding Of American Ballot Initiatives: Report

Menu