The Don Jones Index, 10/2/26

The DON JONES INDEX…
	GAINS POSTED in GREEN LOSSES POSTED in RED 10/16/26... 14,361.17 10/9/26... 14,395.47 10/2/26... 14,348.99 6/27/13... 15,000.00 Original
*(THE DOW* JONES INDEX: 10/16/26… 52,056.60; 10/9/26… 51,258.95; 6/27/13… 15,000.00)** ,

LESSON for FRIDAY, OCTOBER SIXTEENTH, 2026 – “SHOW US the MONEY !”

Yesterday, the Federal Elections Commision (FEC) released its Third Quarter accounting of campaign monies duly raised and spent in Federal contests (specifically the House and Senate)

New disclosures compiled by The Downballot show that “Democrats running in next month’s elections, along with independents campaigning with Democratic support, hauled in $499 million from July 1 through Sept. 30, more than two-and-a-half times as much as the $194 million their GOP rivals brought in” and even with their sizable spending advantage, Democrats still went into the final month of the race with “more cash available: $538 million to $392 million.”

That’s officially. Dark money (below) not record, compiled or known, still heavily favors the Republicans.

Today, the Washington Post (ATTACHMENT ONE) assessed the numbers and determined that while more Democratic donors raised more than individual Republican candidates and their Political Action Committees (PACs) “GOP megadonors have rushed in to fill the gap.”

The megadonors... call them MAGAdonors in that most have a long background financing President Trump in his first and second administrations as well as during the interval between.

Elon Musk, for example, gave $278 million between July and September to groups working to protect Republicans’ majorities in Congress, including $158 million in September to Senate Leadership Fund, a flagship Republican super PAC, according to newly filed campaign finance disclosures. Since the start of 2025, Musk has given $369 million to back Republicans, making him the biggest-ever individual donor to federal elections.

The bulk of the Muskmoney is going to Republicans in tight races in a few midterm races... candidates like Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton – who defeated Sen. John Cornyn in the primary but has trailed in polling against the Democratic nominee, state Rep. James Talarico. Polling results have “stoked anxiety” among Republicans that the party could lose a Senate seat in the deep-red state for the first time in decades, according to WashPosters Clara Ence Morse and Theodoric Meyer.

“A new super PAC, Texas PAC, started booking ads last month attacking Talarico, funded entirely by $158 million in funds from Senate Leadership Fund shortly after it received Musk’s contributions. Musk also gave $10 million in August to Lone Star Liberty PAC, another super PAC aiding Paxton.

Paxton’s own campaign raised $10 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 — a fraction of the $60 million that Talarico’s campaign brought in. But Texas PAC and other outside groups have given Paxton an advantage on the airwaves. “Republicans have spent about $120 million more than Democrats on advertising in the Texas Senate race since Labor Day, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm.

“A similar dynamic is playing out in other races,” the Postman and woman added.

Some of the biggest donkey moneymunchers they cited include Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) who raised $33 million in the third quarter of the year; his Republican challenger, Rep. Mike Collins, raised $2.8 million. Adam Hamilton, a Democrat challenging Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) in a state that has not elected a Democratic senator since 1932, raised $9.8 million. Marshall raised just $866,000. And Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) raised $2.7 million while his Democratic challenger, former congresswoman Mary Peltola, raised $16.5 million.

Banking on Musk, the Senate (Republican) Leadership Fund raised $272 million in the third quarter. Senate Majority PAC, its Democratic counterpart, raised $151 million.

See some of the most arresting (in diverse senses) contributions noted in ATTACHMENT “A” from the Federal Elections Commission.

Much of the Republican swag (and a lesser quantity of Democratic bequests) could be considered “dark money” – described below as contributions contributed clandestinely through cutouts and moneywashing entities.

Overall, the FEC reported that House Majority PAC, the lead Democratic super PAC in House races, and a darksider allied group that does not disclose its donors “said they had raised $514 million over the course of the cycle, including $230 million in the third quarter of this year,” according to Morse and Meyer. “Congressional Leadership Fund, the lead Republican super PAC in House races, and another allied nonprofit said they had raised $370 million over the cycle.”

Republican MAGAdonors who stepped out of the shadows to stand beside Musk included Timothy Mellon, a reclusive billionaire and heir to a banking fortune, @

Leading Democratic superdonors in the third quarter included “Fred Eychaner, an Illinois media executive who gave $7 million; LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who gave $5 million; and tech billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his fishy wife, Cari Tuna, who each gave $4 million.” The fabled, despised and ubiquitous George Soros preferred to cower in the cloakroom, but other sources reported and whispered of other adventures therein.

THE DONORS, the MEGADONORS and the MAGABONERS...

While the pollsters and the pundits are scrying the FEC financial findings, the public... those looking away from the kitchen table... are perhaps wondering who and why authorized all of those commercials where the President stalks down halls, scowling at America-hating Democrats while stonefaced Presidents on Mount Rushmore gawk and choirpeople warble songs of love and hate.

Money in politics has been long-contentious even before the Citizens United decision ramped up what the donor class called “freedom” and the proles called “corruption” but a new margin was undoubtedly reached when Donald Trump billed the taxpayers for his egomaniacal solicitations that an anonymous “White House spokesperson” told CNBC (September 27^th, ATTACHMENT TWO) were simply “public service announcements” intended to remind “Americans to love their country.”

Airing over national network television since the last week in September (especially on public infotainment show like “Face the Nation” and professionl and college football games) the tryptrich so far exposed includes highlighting heroic images of the President while he says, “America will never be a communist country” over music that repeats the words “love me”; another ad shows images of Trump at an event at Mt. Rushmore celebrating the country's 250th birthday in which he celebrates "only the beginning of the golden age of America" and the third, less inspirational than menacing, proclaiming: “This is the final battle” (against those Commonists, Dumbocrats, the media and... curiously, considering WarSec Pete’s present crusades... “warmongers from our government”.

“The (ads are) educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country,” the spokesperson said.

Predictable outrage has erupted from the Dumbocrats, but some Republicans – especially those facing midterm elections in divided and/or vulnerable states – sharing concerns with CNBC and the voters.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., also appeared to criticize the ads during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“I don’t think any public official, including President Trump or [former Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” Kennedy said. “The White House sees it differently.”

Subsequently, CNBC pointed out that Dumbocratic donors have, dumbly or not, redirected their campaign contributions from the Democratic National Committee to targeted individual races where they believe flips in red state states or districts can flip the House or even Senate.

The vile, reviled George Soros have stiffed the DNC this election cycle – “a reversal from 2022, when the two contributed more than $1 million to the committee, according to FEC filings reported in yet another CNBC takeaway: (ATTACHMENT THREE)

The DNC ended August with $16.9 million in cash and $17.6 million in debt, versus $125.6 million at the RNC and no debt, according to FEC filings (above) but... although insider donkeys told CNBC that some ass backwards donors after the Biden/Harris disaster, more stalwarts are bypassing the DNC to give handouts to select battlegrounds like Senatorial races in Georgia, Texas and Ohio where incumbent Jon Ossoff, challenger James Talarico and restoration-seeker Sherrod Brown rank as the top three individual political Midterm mendicants.

Overall, individual Senatorial candidates have doubled the pelf of Republicans and the Cook Report found Dumbocratic donations in the House favored 14 of the 17 most contested showdowns – leading the nonpartisan nonprofit trackers AdImpact to predict that the midterm spending will even top that of the 2026 Presidential election.

Republican money flowing to the RNC and an armada of established and upstart super PACs and other cutouts have maintained the two-to-one ‘Pub dominion... bolstered by cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and online gambling executives (aka the not-so-friendly online neighborhood bookies) bookkeeper Luke Fountain of CNBC calls the “new wave” in addition to old school “Wall Street financiers and industrial titans” as constitute “nine of the ten largest individual and family donors” in the network’s reckonings... CNBC’s overall top 20 groups being Republican-aligned, accounting for 86 cents of every dollar contributed.

“Seven of the 20 largest donors and donor groups in CNBC’s analysis have major ties to the crypto, AI or online gambling industries,” Fountain found, including venture capitalists Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and their firm Andreessen Horowitz ($91.3 midterm millions) followed by Republican family friends like the Winklevosses ($55M), Brockmans ($50M), Foris Dax ($38M) and, of course, King Elon Musk (who, just this week, pumped another $250M plus into the Republican organs),

By industry (such as it calls itself) Crypto vapormoneymongers include Ripple (not the old school cheap wine - $48M), Coinbase ($33M), and Fairshake (which at least slaps a few friendly asses with its wallet, this time ‘round); gambling houses DraftKings ($34M), and the Win for America gaming PAC. See more of the same, if at slightly lower money at (ATTACHMENT FOUR)

In toto, while Democrats are in Kansas and other red states with donors directing their money to candidates and outside groups races they care about most, Republicans simply gush and flow while some Dem donors are afraid of self-admitted Socialists like Mamdani, El-Sayed, AOC and the DoJ’s latest lefty poster girl Ilhan Omar. “The advantages that the Republicans have are enormous, and no amount of donor enthusiasm on our side is going to close that gap,” Matt Bennett of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way admitted to CNBC’s Fountain in his final takeaway (ATTACHMENT FIVE) but the donkeys can still pin their hopes, if not their tails, to the grandest elephant of all – President Trump – with hardly a day going by without some new toxic elephantine escapade assaulting the increasingly angry voters.

“Less than six weeks before Election Day, the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter shifted 15 House races toward Democrats and said the GOP was on track to lose its House majority. The race for control of the Senate is closer but has also moved toward Democrats: Cook now rates control a “true Toss Up,” with Democrats needing four seats.

Democrats “are starting to see this real opportunity in a bunch of these races,” said Caroline Welles, who leads The First Ask, a PAC supporting Democratic women, after working at the DNC from 2017 through 2022.

“Donors, just like voters, want to feel energized and enthused, and they’re getting that from the candidates this cycle rather than the major groups and the party apparatus,” she said.

Yahoo (Oct. 8, ATTACHMENT SIX) colluded with (or stole from) USA Today, News Nation and The Hill in plucking a few of the most expensive contests from the midterm hill o’beans... including Texas and Ohio, as above, but also Michigan (despite donkey dread of El-Sayed) where the angry Somalia socialist... alleged to be an anti-Semitic ally of anti-American Hasan Piker... holds a narrow polling edge over Mike Rogers for an open Senate seat.

“The Michigan race does not rank among the most expensive non-presidential races in the country, but the spending there is notable for another reason,” Yahoo compiler/thief Alex Caprariello maintains.

“Republican-aligned groups are spending more in Michigan than in any other state in the country, signaling that the party sees an opportunity to flip the Senate seat.”

While Republicans are outspending Democrats, El-Sayed has already defeated moderate Rep. Haley Stevens despite being outspent 8-1, so some (but not all) of the Dumbo donors are gritting their teeth and paying the piper (if not the Piker).

Lachrymose lamentations are emanating from some of the usual leftist critics of money in politics such as the iconic alarmists at Mother Jones who say, this time, that the Republican money machine “threaten(s) democracy like never before.”

What’s different now is that the quid pro quo of campaign money for preferential government treatment has become more brazen than ever before “and has become part of the cornucopia of corruption running through the Trump administration.”

Motherlings Russ Choma, David Corn and Garrison Hayes examine tactics old and new in the 2026 midterms... noting the “hundreds of millions from crypto and sports betting, industries that were barely on the political map in 2020.”

“There have always been a lot of people who believe that the government was corrupt,” says Choma, chomping at the bitcoiners. “But the problem is that now they’re right.”

Mother does see a light at the end of the tunnel of cash... so much money in the hands of so many clueless and irresponsible people may actually inspire resistance, as opposed to sleep sheepish compliance. Her three li’l piglets note that when perceptions of corruption collide with a sour economy, “apathy can curdle into anger.” Their poster dictator is Viktor Orbán, “voted out in Hungary after 16 years in power due to a combo of a poor economy and rampant corruption. Might such synergy be happening in the United States?”

See a transcript of their “Stress Test” podcast in (ATTACHMENT SEVEN) including musings over why POTUS and Veep Vance are having to go to places “where they shouldn’t have to be going. Oklahoma, for instance...” trying to stay the course as the war, the price at the grocers’ and pumps that are impacting usual conservative groups like farmers and truckers and a festival of fumbles as have whipped up “a possible gigantic blue tsunami heading right toward the White House,” including competitive Senate races in Iowa and Kansas, as well as Oklahoma as are causing money being pulled from lost cause states like North Carolina and “shoveling it into South Carolina” while the new AI, gambling and cryptoids are displacing old bogeymen like George Soros on the left and the Koch family on the right.

The “Stress Test” first name podcasters conclude that soon, finally... not after ’26, but maybe ’28... “there are always calls to end Citizens United and all of that. And maybe one day that will happen,” hopes Hayes. “But I do think you’re right, David (Corn), that we’re seeing a real frustration, a real anger, and people are starting to put those pieces together.”

A lesser left-wing journal, Fulcrum, waxed historical as historical Hugh Campbell dug back 250 years of American “Self-Interested Elite Supremacy”... the Revolution, Constitution and progress be damned.

“From the plantation economy and the Gilded Age to modern corporate lobbying,” Campbell writes, “wealth consolidation has consistently undermined democratic equality to favor the ruling class.” (October 11^th, ATTACHMENT EIGHT)

THE FOUNDING CONSENSUS AND PROPERTY RULE (1776–1860S)

The supremacy of the elites commenced at (and, frankly, from 1492 and 1620 even before America existed) but, by 1776, Campbell could assert that “(t)he framers of the U.S. Constitution, many of whom were large property owners and slaveholders, designed a republic with checks meant to dilute the popular majority's power. They restricted direct democracy in favor of institutions like the Electoral College and an appointed Senate.”

An antebellum Southern elite built immense wealth on the backs of enslaved labor and even after the Civil War, Campbell continues, this faction “dominated the federal government for decades, ensuring laws, judicial rulings (like the Dred Scott decision), and territorial expansion protected their human capital and economic hegemony.”

To be geographically fair, elite classes in the North also exploited labor – often building their empires on the backs of immigrants until...

THE GILDED AGE AND CORPORATE OLIGARCHY (1870S–1920S)

These industrial monopolists did, of course, increase greatly in number and wealth after the War Between the States – while the defeated Confederacy languished as a backwards agricultural province, “(r)apid expansion in the railroads, steel, and oil industries,” Campbell describes, allowed "robber barons" to amass unprecedented private fortunes. “These monopolies controlled markets and labor and routinely utilized state and federal troops to crush union strikes.”

Wealth was actively leveraged to influence elections and legislation. The era established a precedent of the judiciary striking down progressive labor laws and income taxes under the guise of "freedom of contract."

POWELL MEMO & CONSERVATIVE COUNTER REVOLUTION (1971-PESENT (sic)

Campbell, unfortunately, does not explain what the “Powell Memo” was or why it deserve such a prominent place in economic history... what he does bring back is a restructuring of the elites through “corporate-funded think tanks and policy-planning networks (e.g., the Business Roundtable and the Heritage Foundation) (as) laid the groundwork for decades of deregulation and privatization.”

Also developing – “a massive upward transfer of wealth. Tax cuts for corporations and high-income earners, coupled with stagnant working-class wages, have returned economic inequality to Gilded Age levels.” Facilitating the economic “progress” have been judicial and legislative “advancements” via corporate-funded lobbying that results in “a political economy in which elite self-interest often dictates both domestic legislation and foreign policy.”

Campbell, alternately, listed a few brief relief developments since the founding of the American nation; some of these being...

The New Deal & World War II (~1933–1945): where, facing the “existential threat” of the Great Depression, corporate elites were forced to accept the New Deal which began moving millions into a “robust middle class” politically nearer equality owing to the common struggle against Hitler,

The Civil Rights Movement & Great Society (~1950s–1960s): which brought “the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.”

As to the present and the future, Campbell opts for...

NEED FOR ELECTORAL REFORM TO PRECEDE KITCHEN-TABLE REFORM

Because the current political system is financed and shaped by a billionaire class, foundational democracy must be fixed first to prevent vested interests from co-opting or blocking everyday economic relief.

In today’s “second gilded age”, efforts to legislate "kitchen table" issues like higher wages, fairer taxes, and lower living costs will continually face gridlock until political reform is achieved.

In addition to a progressive outcome in the 2026 midterms and 2028 Presidential contest, Campbell posits an agenda that includes...

Killing off the Electoral College through Constitutional amendments supporting ranked-choice voting or a national popular vote...

Reversing gerrymandering via “independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions”... and

Removing money from politics via instituting “public financing systems” (and, though Campbell does not mention it, repealing Citizens United).

A conservative backlash to the proposed liberalization of America has been proposed by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which decries the “myth” that money in politics is bad. Many activist researchers retain their obsession with the “dark money” demon. “Almost on cue, articles and research are published that aim to uncover vast alleged conspiracies among very wealthy political benefactors and nonprofit groups and politicians who espouse free-market beliefs.”

The latest investigation (well, an investigation... dating back eight years) was found in the Guardian, which Elon Musk has labeled the “most insufferable newspaper on planet Earth.” It is written by academic researchers from Columbia and Harvard and is intended to uncover the “big money” scandal between the Koch brothers and the group Americans For Prosperity. (ATTACHMENT NINE)

Adding a touch of irony, the research is funded by the Ford Foundation, a left-leaning group with a $12 billion war chest and a frequent flyer status in the modern political debate arena.

POLITICS TODAY

“In today’s political cycle, the billionaire Koch brothers, philanthropists who believe in free market ideas, have put serious money into defeating the ideas of the Trump Administration, particularly when it comes to trade tariffs and immigration restrictions.

“The fact is that if the Koch brothers’ money had the influence on politics that their detractors claim, Donald Trump wouldn’t be president in 2018. Mitt Romney would.”

Of course, say the FEE marketers, “money in politics is something that is far from ideal. Unless, of course, it comes from people like Tom Steyer, the billionaire who has spent a small fortune trying to impeach President Trump, or comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to re-elect Senate Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. He also threw $1 million toward the re-election campaign of Barack Obama in 2012.”

Bob Bauer, a “former senior government lawyer”, offered up his campaign finance reform proposal (Oct. 7. ATTACHMENT TEN) after a horrible history of failed corporation electioneering reform as relates to political spending by federal contractors where weak restrictions operate against a background fact: the corruption risks that moved Congress in 1940 have not receded despite the 1939 Hatch Act and its revisions in 1940.

AI having changed the playing field, the FEC has, in the past, construed the corporate restriction as narrowly as possible. In one such case, it concluded that the parent company of two LLC contractors was “a separate and distinct legal entity” able to contribute to candidates and parties without regard to the prohibition.

Moreover, AI executives may give personally, as may their spouses and family members; all employees may also make political contributions. They may also contribute in unlimited amounts to super PACs, and to support tax-exempt entities seeking to influence elections with “issue advertising” designed to influence voter choice.

These weak restrictions operate against a background fact: the corruption risks that moved Congress in 1940 have not receded. In fact, the problem is vastly more acute.

“With the advent of the unitary executive, and the experience now unfolding with the overlap of presidential control, weaponization and politicization, it would seem that the dangers of federal contractor politicking have risen to an entirely new level,” as this week’s DoJ investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mn) spotlights.

Playing the numbers, Bauer contends regulatory reliance on private industry will only continue to grow. President Trump refers to AI as “technology that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution,” and those who run the leading tech companies as “the biggest people in the world.”

Analysis of Bauer’s proposal from Election Law Blog (October 9, ATTACHMENT ELEVEN) last week contended that companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic “have effectively limitless resources that they can channel in various ways, including through super PACs and unregulated “dark money” vehicles, to win elections.”

A number of them are now doing so, “and this spending, and the companies and executives engaged in it, can be expected to steadily increase as the policy and political conflicts over AI intensify.”

Analyst Rick Hasan now contends that “(m)uch of campaign finance law that might once have constrained corporate electioneering has eroded to the point of uselessness,” leaving Americans confronting “something of a perfect storm: a major policy commitment—the insulation of government contracting from political money—undermined by a law shot through with loopholes, the rise of the politicizing unitary executive, and a tech industry commanding trillions in the quest for political influence.”

Citing numerous legal precedents, Hasan asks that, “at a minimum, the Congress could fashion special transparency requirements that would provide more visibility than at present into the AI interests behind much of this spending.”

The problem, CBS made public – also on October 7^th (ATTACHMENT TWELVE) is that the nation's campaign finance regulators can't enforce the law.

After Reps. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, and Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, had a request for the Federal Election Commission back in July: “help make sure artificial intelligence chatbots do not feed voters false information about the 2026 midterm elections”... were informed by FEC Commissioner Shana Broussard that, with only two of its six commissioner seats filled, the FEC "cannot proceed," she wrote.

The Federal Election Commission began to unravel as Mr. Trump returned to the White House. Sean Cooksey, a Republican commissioner, resigned in January 2025 to join the White House as a top lawyer for Vice President JD Vance.

Weeks later, Mr. Trump removed Democratic FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, who had served on the commission since 2002 and claimed the firing was illegal. Mr. Trump has asserted sweeping power to remove officials at independent agencies like the FEC, which Congress set up to operate at arm's length from the White House.

By the end of April, Republican Commissioner Allen Dickerson had resigned, leaving the FEC one member short of a quorum. And in October of last year, Republican Trey Trainor stepped down too, leaving only two commissioners, both Democrats. For the first time since it was created in 1974 after the Watergate scandal, the FEC had no members from one of the two major parties.

Lawler and Gottheimer were not alone: the FEC's two remaining commissioners gave similar answers to a number of other lawmakers who asked it to investigate or issue guidance this year, the documents show.

One was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, who asked the FEC in April whether she could use campaign funds to pay for childcare while she voted and attended committee hearings. The Capitol's daycare center only allows parents to pay for full-time care, she said.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group that seeks to strengthen campaign finance enforcement. Last month, it filed a complaint alleging President Trump illegally controls MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC that supports Republican candidates.

The complaint cited Mr. Trump's remarks in September from the Oval Office that MAGA Inc.'s war chest is "my money that I control." And, this week, the president said MAGA Inc. funds would begin to pay for Trump-focused TV ads that his administration has been running, after public scrutiny over them being funded by taxpayers.

Unlike candidates, super PACs like MAGA Inc. can raise unlimited sums from donors, but federal law bars officeholders from controlling them or directing how that money is spent.

"It is very disconcerting that the FEC is incapable of carrying out any enforcement actions," said Paul Kamenar, a lawyer at the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit. Earlier this year, the group accused Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, of illegally using campaign money to pay a psychiatrist. That complaint is also stalled.

Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat wrote to the FEC this year to see if it would consider guidance on whether trading on prediction markets like Kalshi by candidates and PACs could count as a contribution or expenditure that must be reported under campaign finance law, Broussard replied that the FEC "is currently unable to commence rulemakings or to issue advisory opinions."

Thompson said in a statement to CBS News that such markets "can be easily manipulated by wealthy special interests" and that Congress and the FEC "should be tackling this emerging issue now."

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, was sent a similar answer.

“The lack of a quorum is colliding with the most expensive election on record,”

Political ad spending is projected to reach $11.6 billion this cycle, up by $400 million from 2024 even though that cycle included an expensive presidential contest, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Much of it is hard to trace. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been routed through political groups that do not disclose their donors, including pop-up super PACs that form and spend late in races, CBS News has reported.

Candidates and their allies are still filing FEC complaints against each other, even though the agency cannot act on them.

ELB’s Rick Hasen quoted Craig Holman, Public Citizen's lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance rules who charged that, since we've got no one that can judge the merits of what's going on, enforce the law and provide guidance to candidates and political committees that seriously want it, “everyone knows you can do whatever you want this time around."

Conservatives were divided over campaign spending contentions.

Breitbart, back in July, celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Republican Senate Committee v. Federal Elections Commission which struck down rules that prevented political parties from coordinating their candidates’ spending directly. “Now, political parties will become a more attractive way for donors to give money to a preferred candidate since the party can help steer how the money is spent.” (ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN)

Breitboy Peter Schweizer defended the ruling in that Super PACs accept a lot of dark money, whose donors are not required to disclose their contributions. “Since the Citizens United ruling in 2010, PACs and Super PACs have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their candidates. They tend to be sharply ideological and focused on one main political issue.

Parties, on the other hand, “tend to support candidates with more broad appeal. The Court’s ruling means parties can directly fund expenses for their chosen candidates in a way that PACs cannot. Donors who contribute to parties, instead of PACs, can see that money put to direct use for their chosen candidate” instead of being deployed for purposes or unknown or just go into the pockets of the PACsters.

Schweizer says that Democrats are the worst of the dark money desperadoes... citing NY Mayor Zorro, the Squad and others endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. “The DSA is not officially a political party. They are, essentially, a faction within the Democratic Party,” Schweizer said, “a 501(c)(4), not a political party.”

“Big-spending billionaires” such as George Soros spend a lot of money to put their thumbs down on the scale. “He’s largely credited with the rise of the socialist candidates that you’re seeing across the country, but when a voter casts a ballot, they only see the political party next to the candidate’s name,” Schweizer says. “You don’t see who their top donors are, or which Super PACs they received money from.”

With those forces pushing the Democratic Party further left, the court’s decision to allow political parties to coordinate “seems more honest,” Schweizer adds. “I know that’s a weird thing to say...” but, until the ruling, the dark, undisclosed money has been driving more extreme candidates. And it is growing.

“The New York Times found that in 2024, there was one $1.9 billion dollars in dark money that went into the election cycle,” Schweizer said. “Nobody knows who spent it. That is nearly double the previous record of $1 billion in 2020. So, it is trending in that direction.”

The Moonie-sponsored Washington Times (October 7, ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN) reported on the old-line rightists at Club for Growth petitioning the FCC to ease or eliminate regulations on political robocalls (including those “influenced” by AI) before the election.

“Outdated rules create litigation risks hindering the Club and its affiliates from utilizing emerging AI-powered calling capabilities,” said the Club.

David McIntosh, the organization’s president, said that these are not robocalls.

“Our petition asks the FCC to treat First Amendment protected political speech the same way it already treats wireless calls about package deliveries, bank accounts, and doctor’s appointments,” he said in a statement. “We think the Constitution protects a conversation with a voter at least as highly as a delivery update.”

“By removing outdated rules that stifle speech and innovation, AI companies and calling parties will be able to develop and deploy beneficial AI technologies supporting America’s growing AI community and securing Americans’ First Amendment speech rights,” said the Club.

If approved, voters could begin receiving unsolicited robocalls from political campaigns and other political players.

Club and candidates, however, might want to pause their robocalling deluge – which might... nay, will... result in a backlash against the mysterious darkseid donors.

Open Secrets (Wednesday, ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN) reported on a new survey by the University of Maryland... as queried nearly 20,000 americans in 11 11 competitive states and 28 competitive house districts, asking questions on a range of political reforms, all based on proposed legislation.

Respondents were asked if they were in favor of “passing a new Constitutional amendment to allow Congress to restrict corporate and PAC spending on elections, effectively overturning Citizens United.” Bipartisan majorities in those competitive jurisdictions heavily favored such an amendment, with (Democrats’ “yes” responses ranging from 80% to 93%, Republican falling between 73% and 89%. Nationally, the survey found that more than 8 in 10 are in favor (Democrats 85%, Republicans 82%).

In September 2025, four Democratic lawmakers introduced the Citizens Over Corporations Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. The resolution has not yet received a vote in the House or the Senate. Twenty-five states have passed a resolution calling on Congress to put forth a constitutional amendment, according to the nonprofit group American Promise.

“The PPC survey also found that a bipartisan majority favors banning individual stock trading by members of Congress, the president, the vice president and Supreme Court justices. The largest majorities favored banning members of Congress from trading – 65% to 94% among Democrats in the surveyed districts and states...”

Other survey queries including trading by the White House and Supreme Court were broken down by party leanings.

The Reader’s Digest also posted the obituary for the Stop Insider Trading Act, which failed a procedural vote in the Senate on September 30th, going down 53-47 on a procedural vote that required 60 Senators to say yes in order to advance to a final vote. “The legislation would have prevented lawmakers from buying new stocks in publicly traded companies, but allowed them to keep existing stocks and continue to buy private stocks. Democrats who voted against the bill argued it did not go far enough to address corruption,” so instead of the reformers getting something, they got nothing (except, perhaps, more midterm ammunition to train on Republicans).

Trust in U.S. political institutions “remains near an all-time low,” the PPC maintained.

Columbus Day brought to the nation which... sort of... discovered and drank a half-full glass of whoop-ass as U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads as an illegal misuse of funds.

She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order which the President said he would honor – provided that no provision for returning monies already spent on the commercials.

"We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda," the plaintiffs said in a statement issued by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that represents them. "There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda."

In a court declaration Saturday, senior DHS official Holly Mehringer wrote that the money came from funds appropriated by Congress that are "available for, among other things, 'commemorating efforts and events related to border security.'"

A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.

According to an Issue One analysis of newly filed campaign finance reports (July 22, ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN), the four main super PACs focused on helping Democrats and Republicans win House and Senate elections raised a combined $197.7 million from their affiliated dark money groups between January 2025 and June 2026 (per Attachment “A”),

“The Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund (SLF PAC) and Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), plus the Democrat-aligned Senate Majority PAC (SMP) and House Majority PAC (HMP), have raised $714.6 million combined.

“Their four affiliated dark money groups – respectively known as One Nation, the American Action Network, Majority Forward, and House Majority Forward — account for more than $1 of every $4 these four super PACs have raised... (t)he two Republican-aligned super PACs account for 58% of the total receipts and 58% of the money raised from affiliated dark money groups, while the two Democrat-aligned super PACs account for 42% of the total receipts and 42% of the receipts from affiliated dark money groups.”

Issue One is touted as a “crosspartisan” political reform group. Its Director of Money in Politics Reform Michael Beckel issued the following statement:

“By law, super PACs are supposed to be political groups that disclose their donors. But the sad reality today is that both Republicans and Democrats are pumping huge amounts of money into opaque groups, leaving voters in the dark about which ultra-wealthy megadonors and special interests are trying to buy access and influence through large political contributions.”

Highlighting more examples from the second quarter FEC reporting, the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund each raised more than twice as much money from dark money donors than they did during the first quarter. The Democrat-aligned Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC saw more modest increases in dark money funding but still raised more money than did the Republodarkies.

See their charts and graphs here.

State by state, media attention has focused on the Demodarkie PACs in Texas, Georgia, Ohio, some of the more mixed messengers in Michigan, Minnesota and California... where KCRA assessed not only the candidates but ballot propositions like Four... which “would overturn current law, allowing state and local governments to be able to create public financing programs for campaigns (a long-desired dream of Communists and commonists)” which, said Jenny Farrell with the League of Women Voters, “would give candidates without wealthy donor networks another way to compete.

"Public financing really allows qualified candidates from all walks of life to compete and win," Farrell said.

Lashing back, David Kline, with the California Taxpayers Association, called Prop. Four “a misuse of tax dollars — pure and simple. It doesn’t remove any special interest funding. It just augments it with your money and my money," Kline said.

"Do you want your tax dollars going to things that actually benefit taxpayers, like schools, parks, libraries, police? Or do you want the government to spend your tax dollars on campaign hit pieces and mailers that clog up your mailbox right before the election?"

Mary Gomes from California Voices and Cal Matters (October 9^th, ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN) defended the measure as “a crucial step in the right direction, allowing Californians the freedom to create systems of public financing of elections,” as opposed to mandating an out-of-the-box dictate. “It simply allows the state and local governments to decide if they wish to do so, and sets general guidelines. Our decisionmakers, with public support, would determine spending limits, eligibility criteria and the form of the matching funds system.”

A proponent and defender of Tom Steyer in his failed primary run for CalGov despite reservations against billionaires in politics, Gomes contended that his personal wealth, ironically, liberated Steyer from “the shackles of external funding. The fact that Steyer received as many votes as he did, despite voters’ mistrust of the ultra-rich, is evidence of the powerful appeal of his progressive messages, including a strong stance on protecting the climate and support for California’s proposed wealth tax, Proposition 40.” In contrast, the evil Becerra’s centrist, gas guzzler policies “were in line with the contributions he received from the fossil fuel industry and other large companies.”

Steyer to the contrary, Gomes added that “as a psychology professor,” she was been fascinated by the research of Dr. Paul Piff of UC Irvine (probably unrelated to the loose-jointed cartoon Wiffle Piffle) who has demonstrated that upper-class individuals are “more prone to entitlement and narcissism and less inclined toward empathy, compassion and generosity than people from middle- and lower-classes.

“They are also more likely to display notable ethical lapses, such as taking goods intended for others, cheating to win a prize, breaking traffic rules (hello Justin Bieber, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Khloé Kardashian and… now… Tony Romo) or endorsing unethical workplace behavior,” as demonstrated by... of course... the Epstein files.

Leaving California, the Oakland Press (that is, the Oakland in Michigan (not California) – October 10, ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN) assessed the Motor State’s Prop. Two (which prohibits “direct or indirect contributions to Michigan politicians by DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and companies with more than $250,000 in state government contracts, along with immediate family members and other people with close connections.”

“If you are an out-of-state corporation that has that contract with the state of Michigan, then no, you can’t give,” said Christy McGillivray, co-chair of Michiganders for Money Out of Politics.

The proposal would not directly prohibit dark money spending through 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, but does seek to end the “dark” nature of some of that spending by shining a light on donors. Instead, “it would require groups to disclose their donors if they run so-called issue s within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary.

“That means any outside group that makes even tangential reference to a candidate or ballot issue in an ad — even if they don’t explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against” — would have to report donors and expenses to the state.”

At least 11 other states require donor transparency for issue ads that have evaded disclosure rules in other parts of the country, but Michigan would be the first “political battleground” to do so.

Author Jordyn Hermani from Bridge Michigan, assessing both sides, interviewed opponents who contend the law would not stop political spending by out-of-state groups, dark money nonprofits and a major source of political giving in Michigan: unions.

“Mop Up Michigan’s approach won’t eliminate money in politics — it will simply shift influence away from Michigan companies and toward wealthy national donors and special interests,” said Katie Carey, a spokesperson for both CMS Energy and Consumers Energy.

“This egregious proposal appears to silence the voices of job providers and limit free speech for some while giving others, like labor unions, a free pass,” the Michigan Chamber of Commerce previously said.

The word “union” is not included in the petition language, and Mop Up Michigan’s website states that “unions and individual union members will not be impacted by the policy changes in the petition.”

Article author Jordyn Hermani of Bridge Michigan pulled data from Second Quarter financial reports filed with the state that showed a PAC associated with the United Auto Workers — Michigan’s largest union — spent nearly $800,000 between April 21 and July 20, 2026.

“Republicans are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising in battleground Senate races as they scramble to defend increasingly competitive GOP seats in the final stretch of the midterms, reported KQTV in low-population deep-red Montana (yesterday – ATTACHMENT NINETEEN). “But when it comes to how far they can stretch a dollar, they’re effectively paying premium prices at Whole Foods while Democrats are shopping deals at Costco.”

PAC MAN and ROBBIN’

At this stage in the game, Republicans are spending more to get less, which means the “shock and awe” of their massive dollar advantage isn’t necessarily translating to an actual impact on the ground, according to veteran Republican strategist John Thomas.

KQTV (with an assist from Republican nemesis GNN) and Thomas (no relation to compromising and compromised Moonie minion Cal Thomas, below) cited the concept of gross rating points, or GRPs, a “better metric” unit advertisers use to measure the reach and frequency of an ad campaign, independent of how much was paid for it.

In nine key races – where outside groups accounted for about 9 in 10 Republican ad dollars, compared to about half for Democrats – Democrats paid $201 per GRP, while Republicans paid about $274.

“In North Carolina, for example, Republicans outspent Democrats by about $17 million to $14 million on TV ads in September, as former Gov. Roy Cooper poses a major threat to former RNC Chair Michael Whatley and the GOP chances of holding Sen. Thom Tillis’ seat. But Democrats got more than 71,000 GRPs from their spend while Republicans got about 58,000. And at the beginning of October – recognizing the costly, difficult road ahead for Whatley – Republicans actually began cutting their remaining ad bookings by about $15 million.

“Democrats were also outspent last month by Republicans in Maine by about 32%, another premier battleground race where former state Sen. Troy Jackson is looking to unseat veteran GOP incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, who has received major backing from national Republicans. But here, again, despite being outspent,” John Thomas detected, Democrats “got 6% more GRPs for their money.”

In seven of the top nine Senate races by total TV and radio ad spending in September, Democrats paid less per GRP than Republicans – the only exceptions being the cold case state of Alaska and New Hampshire where Republicans, confident in their nominees, “were able to secure comparable or better rates in both states’ key markets.”

Outlays would be wore for Republicans but for a “convenient” interpretation of election laws by a recent Supreme Court ruling, for the first time this year, wherein national party committees can take advantage of candidate ad rates through “coordinated buys” as combine monies from PACs and individual campaigns; earning the PACs the same lower advertising rates as local candidates like, for example, “Mike Rogers in Michigan or Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio – (footing) the bill for pricey ad campaigns while getting candidate discounts.”

STATES of CONFUSION

The New York Times (ATTACHMENT TWENTY) allowed as how there were plenty of tight (and expensive) races on the Midterms ballot, but there isn’t a more expensive one than the Senate showdown in Texas where insurgent Talarico now holds a slight lead over troubled Republican Ken Paxton but, as veteran political reporter Robert Draper contends, Texas is where idealistic Democrats go to be mugged by reality,”

Talarico is putting his faith in faith, family and football in his town hall meetings – where he says “I’m a proud Texas Democrat, but I already have a religion and I already have a sports team,” he said, “so I have problem sharing hard truths with my party if it’s what’s best for Texas.”

Paxton and his supporters are painting Talarico as as a “weird” radical who believes that “God is nonbinary”, that there are more than two biological sexes and is probably queer himself and that he spent nine days at a at a mental health facility in Ohio, a state Talarico said he had never visited – an accusation that the Times called false.

Paxton also has his baggage – a deal to drop charges of felony fraud charges in exchange for paying restitution and performing community service. The Texas House impeached him in 2023; (t)he State Senate acquitted him and last year, his wife, Angela Paxton, a state senator, filed for divorce on “biblical grounds,” after his impeachment trial revealed that he’d used burner phones, a shared Uber account and secret email address to conduct an affair.

The Times also called Trump’s endorsement “strangely backhanded”; POTUS saying his favored candidate “may not dress right, (h)e may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I’ve ever seen. But you know what he is? He’s the greatest attorney general in America.”

“It’s never great when the two people most crucial to your political survival struggle to simply say nice things about you,” the Times quoted another political pundit, Jess Bidgood.

“It’s worse when one of those people is the President, and the other is your estranged wife.”

(The Times also noted that said President, campaigning in Arizona, said that government “leakers should be shot.” But Trump has also reversed course on livestreaming... but not pardoning... the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal because he did not know that the killer was in a wheelchair – making for bad optics.)

Behind moneyleader Texas, the U.S. News (October 7^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE) included Michigan in its roundup of the hottest state races – with the Detroit News reporting that “independent groups” have spent more than $35 million on ads for Mike Rogers, the Republican Senatorial candidate... the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spending $30.6 million to defeat the allegedly anti-Semitic Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate, whose supporters had spent $16.5 million in the same period.

Nationwide, the New York Times found that Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz – founders of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz – gave $115.3 million to Republican super PACs focused on cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence while Elon Musk, the world's richest man, gave $90.5 million to Republican super PACs (and has donated nearly $300M more since over the past week.

On the Democratic side, father and son George and Alex Soros, “philanthropists known for large contributions to the Democratic Party”, gave $103.7 million to Democratic super PACs and left-leaning groups.

Other “toss-up” states cited by U.S. News include Texas which, in early reporting on Third Quarter FEC findings, has seen nearly $259 million in ad spending through September – the most of any Senate race this cycle.

Roughly $92 million was spent on ads for Republican Sen. John Cornyn's primary campaign, including $22 million in the runoff against Ken Paxton. But for Cornyn, money wasn't enough to secure the win.

Democrat James Talarico will take on Paxton in the general election. Talarico has outraised Paxton since the general election campaign began. However, statewide support for Talarico’s campaign has spooked the GOP, leading Republicans to spend roughly $122 million in September on Paxton's campaign.

The Ohio Senate race is also drawing lots of money. “Fairshake, a super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry, announced plans to spend nearly $30 million against Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown,” who is facing Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who unseated Brown in 2022.

“I think that's a shift in the way crypto has been spending previously, not just to fund candidates to support them,” said Jeanne Hanna, vice president for research at the Center for Political Accountability. “But to attack candidates that oppose them or don't support them enthusiastically enough.”

Money matters but is not always determinative, according to Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center. “A competitive candidate is likely to have substantial financial backing, but money alone is not enough to win,” as Cornyn discovered.

HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?

The WashPost’s take on the “extraordinary amount of money pouring into the midterm elections” (October 7, ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO) warns the donors, the donkeys and the ‘Pubs that all the spending “can even backfire amid voters’ discontent with the economy and their government,” Postie Amber Phillips opined after interviewing Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, who said that voters are “seething”... seeing big money as a major issue, “deeply connected to government’s failure to work for them.”

Some candidates have become cautious about the money being thrown around in their races. “The pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee is spending a lot of money in this cycle, particularly against progressive Democrats — but as its influence and popularity wane, even a Republican Senate candidate in Michigan, Mike Rogers, has asked AIPAC not to spend money on his race. His Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, won his primary after making AIPAC’s spending for his opponent a big deal.”

Half a billion dollars Republicans have poured into races over the past few weeks doesn’t seem to be helping them much, reported The Washington Post’s Isaac Arnsdorf. “It hasn’t moved the polls in Republicans’ favor; in some cases, some Democratic Senate candidates are more popular after all that spending.”

In Texas, as above, Republicans’ spending on Senate candidate Ken Paxton rivals that of a presidential campaign spending in the state; generating confidence that “with enough money, Paxton, who has survived a series of scandals during his political career, will win.”

Talarico, the Democrat, called Paxton’s money “the rot at the core of this broken system... (i)t’s why we can’t afford anything. It’s why we can’t get ahead no matter how hard we work.”

“For 50 years, billionaire megadonors have been buying politicians like Ken Paxton. And then those politicians turn around and rig the rules of the economy in favor of those billionaires at our expense.”

In addition to rigging elections, some of the dark money fueling the more negative advertisement is gagging the voters.

Georgia’s ass candidate for Governor, Keisha Lance-Bottoms hit bottom with her implications that Republican Rick Jackson consorts with pedophiles while Jackson, in return, has been saturating the airwaves with accusations that Bottoms is responsible for the murder of 8 year old Secoriea Turner by “armed vigilantes” at a Wendy’s in Atlanta after the George Floyd murders. (Attorney Mawuli Mel Davis of Davis Bozeman Law said that the Turner family was outraged by the ads, calling the use of her image "pure evil."

In the Ohio governor’s race, wealthy businessman and Trump 2024 adversary turned ‘26 ally Vivek Ramaswamy has spent millions “trying to cast Democrat Amy Acton as a drunk.” (She disputes that and has called him a “con man.”)

And in Wisconsin, “unpopular” Elon Musk spent $13 million on a Wisconsin Supreme Court election. It became a major issue in a normally quiet election, and his candidate lost while Montana, a pro-Trump state, will decide whether to become the first state in the nation to ban corporations from spending on elections.

NPR's Steve Inskeep asked Jessica Taylor with the Cook Political Report “how Republican groups are shifting spending amid unfavorable polling for their party ahead of the midterms” when hosting an October 8^th sit-down and specified “43 House races that are competitive” according to the Cookie.

After an agreement that Democrats would flip the house with between a 5 to 15 seat majority, Inskeep asked if it was really possible that Democrats could win in Senate races in places like Texas, Iowa and Kansas? (October 8^th, ATTACHMENT 23TWENTY THREE)

“You know,” Taylor replied, “those states are states that Trump carried by 13 and 14 points. But when we look back at 2006, which a lot of sources I talked to say this feels like, you (again) have an unpopular war in the Middle East. You have an unpopular president. You have rising prices. It's almost a perfect storm...” she pointed out; a perfect storm of polarization.

Republicans also worry that, due to the war, the economy and the rest, “enthusiasm among their base voters are so low, while we see higher Democratic enthusiasm that's further tilting the playing field toward Democrats.”

The MAGA mob is further risking their majorities by nominating unpopular, strange or criminal candidates... Kansas incumbent Roger Marshall is an OB-GYN suing patients for unpaid debts. “I think in this economy, people are feeling so strapped, and I think that's a story that's really resonating and has hit him hard,” whereas Reverend Adam Hamilton is a pastor of the largest Methodist church in the country who comes across as a moderate.”

Taylor also said that, in Texas, they’re having to try to rescue “a really weak candidate” (Paxton) – “they're spending multiple times what the candidate has to spend, so their money doesn't go as far when super PACs are spending it.”

As Elon Musk announced Wednesday night that Space X would be yanking Starlink and Starshield anti-missile technology helping Trump help the Russians in their bid to conquer and enslave Ukraine, following his $258M gift to the ‘Pubs. (Wired: ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR) tracked his America PAC which has spent most of its money financing campaign efforts attacking Democrats, WIRED’s review shows. For every dollar spent supporting a Republican candidate, more than two went to opposing a Democrat, as of October 6. In Senate races, it was three.

“For the Senate race in Texas, where Musk lives and where his companies Tesla and SpaceX are based, the group has spent more than $9.4 million on ads opposing Democratic candidate James Talarico and $1.8 million backing Republican candidate and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. In part due to a litany of past scandals, including a federal investigation into alleged misuse of office, which the Department of Justice closed without any charges brought against him, Paxton has trailed Talarico in every public poll since the middle of August. The most recent poll of registered voters by Marist University places Talarico 6 points ahead.”

In Iowa, “the PAC has spent 14 times more money attacking Democrat Josh Turek than it has backing Republican Ashley Hinson,” but, in Ohio, only “double the amount attacking former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown as defending the record of incumbent Jon Husted.”

And in Wisconsin, the $13M that Musk spent on the Supreme Court race (that the GOP lost), plus $27M more on petition incentives... where they paid signers $100... officials alleged that felon Elon’s payouts had violated election bribery laws, but prosecutors ultimately declined to bring charges.

Why? Corruption begets!

None other than Reader’s Digest (“A Trusted Friend in a Complicated World”) says “Money in politics is out of control, and it all has to do with a particular Supreme Court ruling,” that being, of course, Citizens United, but also abetted by legislative and judicial backup, before and after.

Counting the South African/Canadian import’s latest round of moneygiving this week, the now-restored trillionaire has directed a personally piddlin’ $276 million to both his personal super political action committee (PAC) and Republican groups in some of the most contested states “in a bid to stave off what is expected to be major losses for the party this fall.” (Wednesday, ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE)

Digester Elizabeth Yuko polled three “politics and election-law experts... all Doctors (though probably unable to cure your hangnail) Jen Heerwig, PhD, Donald Tobin, JD, and Alex Keena, PhD, to make sense of this consequential (and controversial) court case.

The driving force behind the money landslide in campaign contributions was, of course, the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to support or oppose a candidate running for federal office.

“Previously, corporations had to establish a PAC, which could only spend $5,000 giving to a particular candidate under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,” according to Keena, an associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University who focuses on money in politics and elections. “The Supreme Court said that part of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the ‘political speech’ rights of corporations.”

Essentially, the Supreme Court reasoned that corporations should have the First Amendment right to speak in elections. “After Citizens United, a private company could decide to make an advertisement to support the candidacy of, say, Donald Trump or a candidate running for the U.S. House or Senate,” said Heerwig – an associate professor of sociology at SUNY-Stony Brook who studies political contributions by American corporate elites. “Since there are no limits on independent expenditures, a company could spend unlimited amounts to support its favored candidates, so long as it did so on its own.”

Now, of course, President Trump has billed the taxpayers for his three own ego-besotted missives to the masses (a sub-SCOTUS judge in New York ruled, yesterday, that POTUS or his supporters will have to pay for future ads and Trump promised to comply – for what that is worth).

The Reader’s Digest, striking far, far, far above its usual innocuous ambitions, differentiated between the ordinary and super PACs which can give unlimited money but cannot directly “coordinate” with a campaign. “In practice, this requirement is unenforced,” Keena explains, and perhaps unenforcable. “For example, Elon Musk created a super PAC to help Trump win in 2024, and he was in frequent contact with the Trump campaign and even appeared on stage with Trump when he was a candidate.”

This massive shift in contributions makes candidates, campaigns and political parties more reliant on corporate and monied interests, Keena ...an associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University who focuses on money in politics and elections... maintains. “The increase in money being spent means candidates have to spend more of their time asking the rich for donations, and in response, the political parties have become more responsive to the interests of the wealthy and special interests that support them,” he explains.

The result? Congress now gives preferential treatment to the ideas and policies favored by the donor class and makes only symbolic overtures to ordinary citizens (i.e. November’s voters) rather than offering substantive representation, Keena says. “The courts view this money as a constitutional right,” Keena adds, venturing that all Americans (and maybe the occasional alien from Australia or Albania) are “entitled to spend as much as they want on election advertising and communications.”

What Citizens United did was allow Musk to make such contributions through a corporate form.

“In reality, it had no serious impact on an individual’s ability to spend unlimited funds,” explained Tobin (an election and tax law professor and former dean of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law). “It just made it easier because Musk can create an independent expenditure PAC and he can just contribute to that PAC.”

Keena allowed as to the legality (and necessity) of overturning Citizens United but doubted it would happen under the present executive, legislative and judicial reality.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, keep an eye out for the signs that big money is at play. Keena recommends looking at who is giving money to the candidates as well as the super PAC money being spent to support them. “This money creates relationships of obligations between politicians and their financiers, and it previews what types of policies a politician might support or oppose in office,” he explains.

SHOW US the MONEY

Partisanship in the midterm money mutations as investigated and reported by the New York Times found that – as of one week ago (Common Dreams, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX), 20 donors have already spent $1.2 billion on this year’s campaigns “to push candidates in battleground states and integrate corporate agendas into public policy. Special interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Musk’s America PAC are spending big to elect allies friendly to their political and economic interests.

Not only do AI groups, as well as the cryptos and gamblers, fund candidates, “but increasingly dishonest and weird deepfake AI videos circulate online. Further analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) Action Fund found that 172 billionaire families spent $1.7 billion. Over $1 billion in untraceable dark money is corrupting American democracy.”

Prior to Citizens United, 1976’s Buckley v. Valeo SCOTUS pocus paved the way for campaign finance laws by equating campaign donations to “free speech,” protected as a First Amendment right after which CU, in 2010, enabled the creation of “super PACs,” allowing unlimited corporate donations beyond the previous $5,000 limit. As a result, US elections are dominated by corporate interests and lobbyists, increasing the cost and accessibility of running for office while voters have lost faith in our system, “feeling elected officials cater to lobbyists rather than constituents. Nearly 80% of voters believe big donations are linked to corruption, while merely 4% of American voters believe the United States’ current political system works well.”

In order to offer up at least a little hope and so prevent its readership from committing suicide or, perhaps, moving to Mexico, the old, gray, leftwing Times added that approximately 60% of Americans still believe in the possibility of adopting laws that limit spending on political campaigns. “An even greater majority desire doing so, with 72% of Americans believing in imposing spending limits on campaigns. All around the country, Americans support enforcing limits by margins of 3-to-1 or even greater... (s)upermajorities up to 80% across the country support an amendment to limit campaign spending, and the cross-partisan nonprofit American Promise has drafted and is proposing (such an) amendment.”

The “For Our Freedom Amendment” which Timeserver Jiana Saade insists “was developed meticulously through the collaboration of citizens, lawmakers, and scholars from all parties” empowers the gumment by granting it constitutional authority to enforce campaign spending limits (by whatever means and ways they choose to impose on American elections - the full text of the amendment being as follows:

Section 1. “We the People have compelling sovereign interests in the freedom of speech, representative self-government, federalism, the integrity of the electoral process, and the political equality of natural persons.”

Section 2. “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions and spending in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures,” and...

Section 3. “Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, including by prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.”

There is, of course, that such Constitutional Amendment, if passed and enforced, may be used by unnatural persons in high places to deter, detain or destroy advocacy aliens who challenge their authority but that, sad to say, is not so much worse than what the red Moonies at WashTimes rising from the bottom of the sea call our “present season of mudslinging and campaign finance loopholes.”

Iconic, autocratic champion of word and image Cal Thomas, given a forum for censure (October 5^th, ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN, as also above) expressed what might well be considered a bipartisan loathing for the “repetitious and annoying” TV commercials often promising to lower gas and grocery prices...“as if politicians can control the market”... one even show the candidate sitting on a toilet and calling for his socialist opponent to be “flushed”.

Most, however, should themselves be flushed as not only Commonist, but merely liberal, Thomas returns to form – decrying the paucity of promotions for “school choice” (that buzzword for “madrassas”), for lowering the National Debt or reforming (i.e. cutting) Social Security and Medicare and pining for the good ol’ days of Ronald Reagan’s happy “Morning in America” ads, now replaced by “mourning for America” doomscrolling

“Surveys (unnamed) show that a majority of voters dislike negative ads, yet they must be effective — or millions of dollars would not be spent on them.”

Trekking further back in time and space, Thomas (Cal) reminds us of the not-so-good ol’ days when Thomas (Jefferson) was denounced as an atheist and revolution-supporting Francophile who “would ban the Bible and allow the nation to fall into a state of moral decay” while Democrats of the day (then termed Democrat-Republicans) retaliated by accusing John Adams of being “a monarchist with aspirations to become king of the new United States.”

The both were rewarded by Electoral College rules and regulation making runner-up Jefferson Adams’ Vice “forcing the two rivals to work together after the election”... an outrage rapidly reformed.

Thomas also notes that we already have campaign spending and content limitations... at least upon foreign nationals or corporations... the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 rendered useless by “third-party entities that ‘launder’ outside money before it is sent to parties, candidates or their political action committees.”

Concluding in apparent conjunction with lefties like the Bern or AOC, Thomas contends that the “disingenuous campaign ads, the obscene amount of money spent to air them and the promises that are rarely fulfilled are enough to make one cynical and unwilling to vote. I will still vote (perhaps out of habit), but count me among the cynics.”

A cynic might well have cause to censure what was apparently a deal between President Trump and even higher powers... unknown and unnamed... after a lower court U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads as an illegal misuse of funds on Sunday - telling the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.

To the shock and awe of millions (well... maybe a few dozen obsessives) the President submitted meekly to Jenny’s order, as his spokesthings said the ad campaign was coming to an end. (Associated Press, October 12^th, ATTACHMENT THIRTY ONE)

The cynics, however, contended that the Presidential submission to the ruling... where he has routinely ignored and defied the occasional bad acting coming from a usually-friendly legislative and judicial flunkiestocracy... some perhaps asking why Djonald UnPlugged did not immediately take the matter up to his submissive Supremes and, at least, concoct and excuse for conduct unbecoming in the meantime for some reason or other... National Security, maybe. Or blame Biden, or Canada...

So, with three weeks until midterms and the optics looking bad... not as bad as in executing a man in a wheelchair, howsoever villainous, to be sure – but bad enough to cost even a seat or two.

The few, but proud, defections from Camp MAGA by the likes of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) questioning the airings of the commercials paid for by American taxpayers... castigated by the Democrats, of course... were less likely to be shocked, let alone awed after, as the APsters added, “(a) White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent” on the array of advertisements as have clearly run their course.

Which is why they call it the art of the deal. Or steal.

Deals, steals and the wheels of the money machine revealed Wednesday by the FEC (ATTACHMENT “A”) confirmed that the common knowledge that Democratic candidates outraised and spent the ‘Pubs while dark money PACS made up and, in fact, more than doubled the consummate outlays.

The usual profligate candidate donkeys were noted – Talarico in Texas (Raised $59,626, Spent $63,143); Ossoff in Georgia, (Raised $32,125, Spent $48,686); Brown in Ohio (Raised $22,663, Spent $34,105)... (all in thousands).

Only Republican Senatorial Paxton, running against Ossoff, exceeded ten mil... by a smidgen... a few of the (lesser) big spenders included Mike Rogers of Michigan in his race against El Sayed; RINO Susan Collins of Maine.

In the House: Cait Conley, challenging Republican icon Pat Lawler, raised $5,319, spent $5,482; little known Bobby Pulido raised $3,241 and spent $3,025 in Texas Dist. 15 and AOC raised $4,609, spending $3,055.

On the low end, many candidates raised less than the price of a bad used car and several reported raising zero. Zero!

The FEC, yesterday, released its Third Quarter FEC reports – and the money raised and spent was disturbing, to say the least. See all the numbers here.

IN the NEWS: OCTOBER 9^TH to OCTOBER 15^TH, 2026

Friday, October 9, 2026

Dow: 51,671.83

In advance of landfall near Destin, Fl. at around 10:30 PM, panhandlers on the Gulf Coast prepare for Hurricane Isaiah by filling sandbags, stocking up on food and gas, even evacuating. Search and rescue teams prepare to deploy as winds, by noon, reach 123 mph. The tempests are bicoastal: Hurricane Rachel in the much busier Pacific turns east and heads towards California – proper and Baja.

In other geological and climatogical news, a 7.7 EQ rocks Panama, not far from the Canal (as nautical chokepoints already choked include Hormuz and Bab-al-Mandabi) as there is no progress in the Iran war and President Trump, in fact, admits there won’t be any deals until after the midterms – now 24 days away.

Happy happy Hegseck will livestream first military firing squad execution since WW2 (and first to be televised ever) on December 3^rd... joining Iran and Afghanistan as the only countries sending criminals and dissidents “up against the wall”. Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan is convicted by a military tribunal exempt from the Constitutional law (angering some bloodthirsty, but scrupulous bipartisan politicians) – he is believed to be a lone wolf. Religious sorts tend to divide by partisanship – Pope Leo is opposed.

In slightly less lethal encounters, Greek Ambassador (& former Don Junior) girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle has blown through the Trump family payoff and is accused of demanding $100K from a Senior donor. And a man who “had to go big” is arrested for stealing a truckful of lavatories from the John Wayne Airport in L.A.

Saturday, October 10, 2026

Dow: Closed

Isaias blasts through the Panhandle overnight and, after ravaging Destin, is destined to head up through Alabama and the Carolinas with an eventual destination of Gotham and the BosWash corridor. Millions lose power, trees fall, walls and roofs ripped off homes, but only four deaths reported. Airports in Destin, Pensacola and Mobile, AL are shut down, Gov. Ron deSantis (R-Fl.) tells panhandlers to stay inside as roads are flooded.

Roads in the Southwest are also flooded as Rachel heads northeast to sample the nightlife in Vegas. As the the twin storms depart, search and rescue teams go into action – as do looters and scammers (both charity and contracting) also manifest.

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize winner goes to former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay angering President Trump, even more after Pillay declines to give the trophy/medal to him the way María Corina Machado did in 2025. But undeterred, he starts his bid for 2027 honors in Peace (and Economics too) by announcing a deal with Bad Vlad Putin to buy 300K tons of diesel for nearly $2B in a bid to lower prices at the pump, farm, and supply chain before the midterms... but that apparently backfires too as critics say the money will go to finance the Ukraine war.

Overt criminality includes two mass shootings in Douglas and Vienna, Ga., another ICE driver shooting as 5 year old hides inside, wild police chase of tobacco smugglers and, in foreign lands, Brazilian police kill hostage taker holding 13 children at knifepoint, six failed French art thieves arrested trying to steal two Renoirs and successful outlaws make out with 30,000 bottles of wine. Paaarrtyyy!!!!

Sunday, October 11, 2026

Dow: Closed

It’s talkshow Sunday and Trump is talking tough on Ukraine... not to BFF Putin, but bad actor Zelenskyy, saying “I suggest (Ukes) get a new leader who can make a deal.” Even Republicans are disturbed.

On ABC’s “The Week”, the guest of honor is, in fact, vile Vlodomir via video venturing that, since Bad Vlad civilian strikes after Trump announced his diesel deal killed hundreds, including small children, “we can no longer count on your President and his team” to save the lives, homes and freedom of Ukrainians and the unity of United States and Europe (even if Pete and Donnie send troops to fight for Russia against the insurrectionists). “The truth is on our side,” says Z-man.

Methodist pastor Adam Hamilton, running for Senator from Kansas as a Democrat, denies he’s a Marxist or even DSA; rather as a champion of “competency, character and values.” He opposes liberal gumment regulations, would vote to remove Socialist Schumer as majority or minority leader as the November winds blow (replacing him with Elissa Slotkin or the DJI donkey choice for ’28 – Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona) but also, according to Veep Vance who calls him “anti-Christian” on the culture wars for refusing to prosecute trannies, dirty asses and the liberal media. He also says he carries a Bible around wherever he goes.

Speaking stage right, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Mn) insists the ditch the e-con-me’s in is Biden’s fault and Trump is pulling us out of it. He celebrates the firing squad execution that Vance betrays God and Father by saying he will not watch, calls for more such, says POTUS is “two steps ahead of the press”, that the Green New deal will cost every American $355,000 and high gas and diesel prices “are no reson to vote Communist, like all Democrats do. (Sounds like he has ambitions for 2028!)

The Roundtablers tackle Trump’s oil deal with Mad Vlad; RINO Chris Christie says Emmer used to be a sane and moderate elephant but has drunk Trump’s Kool-Aid, saying it OK to buy oil from a thug KGB dictator, condemn Ukraine and bend a knee to a tyrant. Liberal Donna Brazile says the voters will decide on him and on the rest of the partisans; young people in Texas and Alaska will not support the party believing Trump’s deal will lower oil prices.

The guest panelists, Elena Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon and Marianna Sotomayor (Puck) agree that voters are angry at everybody and Christie says Democrats have “awful candidates with extreme view and no record” and predicts a ‘Pub flip in Oregon. Sotomayor, however, says that, and the American divide are not left/right issues but a purge of as many incumbents as time & gerrymandering permit; with Christie admitting that November 4^th will permeate the White House with “the smell of rotting flesh.”

On “Face the Nation”, DHS Markwayne Mullen congratulates Isaiah rescue and recovery and expresses no sympathy for ICE victim Oscar Belgal, a career criminal who put his own child at risk so “should never have been on the streets; even less for those who protest livestream of firing squad execution and hate, persecution and prosecution of the 99% of media “whose coverage of Donald Trump is negative, despite his successes.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct) replies that it’s due to the “humiliation of the USA” at war and the best policy would be to pull out. Sen. John Barasso (R-Wy) replies to the reply that America is divided between sane Republicans and crazy Democrats. And as partisanship escalates into assassinations, Sean Curran, Director of the Secret Service (and lead agent at Butler) says the S.S. is nonpartisan – the real evil to America is the irresponsible social media. And Texan roundtabler Kendall Scudder says the “dummymander” may cost ‘Pubs two seats if Hispanics show up to vote.

Monday, October 12, 2026

Dow: 51,267.90

And, finally, Columbus Day... and also the 100^th anniversary of “Winnie the Pooh”

Some Republicans in close midterm races feel stuck in a swamp of pooh as they balance loyalty to Their President with voter suspicion on the issues... the crime and climate and gays and God and, holding up all these scattered sacraments – the kitchen table. Bipartisans decry the sellout of Ukraine for Russian diesel with a tip to Trotskis to force new elections in Kyev... to be masterminded by Trump Himself... as part of a deal to reward Russia’s 60 day ceasefire. Bad actors are comparing him to Neville Chamberlain’s giveaway of the Czechs to Hitler but Trump says he’s smarter... he got paid!

Bad Vlad Putin celebrates newfound war money (premised on his promise from Djonald UnReliable: risky even for dictators) by bombing and droning more civilians in the breakaway Ukraine. POTUS, meanwhile, plays cute with the lying media, saying “maybe” to inquiries upon whether he will save the Saudis in their Houthi war and its ambiguous Yemenese gumment.

Hurricanes Isaiah and Rachel both Northeast towards Philadelphia and Pocatello, respectively, so the rescue and recovery teams can move in to deal with the smashed buildings, spitting power lines, downed trees and drowned animals – soon to be revealed to eyes and noses – plus the obligatory stories of heroic rescues.

Nervous Gen-Xr’s have new worries in about half the American states... “filial responsibility” laws that require adult children to pay for the care of parents – even the deserters, the abusers and substanceers. Those who don’t or can’t can be garnished or jailed: a preview of the return of debtor’s prisons?

Tuesday, October 13, 2026

Dow: 51,670.10

It’s National No Bra Day and the DoJ invades the home of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mn) and is seen removing boxes of unknown documents and devices while spokespersons maintain a discreet but ominous silence and speculators speculate that she might be deported to Somalia, despite being a naturalized citizen and resident of the United States since the age of five, while POTUS calls her “a horrible person” and fellow Gopher State rep Tom Emmer says she should be jailed, deported or both,

DefSec/WarSec Hegseck announces that the firing squad execution of Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan will be livestreamed so that the public will see what happens to terrorists and HomeSec Markwayne Mullin says that the public execution “will help restore American values.” Bleeding heart bozos respond that watching the execution will traumatize poor, weak Americans and a TV-shrink denies the premise that cruelty deters crime.

A confident Speaker Mike says that ‘Pubs will keep the House, despite polls, and reform the infrastructure for new and better SI over old, inefficient liberal AI... also says he supports, but won’t watch, the execution.

Cold caseworkers say they believe they now know what happened to Amelia Earhardt 89 years ago, after plane remains found off isolated Nicomoraru Island – an island full of three foot long carnivorous “coconut” crabs – leading, perhaps, to revolutions that might further traumatize the squeamish.

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Dow: 51,621.48

President Trump’s new SecPress Katie Zachariah is already the topic, not the discloser, of nasty news... trolls from the left say she failed her bar exam and lies about practicing “practical transactional international law” – her response is that she may not be an attorney, but she is a legal analyst and then hurries off to accompany Her Man (and His Other Woman, Natalie Harp) on an adventure in Alaska to support Sen. Dan Sullivan (but not the traitor Murkowski). Hateniter Kimmel jokes that neither Katie nor Hegseck “can pass a bar” and more trouble for Trumpettes as Don Junior’s ex-girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle purged as Green Ambassador after being caught in bribery scam.

Polls say POTUS still down 20 points. E-con-mystics say war-induced gas and diesel prices are knocking over America’s kitchen tables – preliminary inflation reports say weather, fertilizer and supply chain issues are raising prices on holiday turkeys, cranberries and Halloween candy (but pies, potatoes, butter and eggs are cheaper). Cotton farmers failing, Netflix firing more workers, but United Healthcare and Anthropic AI/SI recording record profits. Ordinary mokes cut back on dining out and tips, complicating life for lower-middle and upper-lower classes, while the lower-lowers lose food and healthcare “zombie program” bennies.

No fiscal worries for Pope Leo, whose covered surgery for lung cancer called successful – but he may have to postpone his journey to South America and a Vice Pope holds the Masses at St. Peter’s. Chicago kids send him get well cards and a White Sox blanket; Chicago fratboys join Cornellians in accusations of gang rape.

Tabloidsters taking side as Kelly Clarkson trolls a gift shop that refused to sell her a $15,000 robotic bird as owner cites terroristic threats. Bad news for the rest of us (and especially ABC); Kimmel sidekick Guillermo kicked off “Dancing With the Stars”. Watch their Nielsens plummet!

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Dow: 52,056.60

As the FEC tallies up political dark money, the CPI reports September inflation up 3.7% (see below) which causes Djonald DeFlated to say he’s “disappointed” but prices will fall after the midterms. The good news is for retirees who get their inflation-pegged Social Security raises and for stock market speculators who see the Dow pushed back up over 52,000 but, at a midtermite Town Hall, bipartisan laughter greets Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md) who says higher prices are still the fault of Ol’ Goneaway Joe Biden. Goneaway too – five day wonder Katie.

Trump is watching his tongue as the week ends... he pivots on the Fort Hood firing squad stream, saying Nidal Hasan should still be shot, but the optics of killing a killer in a wheelchair are bad, so the livestream is cancelled. But he’s not going soft – he promises to hit Iran with “the mother of all (non-nuclear) bombs”... but not until after the midterms. And with Fox turning traitor and Truth Social readership turning elsewhere, he has a new right wing media BFF... Right Side Broadcasting (which few can get and fewer have heard of).

Reconstructed trillionaire Elon Musk pivots too, sending money for Ukraine arms over to Russia, then back again to puzzled Zelenskyy. Like Trump with his reflecting pool and Golden Ballroom, Elon may be distracted by his latest toy – a flying Tesla (bringing allegations of plagiarizing “Back to the Future”).

Six Flags reopens in Georgia, but keeps all of its roller coasters silent while media like CNN and BBC first publicize the victim as Hassan Jihad Ibn Kariem but further reports shorten his name after determining he was a popular teacher with no connections to terrorism,

The Dow soars on happy happy inflation news, the Don reverses last week’s gains as new, bad numbers come in. Blood, sweat and tears for Joneses... ‘what goes up, must come down!”

THE DON JONES INDEX

CHART of CATEGORIES w/VALUE ADDED to EQUAL BASELINE of 15,000

(REFLECTING… approximately… DOW JONES INDEX of June 27, 2013)

Gains in indices as improved are noted in GREEN. Negative/harmful indices in RED as are their designation. (Note – some of the indices where the total went up created a realm where their value went down... and vice versa.) See a further explanation of categories HERE

ECONOMIC INDICES (60%) THE WEEK’S CLOSING STATS...

CATEGORY

VALUE

BASE

LAST

CHANGE

NEXT

VALUE (ORIG.)**

CHANGE (to JAN – JUNE 2026) from 100%

JULY 17

Reconfigured

OCT. 2nd

LAST WEEK

THIS WEEK

OUR SOURCES and COMMENTS

INCOME

(24%)

6/17/13*

% UP – DOWN

Wages (hrly. Per cap)

1350

10/9/26

+0.159%

10/26

1,909.78

70.89%

1,353.92

1,357.88

1,360.04

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/average-hourly-earnings 37.81

Median Inc. (yearly)

600

10/9/26

+0.063%

10/23/26

1,474.31

40.75%

600.80

601.46

603.77

604.38

604.76

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 68,460 503

Unempl. (BLS – in mi)

600

10/9/26

-2.38%

10/26

555.52

614.28

629.26

614.28

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000/ 4.2

Official (DC – in mi)

300

10/9/26

+1.33%

10/23/26

216.73

299.92

309.27

312.98

313.52

309.35

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 6,993 7,086

Unofficl. (DC – in mi)

300

10/9/26

-6.20%

10/23/26

259.80

299.62

284.26

301.63

301.97

320.71

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 13,197 12,426

Workforce Participation

Number

Percent

300

10/9/26

+0.028%

-0.020%

10/23/26

295.81

299.98

298.74

297.88

297.77

297.71

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ In 162,678 3,129 Out 106,898 5,393 Total: 269,576 522

60.346 334

WP % (ycharts)*

150

10/9/26

+0.651%

10/26

149.25

149.27

149.03

150.00

https://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate 61.40 .80

OUTGO

(15%)

Total Inflation

1050

10/9/26

+0.4%

8/26

901.77

1050

1052.10

1046.85

1037.35

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +.4 .9

Food

300

10/9/26

+0.1%

8/26

257.37

300

299.40

298.89

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +.1 0.0

Gasoline

300

10/9/26

+3.9%

8/26

181.96

300

320.10

316.53

287.73

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +3.9 9.1

Medical Costs

300

10/9/26

-0.2%

8/26

267.14

300

300.30

299.10

298.20

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm -0.2 +0.3

Shelter

300

10/9/26

+0.3%

8/26

238.38

300

299.70

298.50

297.31

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm +0.3 .4

WEALTH

(6%)

Dow Jones Index

300

10/9/26

+1.56%

10/23/26

400.18

299.80

295.37

292.64

294.55

299.13

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/ 51,258.95 52,056.60

Home (Sales)

(Valuation)

150

10/9/26

+0.25%

-2.70%

10/23/26

137.08

155.60

154.17

152.61

158.23

147.42

150.88

147.42

150.88

147.79

146.81

https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics

Sales (M): 3.98 .99 Valuations (K): 429.1 417.5

Millionaires (New Cat,)

150

10/9/26

+0.061%

10/23/26

137.72

150.15

150.32

160.13

160.30

160.40

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 24,508 523

Paupers (New Category)

150

10/9/26

+0.035%

10/23/26

134.69

149.92

149.82

145.47

145.27

145.22

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 37,116 129

GOVERNMENT

(10%)

Revenue (trilns.)

300

10/9/26

-0.108%

10/23/26

485.69

300.85

301.77

303.77

299.50

299.82

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 5,537 543

Expenditures (tr.)

300

10/9/26

+0.121%

10/23/26

287.16

299.59

298.86

290.69

290.34

288.26

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 7,456 465

National Debt (tr.)

450

10/9/26

+0.181%

10/23/26

344.44

448.90

446.23

439.57

438.98

438.19

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 40,257 330

Aggregate Debt (tr.)

450

10/9/26

+0.235%

10/23/26

352.67

448.15

445.20

438.25

436.38

435.36

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 115,997 6,270

TRADE

(5%)

Foreign Debt (tr.)

300

10/9/26

-0.03%

10/23/26

252.18

295.57

293.90

301.35

301.19

301.09

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 9,356 359

Exports (in billions)

150

10/9/26

-1.40%

11/26

197.73

145.70

139.19

137.24

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 315.2

Imports (in billions))

150

10/9/26

-5.06%

11/26

130.49

145.32

146.56

139.14

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 420.6

Trade Surplus/Deficit (blns.)

150

10/9/26

-16.10%

11/26

182.61

108.06

100.20

84.07

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/current/index.html 105.6

SOCIAL INDICES

(40%)

Events of the Week

ACTS of MAN

(15%)

World Affairs

450

10/9/26

-0.1%

10/23/26

466.24

448.20

448.65

444.27

444.71

444.27

Fire destroys iconic Parisian food market established 1615 AD while strange cyberhackers attack French grocery freezers, causing rotten crepes and croissants. Urns of wine and oil retrieved from 4,700 year old shipwreck off Turkish coast.

War and terrorism

300

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

280.07

298.80

298.22

294.07

293.78

293.17

At home, protests over public execution of Ft. Hood killer and ICE mount after more shootings including man with 5 year old son; “Keep ICE away from our kids,” critics say, “they are terrorizing them” as Houston ICEman accused of deliberately running over alien. Abroad: riots escalate in France where students supporting their teachers cite the Bastille, shouting “1789!” (Next: bring back the guillotine?)

Politics

450

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

450.15

448.20

447.75

443.74

444.18

443.29

President Trump loses Nobel again to human rights activist Nava Pillar who refuses to give hers to him. then appoints blonde Katie Zacariah (accused of lying about being an attorney) as his new SecPress only to sack (fire) her five days later. Mysterious white powders mailed to pols on 25^th anniversary of the 2001 anthrax scare. FCC greenlights more political robocalls (which are likely to backfire). “No Kings” rises from the dead to advocate midterm voting.

Economics

450

10/9/26

-0.1%

10/23/26

426.64

450.00

449.55

443.74

442.85

442.41

Inflation rises to 3.6 or 3.7% depending on who you believe (see some specifics above). UPS will hire 100K seasonal workers. AI experts say that jobs most at risk from AI are... AI developers. Prison accused of for-profit organ “harvesting” from convicts (most of whom are gratefully dead).

Crime

150

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

201.34

149.55

149.40

148.05

147.90

147.61

Back from the days of yesteryear and Western movies: train robberies. Modern criminals include 3 arrested after baby found (alive) in trash can, man massacres aunt and grandmother with chainsaw in Alabama (not Texas); 16 year old school shooter kills 4 in Bend, Or, then is dispatched by gun-totin’ civilian. Serial killer in Lansing, MI kills 5 homeless men, French thieves arrested targeting 2 Renoirs, Italians get away with heisting 30K bottles of wine while in America, troubled man steals truckful of toilets.

ACTS of GOD

Environment/Weather

450

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

275.85

447.30

446.85

441.96

441.52

440.63

Another landslide provokes another round of floods in Nepal, but only a few killed, so far. Aftershocks from Panamanian 7.7 EQ rattle, but don’t kill. Bicoastal blight sees Pacific Coast wildfires, storms and flooding east with season’s first freeze on the way.

Disasters

450

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

463.08

450.00

449.55

451.80

452.25

451.35

Rescue and recovery from hurricanes draw scammers and looters. Air scares include near miss between jets at La Guardia NY, air traffic control power outage at LAX while riot breaks out on Frontier Air jet stuck in Atlanta w/o air conditioning,. Passenger (above) falls off “Goliath” roller coaster and dies, but little lost dog Luna found after 34 days in Yellowstone Park and another dog, Lulu, rescued from another avalanche - this in Alaska.

LIFESTYLE/JUSTICE INDEX

15%

Science, Tech, Education

600

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

617.97

600.00

597.60

598.20

597.00

Space X liftoff creates strange “jellyfish” clouds, Open AI fires three security officers for criticizing safety. Apple merching “smart” houses that tell occupants what and what not to do. AI influencers say people who know how to game the system will get jobs, those who don’t will be terminated, then ex-terminated. Saudi engineer accused of hacking Open AI.

Equality (econ/social)

600

10/9/26

10/23/26

675.06

603.00

600.01

600.61

“Shark Tankers” say our #1 export’s the American Dream, influencers say Gen. Z less obsessed with brand loyalty than Millenials. “Million Dollar Baby” star Hillary Swank having her own baby at 52 as more elderly women try pregnancy and childrearing. Illinois teen arrested for failed massacre at Hindu temple.

Health

600

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

440.46

595.06

593.23

592.64

591.44

Cancer tops heart disease in killing Latinos with male breast cancer cases rising faster than women’s. Measles up to 4K, most since 1991 with 6^th death in Philadelphia. Recalls: discolored acetaminophen pills, Starkist diseased cold smoked fish, baby supplements with alcohol – lotsa alcohol! RFK Junior feuds with Gov. Shapiro (D-Pa) for deploying Disease Detectives to fight measles and other infections; CDC says Obamacare cuts turning healthcare for sick children into “zombie programs” as child hunger spikes.

Freedom and Justice

450

10/9/26

-0.1%

10/23/26

477.76

449.55

447.30

446.85

445.96

Diddy prison sentence increased for over-perking and promptly gets his head kicked in by druglord Dudus who blames him for increased surveillance. In the criminal courts, Greek ambassador and ex-Don Junior girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle accused of extorting donors to President Trump, who accuses Microsoft and Adobe of green card fraud ex-President Maduro to trial for torturing dissidents and drug smuggling. In civil courts, Dolly Parton, Hayden Panatierre estates litigated, Bank of America fined $1.2B for fraud and money laundering, CVS only 315M for selling opioids; filial responsility laws in some states make children pay for the funerals of their dead parents.

CULTURAL and MISCELLANEOUS INCIDENTS

Cultural and mortality incidents

600

10/9/26

10/23/26

595.85

450.45

454.95

455.40

“Street Fighter tops BO as “Whalefall”, “Social Reckoning” and Tom Cruise “Digger” flops. Sequels and remakes ahead include “Sense and Sensibility,” “East of Eden,” “Miami Vice” and prequels ”Crystal Lake” (Jason’s mom) and “Narnia” (“Lord of the Rings”). Detroit expanding Motown Museum to honor hitmakers. NCAA’s Georgia Bulldogs edge Alabama to take over #1 after Oklahoma upsets Texas. NFL’s Rams fire fat kicker for missing two field goals, MLB’s Brewers sweep Dodgers – will face Tampa/Cleveland winner in World Series.

RIP: Da Bears’ iconic coach Mike Ditka, “Breaking Bad” actor R. J. Mitte,

Miscellaneous incidents

450

10/9/26

-0.2%

10/23/26

555.05

450.90

456.32

457.23

456.34

Kelly Clarkson trolls store who won’t sell her $15K robot bird, Barbie dolls made for the good (Celine Dion) and bad (hubby killer Patrizia Reggiani). Selena Blair arrested for biting flight attendants; British tiger eats idiot who enters his enclosure. A bear goes into the library to see what he can see, another bruin invades hospital in Alaska, sees, steals and eats Halloween candy and is killed for her crime by Fish and Game Gunmen while Cedartown, GA cop shoots a dastardly donkey (for horsing around?) after breaking into enclosed yard at 2AM searching for a missing person). Record Giant Pumpkin in tiny Rhode Island weighs 3,156 lbs.

The Don Jones Index for the week of October 9th through October 15th, 2026 was DOWN 34.30 points

The Don Jones Index is sponsored by the Coalition for a New Consensus: retired Congressman and Independent Presidential candidate Jack “Catfish” Parnell, Chairman; Brian Doohan, Administrator. The CNC denies, emphatically, allegations that the organization, as well as any of its officers (including former Congressman Parnell, environmentalist/America-Firster Austin Tillerman and cosmetics CEO Rayna Finch) and references to Parnell’s works, “Entropy and Renaissance” and “The Coming Kill-Off” are fictitious or, at best, mere pawns in the web-serial “Black Helicopters” – and promise swift, effective legal action against parties promulgating this and/or other such slanders.

Comments, complaints, donations (especially SUPERPAC donations) always welcome at feedme@generisis.com or: speak@donjonesindex.com.

ATTACHMENT ONE – FROM the WASHINGTON POST

AS DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES OUTRAISE REPUBLICANS, GOP MEGADONORS RUSH TO FILL THE GAP

Republicans raised less than their opponents in 12 of the 13 Senate races that are considered most competitive by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

By Clara Ence Morse and Theodoric Meyer October 16, 2026 at 2:47 p.m. EDT

Democrats raised massive amounts of money in the months before the midterm elections as they fight to retake control of Congress.

But while Democrats raised more than Republicans in the most competitive Senate races, GOP megadonors have rushed in to fill the gap.

Elon Musk, a former White House adviser to President Donald Trump and the world’s richest man, gave $278 million between July and September to groups working to protect Republicans’ majorities in Congress, including $158 million in September to Senate Leadership Fund, a flagship Republican super PAC, according to newly filed campaign finance disclosures. Since the start of 2025, Musk has given $369 million to back Republicans, making him the biggest-ever individual donor to federal elections.

The money is fueling Republicans’ efforts to rescue Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, who defeated Sen. John Cornyn in the primary but has trailed in polling against the Democratic nominee, state Rep. James Talarico. The polling has stoked anxiety among Republicans that the party could lose a Senate seat in the deep-red state for the first time in decades.

A new super PAC, Texas PAC, started booking ads last month attacking Talarico, funded entirely by $158 million in funds from Senate Leadership Fund shortly after it received Musk’s contributions. Musk also gave $10 million in August to Lone Star Liberty PAC, another super PAC aiding Paxton.

Paxton’s campaign raised $10 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 — a fraction of the $60 million that Talarico’s campaign brought in. But Texas PAC and other outside groups have given Paxton an advantage on the airwaves. Republicans have spent about $120 million more than Democrats on advertising in the Texas Senate race since Labor Day, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm.

A similar dynamic is playing out in other races.

Republicans raised less than their opponents in 12 of the 13 Senate races that are considered most competitive by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report — sometimes by enormous margins.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) raised $33 million in the third quarter of the year; his Republican challenger, Rep. Mike Collins, raised $2.8 million. Adam Hamilton, a Democrat challenging Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) in a state that has not elected a Democratic senator since 1932, raised $9.8 million. Marshall raised just $866,000. And Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) raised $2.7 million while his Democratic challenger, former congresswoman Mary Peltola, raised $16.5 million.

With Musk’s help, Senate Leadership Fund raised $272 million in the third quarter. Senate Majority PAC, its Democratic counterpart, raised $151 million.

The money has helped give Republicans a spending edge in some races in the final weeks before Election Day. Republicans have outspent their challengers in eight of the 13 most competitive Senate races since Labor Day with the help of allied super PACs, including MAGA Inc., which is controlled by Trump’s advisers, according to AdImpact. The disparities are especially wide in some of the most fiercely fought Senate races: Republicans have outspent Democrats by about $60 million in Ohio since Labor Day and by about $13 million in Michigan.

Republicans do not have a spending advantage everywhere. Democrats have spent more since Labor Day in North Carolina — where they are expected to flip an open Republican-held seat — and Georgia, where Ossoff is favored to win. They have also spent more in Kansas, Iowa and South Carolina.

Republicans’ spending is not going as far as Democrats’ because Texas PAC and super PACs tied to Trump did not start booking TV airtime in earnest until September, when prices are higher. Super PACs also do not get the discounted rates that campaigns receive and must pay more to air the same number of ads.

Democrats need to pick up four seats to retake the Senate, including at least two in seats that Trump won by double digits in 2024. The party faces an easier path to recapturing the House, where Democrats need to net three seats among dozens of competitive races.

House Majority PAC, the lead Democratic super PAC in House races, and an allied group that does not disclose its donors said they had raised $514 million over the course of the cycle, including $230 million in the third quarter of this year. Congressional Leadership Fund, the lead Republican super PAC in House races, and an allied nonprofit said they had raised $370 million over the cycle.

Musk gave $20 million to Congressional Leadership Fund in the third quarter, as did Timothy Mellon, a reclusive billionaire and heir to a banking fortune.

Much of the money aiding Democrats and Republicans remains hidden behind nonprofits that do not disclose their donors.

One Nation, which does not disclose its donors, gave more than $62 million last month to Senate Leadership Fund, making it the GOP super PAC’s second-biggest donor after Musk.

Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic super PAC, raised $41 million from Majority Forward and $27 million from Economic Opportunity Fund, neither of which disclose their donors. The super PAC’s top individual donors in the third quarter were Fred Eychaner, an Illinois media executive who gave $7 million; LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who gave $5 million; and tech billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, who each gave $4 million.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has said that Democrats have a strong shot at retaking the Senate even if they are outspent.

“We don’t need as much money as them, given the political climate, given the terrain,” Schumer said in an interview last month. “All we need is enough to stay in the ballpark and be able to answer them.”

ATTACHMENT TWO – FROM CNBC (TAKEAWAYS)

TAXPAYER-FUNDED TRUMP ADS DRAW BIPARTISAN SCRUTINY AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

By Garrett Downs Published Sun, Sep 27 2026 5:38 PM EDT

Key Points

· Television ads with a pro-Trump message, paid for with taxpayer dollars, are expanding their reach ahead of November’s midterm elections.

· The ads have sparked scrutiny from both sides of the aisle over whether government spending is involved in electoral politics.

· A White House spokesperson defended the ads as “public service announcements” intended to remind “Americans to love their country.”

Television ads with a pro-Trump message — and paid for by the U.S. government — are expanding their reach ahead of November’s midterm elections, prompting bipartisan scrutiny over whether the campaign complies with federal restrictions on taxpayer-funded publicity and propaganda.

One of the ads — backed by music that repeats the words “love me” — prominently features images of President Donald Trump while he says, “America will never be a communist country.” Campaign talking points like “largest tax cuts in history” flash over the screen during the spot.

The ad aired on national network television over the weekend, including during CBS’ “Face the Nation” and college football games, according to intelligence company AdImpact. The government has spent nearly $920,000 airing the ad so far.

At the end of the ad, a disclaimer says “paid for by the U.S. Government.” The source of the funding has not yet been identified.

A White House spokesperson defended the ads as “public service announcements” intended to remind “Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad.”

“The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country,” the spokesperson said.

But the ads mirror the messages Republicans are voicing on the campaign trail ahead of November’s midterm election. Many are attempting to brand Democrats as “communists,” while touting legislative victories like the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” law that cut taxes — both major themes of the ad.

Democrats lead in recent national public polling with just over five weeks to go until the November elections, and they aim to strip Republicans of their majorities in both the House and Senate.

In a second ad, Trump says, “This is the final battle,” before rattling off a series of political goals like expelling “the warmongers from our government” and liberating “America from these villains once and for all.” The messaging comes from a 2024 digital ad the Trump team ran during his second run for the White House — campaign promises he made before the war in Iran.

That ad has cost taxpayers more than $362,000 so far, airing during NFL football games on Sunday and during “Fox News Sunday,” according to AdImpact.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have taken issue with the s being paid for with taxpayer money, especially with the midterms just weeks away.

“The does not have a clear official government purpose and appears to run afoul of federal prohibitions against the use of appropriated funds as part of ‘a general propaganda effort designed to aid a political party or candidates,’” wrote Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., in a Thursday letter to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

“This taxpayer-funded political serves as yet another troubling example of President Trump’s growing list of expensive vanity projects — including the White House ballroom — that are estimated to cost over $1.8 billion, money that could have instead been spent lowering costs for Americans,” the senator said.

Top Democratic members of the Appropriations Committees, who dole out federal funds, also took issue with the ads. Appropriations committees on Capitol Hill have routinely included language in government funding bills prohibiting the use of federal dollars for propaganda.

“If President Trump wants people to love him, he can pay for it himself,” those lawmakers said.

“No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used directly or indirectly, including by private contractor, for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress,” the most recent government funding bill read.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., also appeared to criticize the ads during an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

ATTACHMENT THREE – FROM CNBC (TAKEAWAYS)

DEMOCRATIC DIVIDE

As Republican donors open their wallets, some of Democrats’ biggest benefactors are missing from the DNC’s donor rolls.

By Luke Fountain

George Soros — the only Democratic-aligned donor among the 10 largest individual and family donor groups in CNBC’s analysis— and his son Alex have given the DNC nothing this election cycle. It’s a reversal from 2022, when the two contributed more than $1 million to the committee, according to FEC filings. The two gave $1.125 million combined to the DNC and its joint fundraising committee in 2022, a total that would have ranked first among DNC donors in CNBC’s analysis.

Elsewhere, Dustin Moskovitz, the Facebook and Asana co-founder gave roughly $413,000 to the DNC during the 2024 cycle, alongside $50 million to Future Forward and $929,600 to the Harris Victory Fund. CNBC found no contribution from Moskovitz to the DNC this cycle.

“Donors, just like voters, want to feel energized and enthused, and they’re getting that from the candidates this cycle rather than the major groups and the party apparatus,” said The First Ask’s Welles.

The DNC ended August with $16.9 million in cash and $17.6 million in debt, versus $125.6 million at the RNC and no debt, according to FEC filings. DNC officials tell CNBC the gap reflects being out of power and spending earlier, noting that their fundraising is running $85 million ahead of the same point in 2018, the last midterm when Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. Total political spending in 2018 when adjusted for inflation was $7.1 billion, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks such spending. AdImpact projects political spending for the 2026 election will set a record, surpassing even presidential years.

The DNC also says 79 donors have given at least $100,000, up from 50 at this point in 2018. But the count does not show how much each donor gave above that threshold.

People connected to Democratic fundraising tell CNBC some major donors remain wary after Harris’ 2024 presidential defeat. Her campaign and allied groups raised more than $1 billion in less than three months, only to lose the White House and finish the year with nearly $1 million in unpaid bills.

Some donors came away questioning spending decisions, particularly on pricey consultants and lavish events.

“A lot of people feel like they spent a lot of money in 2024 and got nothing for it. They aren’t happy,” said Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic strategist who led the pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country. “There’s been a lack of a reckoning over how much money was raised and spent in 2024 — there’s still kind of a hangover from that.”

Other donors are uneasy with the growing clout of the party’s left flank, from democratic socialists such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to progressives such as Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

“I’ve definitely had donors who have said to me, ‘Give me five people that you know that aren’t DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] people, and I’ll write them a check,’” Schale told CNBC.

CHANGING SPENDING HABITS

Other Democratic megadonors are simply cutting out the middleman, picking individual races and candidates to support.

Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York City mayor, put $11 million behind a super PAC supporting Micah Lasher in New York’s 12th Congressional District and $2.5 million toward Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s reelection, according to federal and Pennsylvania campaign-finance records.

LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman has taken a similar approach. The longtime Democratic donor has given nothing to the DNC but contributed $11.5 million to Lone Star Rising, the super PAC backing Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico. One $10 million check from Hoffman accounted for nearly 80% of the group’s second-quarter fundraising.

Talarico, a Democratic darling, has become a fundraising powerhouse in his own right, raising $68.6 million through June 30 and ending the quarter with $21.5 million in cash, according to FEC filings.

He’s hardly alone. The FEC currently lists Democrats Jon Ossoff, Talarico and Sherrod Brown as the cycle’s three highest-raising Senate candidates. Across seven key Senate races, Democrats entered July with $74.7 million in cash, more than double Republicans’ $36.8 million, according to a CNBC analysis of FEC filings through June 30.

The pattern extends to the House. Democratic challengers outraised Republican incumbents in 14 of 17 races in the second quarter, the Cook Report found when looking at races it rated “Toss Up” or “Lean Republican.”

ATTACHMENT FOUR – FROM CNBC (MORE TAKEAWAYS)

MEGADONOR MONEY SHIFTS RIGHT

By Luke Fountain

Republican money is coming from Wall Street financiers and industrial titans alongside a new wave of cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and online gambling executives. The cash is flowing to candidates, super PACs and industry groups aiming to shape policy fights in Washington.

Nine of the 10 largest individual and family donors in CNBC’s overall top 20 groups are Republican-aligned, accounting for 86 cents of every dollar contributed by the top 10, according to CNBC’s analysis of FEC records. The previously unreported finding is a sharp increase from a comparable point in the 2022 midterms, when Republican-aligned donors accounted for 67 cents of every dollar from the top 10.

“Populist sentiment against billionaires is at a fever pitch, but they have more money and more impact than ever before,” said Saurav Ghosh, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal campaign finance reform. “It’s the result of unchecked free-for-all spending, and evidence has shown it can swing close races.” The group is a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by a former Republican FEC chairman.

Seven of the 20 largest donors and donor groups in CNBC’s analysis have major ties to the crypto, AI or online gambling industries. Together, they have contributed roughly $377.1 million this cycle, CNBC calculated — nearly a third of the money from the 20 largest donors and donor groups in CNBC’s analysis.

Venture capitalists Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and their firm Andreessen Horowitz have put roughly $91.3 million into politics this cycle. OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, have given $50 million, while Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have contributed roughly $55.1 million. Crypto.com operator Foris Dax Inc. has given $38.6 million. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose businesses include xAI, is another top 20 donor.

Those four donor groups alone have contributed roughly $93 million to President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, MAGA Inc., which entered September with $415.8 million in cash after spending little of the $424.4 million it reported raising since Jan. 1, 2025. Two Trump-aligned groups launched in September, No Going Back PAC and Safety & Affordability PAC, have booked about $140 million in House and Senate ad buys and reservations, according to AdImpact.

Musk has contributed roughly $90.6 million during this cycle, including more than $50 million to his America PAC, according to CNBC’s calculations based on FEC filings. His super PAC has since reported nearly $27 million in independent expenditures across House and Senate races in the 2026 general election, according to CNBC’s analysis of FEC filings.

Companies are also directing millions into political groups focused on fights affecting their own industries.

Coinbase and Ripple have contributed roughly $33.2 million and $48 million, respectively, to crypto super PAC Fairshake, which supports candidates from both parties whom the industry considers allies. That’s more than half of Coinbase’s political spending and 96% of Ripple’s this election. DraftKings has similarly directed about $34 million of its nearly $35 million spent this election to Win for America, the sports-betting industry’s super PAC, according to FEC filings.

“Crypto wants to position itself as a political kingmaker — spending heavily and making sure lawmakers know it,” said Dustin Duong, a researcher at Americans for Financial Reform who has analyzed crypto and AI political spending this election cycle. “But much of that money has gone to candidates already well-positioned to win.”

In Congress, crypto companies are pushing for market-structure rules, AI firms are battling over how Washington will regulate their rapidly expanding industry, and sports-betting operators are confronting regulatory fights.

Crypto, AI and betting-linked donors pour $377 million into politics

Seven of CNBC’s 20 largest donors and donor groups have major ties to cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence or online gambling.

COMBINED GIVING

$377.1M

31.5% of CNBC top-20 donor money

DONOR GROUPS

Andreessen & HorowitzAI / crypto

$91.3M24.2%

CoinbaseCrypto

$57.7M15.3%

Cameron & Tyler WinklevossCrypto

$55.1M14.6%

Greg & Anna BrockmanAI

$50.0M13.3%

RippleCrypto

$49.6M13.2%

Foris Dax / Crypto.comCrypto

$38.6M10.2%

DraftKingsOnline betting

$34.8M9.2%

Source: CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings through Oct. 5, 2026.

ATTACHMENT FIVE – FROM CNBC (FINAL TAKEAWAYS)

REPUBLICAN MEGADONORS DOMINATE 2026 MIDTERM ELECTION AS CRYPTO AND AI MONEY SURGES, CNBC ANALYSIS FINDS

BY Luke Fountain

Published Thu, Oct 8 2026 6:00 AM EDT Updated Thu, Oct 8 2026 9:40 AM EDT

Key Points

· Megadonors’ contributions are overwhelmingly behind Republicans in the 2026 midterm election, with 14 of the 20 largest donor groups exclusively or nearly exclusively backing GOP candidates or outside groups, a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission records found.

· A wave of new political money is coming in from crypto, AI and online gambling executives and companies, which have poured more than $377 million into candidates, super PACs and industry-backed groups.

· Most Democratic megadonors have soured on the Democratic National Committee and are bypassing it altogether, directing their money instead to candidates and outside groups in the races they care about most.

In this article:

The biggest donors in the 2026 midterm election are breaking decisively toward Republican candidates and causes, a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission records found.

Fourteen of the 20 largest donors and donor groups this election cycle have exclusively or nearly exclusively backed GOP candidates or aligned groups, according to a CNBC analysis of federal campaign-finance records. Together, the 20 account for $1.2 billion, or about an eighth of the roughly $9.8 billion raised this election cycle through Sept. 25 across the campaigns and super PACs CNBC examined.

CNBC analyzed FEC records for contributions reported during the 2026 election cycle, covering Jan. 1, 2025, through the latest filings available, combining spouses and closely affiliated donor entities where appropriate and removing duplicate or superseded transactions. The analysis of disclosed federal political committee contributions provides the most up-to-date snapshot of who is financing the 2026 midterms and shows a stark divide in where the biggest donors are putting their money.

Democratic megadonors, meanwhile, are increasingly bypassing the national party, though in some cases they’re giving directly to candidates instead.

With less than four weeks until Election Day, some of the biggest six-figure checks that once routinely flowed to the Democratic National Committee haven’t materialized. Fundraisers told CNBC the hesitation reflects lingering 2024 election “trauma” from Kamala Harris’ defeat, fears of democratic socialism and disillusionment with the DNC’s leadership in Washington.

“We don’t have the kind of donors they’ve got,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “The advantages that the Republicans have are enormous, and no amount of donor enthusiasm on our side is going to close that gap.”

The Republican Party is scrambling to defend its congressional majorities as more House and Senate races once considered safe for the GOP have become competitive. From Labor Day through Sept. 25, conservative super PACs have outspent their Democratic counterparts $310 million to $174 million, a magnitude approaching 2 to 1, according to CNBC’s analysis of FEC records.

“No one ever agrees with anyone on 100% of the issues, but we are doing really well fundraising,” said Republican fundraiser Eric Levine, founder and managing member of ERL Federal Consultants. “My understanding is that a lot of this money is going to candidates that may have a little trouble raising their own money. One name that comes to mind is [Ken] Paxton in Texas.”

Less than six weeks before Election Day, the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter shifted 15 House races toward Democrats and said the GOP was on track to lose its House majority. The race for control of the Senate is closer but has also moved toward Democrats: Cook now rates control a “true Toss Up,” with Democrats needing four seats.

14 of the top 20 political donors are Republican-aligned

The 20 largest donors and donor groups have contributed nearly $1.2 billion this election cycle.

Source: CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings through Oct. 5, 2026.

Methodology: CNBC classified donors as Republican- or Democratic-aligned based on the predominant partisan direction of their giving during the 2026 cycle. Some donors contributed to candidates or groups on both sides of the aisle. Donors whose giving was primarily directed to bipartisan industry groups were classified as special interest.

ATTACHMENT SIX - FROM YAHOO

2026 MIDTERMS ON TRACK TO SURPASS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SPENDING

By Alex Caprariello Thu, October 8, 2026 at 9:00 AM EDT

2026 midterms on track to surpass presidential election spending

(NewsNation) — A midterm election exceeding the spending of a presidential election is a rare occurrence, but campaign spending is reaching astronomical levels ahead of the 2026 midterms.

According to AdImpact projections, about $11.6 billion is expected to be spent on the 2026 midterms, roughly $400 million more than the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 general election.

TEXAS, OHIO AMONG MOST EXPENSIVE RACES

Several races across the country are already ranking among the most expensive non-presidential elections on record.

Texas has seen about $442 million raised and spent in its Senate race, while about $409 million has been spent in Ohio.

Another major trend is the spending advantage Republicans have held during the 2026 cycle.

Dems optimistic about Senate as GOP remains confident in Trump's base

That marks a shift from recent elections, when Democrats outspent Republicans in 2020, 2022 and 2024. So far in 2026, Republicans are outpacing Democrats in spending across several categories.

With the final 30 days of the campaign underway, more than $1 billion is earmarked for spending by party-aligned groups.

About $457 million is set aside by Democrat-aligned groups, compared with approximately $572 million from Republican-aligned groups.

Whether all of that money is ultimately spent remains to be seen.

MICHIGAN SENATE RACE DRAWS MAJOR SPENDING

Michigan is also seeing significant investment as Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers prepare to face off in a closely watched Senate race.

Read Guilfoyle’s texts to GOP donor Deters: ‘You’ll literally cost me my ambassadorship’

The Hill

New Texas Senate poll signals shift for GOP as early voting nears

USA TODAY

According to the latest polling averages from Decision Desk HQ, El-Sayed holds a narrow edge over Rogers.

The Michigan race does not rank among the most expensive non-presidential races in the country, but the spending there is notable for another reason.

Republican-aligned groups are spending more in Michigan than in any other state in the country, signaling that the party sees an opportunity to flip the Senate seat.

Abdul El-Sayed says US is funding Israeli 'genocide'

For Democrats, Michigan is considered critical to their efforts to take control of the Senate.

DDHQ said Democrats would need to win Michigan if they want to control the chamber.

Combined, the two parties are spending about $168 million in Michigan.

Republicans are again outspending Democrats, but campaign spending does not necessarily translate into votes.

EL-SAYED OVERCAME MAJOR SPENDING GAP IN PRIMARY

El-Sayed has already demonstrated that a significant spending disadvantage does not necessarily determine the outcome of an election.

During the Democratic primary, Rep. Haley Stevens outspent El-Sayed by roughly eight times.

Despite the massive gap, El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination, and he's hoping to repeat that success in the general election on Nov. 3.

ATTACHMENT SEVEN – FROM MOTHER JONES

THE MIDTERM SPENDING BONANZA IS THREATENING DEMOCRACY LIKE NEVER BEFORE

New on “Stress Test”: This cycle’s shameless spree is bigger and more brazen than ever. Voters might finally be fed up.

Big money has long dominated American politics, with wealthy donors, corporations, and special interests dumping tons of cash into presidential and congressional elections. This year is no exception. But what’s different is that the quid pro quo of campaign money for preferential government treatment is more brazen than ever before and has become part of the cornucopia of corruption running through the Trump administration.

In this new episode of Stress Test campaign finance reporter Russ Choma joins hosts David Corn and Garrison Hayes to analyze the $1.7 billion that has been poured into the election so far—including hundreds of millions from crypto and sports betting, industries that were barely on the political map in 2020. “There’s no sign of deceleration,” Russ says in the episode. “There’s no sign of slowing down, it’s only acceleration.”

So much of what’s happening is hidden from public scrutiny, because super PACs can obscure donors, and issue ads and targeted turnout operations can go unreported. It’s like “dark matter in the universe that you can’t see,” David observes. The threat to democracy is real, because donors get to cash in by having the administration align with their deregulatory goals, or, in the case of Elon Musk, can gain control of an agency or decimate whole sections of government. “They’re getting more than total access,” Russ explains. “They’re getting inclusion.”

“There have always been a lot of people who believe that the government was corrupt,” Russ says. “But the problem is that now they’re right.” And this cynicism isn’t just a side effect of all this money. It’s a goal. After all, the most effective thing a campaign can buy, Russ notes, is a negative ad, designed “to make you not vote.”

But there could be some hope. Voters are telling pollsters they see more corruption these days, and when that collides with a sour economy, apathy can curdle into anger. Just ask Viktor Orbán, voted out in Hungary after 16 years in power due to a combo of a poor economy and rampant corruption. Might such synergy be happening in the United States?

This transcript was generated with automated tools and may contain errors.

TRANSCRIPT:

David Corn: This is Stress Test from Mother Jones. I’m David Corn.

Garrison Hayes: And I’m Garrison Hayes. Welcome to the third episode of the show, David. Oh, no, no, to our audience. Welcome to you. And also welcome to you, David. How are you doing today?

DC: Well, welcome to you, Garrison. It’s great to be back with you. And I hear that when I was gone, you did a great show with Tim Murphy about the backlash to data centers and how that’s become a bipartisan issue during this campaign.

GH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We had a great conversation about how this is a rare bipartisan issue where you’re seeing backlash and pushback and real anger from both Democrats and Republicans and really everyone in between and beyond, especially in the state of Texas. Our colleague Tim Murphy has been out in Texas a few times, and he has another trip upcoming, where he’s been reporting from the ground on the way that these data centers and the backlash to them are really shaping the political atmosphere there. In fact, he told me about how the governor, Greg Abbott, has made this huge 180 kind of turn from being a champion of data centers to being against them.

DC: Wow, I wonder why. It couldn’t be principle, could it?

GH: You know, he actually invited, you know, Google. They had this big press conference where Google’s spending $40 billion on multiple campuses across the state. It will be their largest data center kind of AI footprint in the country, maybe even in the world. There are other huge projects out there, and none of those projects are actually coming to an end, even though the governor is talking about a pause or a moratorium on data centers going forward.

So there’s a lot to dig in there. If you missed that episode, I really encourage you to go back and watch it. It’s such an important issue during these midterms. You can catch it on our YouTube channel. That’s the Mother Jones YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe to our channel so you don’t miss any of the episodes coming up.

Okay, listen, today’s gonna be a good show. We’re talking about money in politics, specifically campaign money—in other words, what you can and cannot buy in American politics. And we’re gonna talk about some of the big spenders, some of the big receivers of that money, who wishes they had more money, perhaps, who has more money than they need.

DC: Yeah, everybody.

GH: Everyone. Okay, so that’s an inclusive list. But we’re also gonna talk about Trump and how he and the vice president, JD Vance, are hitting the campaign trail. David, you’ve covered many, many, many, many—

DC: Don’t remind me.

GH: You’ve covered many elections, my friend. So talk to me about what you’ve seen and whether what you’re seeing from the Trump administration—so President Trump and Vice President JD Vance—is this stuff normal, the way they’re hitting the campaign trail?

DC: Well, in a way, yes, but also no. You can tell a lot about a campaign and how things are going politics by looking at a politician’s travel itinerary, right? Because right now we see JD Vance and Donald Trump hitting the campaign trail, but they’re going to places where they shouldn’t be—where they shouldn’t have to be going. Oklahoma, for instance. They’re going to states and districts where usually the Republicans would have a lock on that election by this point. So it shows that they see what everybody else is seeing: a possible gigantic blue tsunami heading right toward the White House.

There are races across the country that, quite frankly, are amazing political experts because they’re competitive: Senate race in Iowa, Senate race in Kansas, in Texas, and even the governor’s race in Texas might be within a few points. So Republicans are in, I think, the technical term, freaking out, and they’re worrying about races. And that means—you know, listen, the president, who’s not quite an asset for the Republican Party at this point in time, when he’s at 31 percent approval rating, according to the AP, still has limited amount of time and places he can go in the five weeks left in the election here, or less than that maybe. And so it makes a big—it’s a big deal where you decide to deploy him and JD Vance.

The same with money. We see Republicans taking their money out of certain states, like North Carolina, where they thought they were competitive in the Senate race there, and shoveling it into South Carolina, where they shouldn’t be competitive, and also to Texas. So that’s how you can tell what they’re thinking, by looking where the money and the president is going.

But I have to say this: When he’s at such a low approval rating, the Trump brand ain’t so strong, and you have to wonder to what degree his campaigning helps people. Now, it may help people in deep—candidates in deep-red states if you can gin up Republican turnout there. But at the same time, a lot of Republicans are running away from the president, and they don’t want their voters in their states to be thinking about Trump.

And listen, he’s out there, and I have some notes here to the side. You know, in one campaign stop recently, he said he knows more about inflation than anyone else, and he knows more about everything than anyone else. When people already are not thinking highly of you, talking about how well you know inflation when inflation is a concern to them is really not smart.

But I think this topped it for me, at least. At one rally, he said you need to be a student at the top of your class at MIT to turn on a lawnmower nowadays, you know? But I got rid of all that stuff. Now you can have a lawnmower. What the heck is he talking about? I have yet to see one focus group where people are complaining about lawnmowers. But don’t take it from me. Let’s hear directly from the president of the United States.

[Clip plays.]

GH: Inspiring. Inspiring stuff.

DC: Garrison, these are not what you call ringing endorsements, right? And it’s always about him. Pretend I’m on a ballot. Most Republicans running right now would rather he not be on the ballot, would rather he be put in exile in Mar-a-Lago.

GH: Yeah, it’s hard to kind of—it’s almost distills down so well the fear that I heard from so many Republicans in the 2024 cycle that Trump was really tanking the party, that he was more or less a dead end for the Republican Party. That, yes, he’s very popular; yes, he has this magic way with the American people to get them to vote for him. He has all this charisma, but really there is no viable succession plan. There is no real plan for after Trump.

And we have, as you see on the screen, Vice President JD Vance. But even with Vance, you know, so many voters have said online, and I’ve heard them myself, that he just doesn’t quite have the it factor. And I think it really does present a real problem for Republicans going forward. And we will see. I mean, talk about stress test. This midterm will actually be a real stress test for the Republican Party to see how they chart a path forward after Trump.

DC: Let’s talk about one of the big issues in any campaign, and it only keeps getting bigger, and that is big money. I talked a moment ago about how Republicans are shifting and, you know, where they’re putting their dollars, but we’re talking about tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, campaigns keep getting more and more expensive, and that just gives more power to the people who can provide those dollars. So fortunately, we have with us today Russ Choma, a reporter from—for Mother Jones, who’s one of the experts on campaign finances. He’s been covering this almost as long as I have. So let’s bring on Russ.

Russ Choma: Well, thanks for having me, guys. There’s obviously a lot to talk about this year. The money gets bigger every year, and we’re here again, and it’s even bigger.

GH: It’s even bigger. One thing that’s really stood out to me is just how much AI and crypto and Polymarket and these betting markets and all of that—how much of that money is actually going into this election. We saw in New York there was a big kind of AI race there. And some of these things are kind of constantly popping up in the conversation. It feels like these industries are funneling a ton of money into politics. And I’m curious if that sense is true and what you’re seeing as you’re reporting on this.

RC: Yeah, no, I mean, it’s more than a feeling. It’s what’s actually happening. And it’s interesting because for years and years there were always sort of the same set of special interest groups. And, you know, sometimes with new technology, some, you know, new interest groups would be added, but it’s amazing how instantly both prediction, sports betting, crypto, AI have all sort of—and they all sort of merge into one industry in a lot of ways—have sort of popped onto the scene.

I think the last good count that I saw, about a $1.7 billion has been put into this election. And about a quarter billion of that is just from crypto and sports betting. That’s just the money we know about. It’s a huge, huge, huge sum. But for them to go from two—2020 basically not being on the map to that much money in a midterm, it’s not even a presidential election, is really, really stunning. So yeah, it’s more than a feeling. It’s really happening.

DC: And what strikes me, Russ, is that in the past some big donors have been more—well, sometimes they have wider interests, like, say, the Koch brothers. They want deregulation, they don’t like environmental controls, they want low taxes. It’s basically the conservative libertarian agenda, like, straight through. And we’ve seen that with other major guys who run hedge funds and people like that. The way that George Soros on the Democratic side has a wide liberal, progressive agenda.

But with these guys, it’s highly, highly specific. This is about as quid pro quo–ish as you can get. And I just want to give props to Andreessen Horowitz, the big venture capital fund with Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. They’ve given over $115 million together to both an AI super PAC and a crypto super PAC.

And these two guys are just bringing this technology, this Big Tech money in in a very direct, very brazen, blatant—I would call it institutional corruption that is undeniable. They tell you what they want. They want to run free with AI and crypto, and they are putting in a lot of money to do this. I mean, to me, that seems almost a little bit different than some of the big money we’ve seen in the past.

RC: Yeah, I think that, like, the Koch brothers wanted to change America broadly, and these crypto guys and AI guys, they’ve got very specific wants. But at the same time, I mean—and I think we’ve seen this through the Trump administration—like, they’re trying to change regulation in general. And they’re trying to just have a broad, open—you know, while she always was lobbying for the carried interest loophole, they want everything, these guys. But yeah, you’re right. It does seem very transactional. They are after very specific things. And the amount of money they’re putting in is—I mean, there’s no subtlety to it.

GH: You know, there’s this sense that whoever raises more money—it’s kind of like the money race. Like, whoever just raises the most money will win. We saw that challenged a little bit in 2024, if I’m remembering correctly, Russ, that Kamala raised—Kamala Harris raised close to $1 billion, while Donald Trump raised, I think, a bit less than that, if I’m remembering correctly. And so is it really that simple, that whoever raises the most money just kind of wins? Or how should we be thinking about that?

RC: Yeah, so, I mean, for decades that was absolutely correct. And both if you were an incumbent and if you raised more money, it was, like, something like 90 percent of the time or more, you won reelection. That has been scrambled, and that does have something to do with Citizens United. It has—I mean, Trump scrambled it in a really big way in 2016. He didn’t raise more money than Hillary, and he won. And so it was scrambled. Part of it is his, as you were referring to before, his personal charisma, as what it is—for what it is.

But, you know, there’s a lot of other things going on as well. And part of it is it’s hard to track the money. So Kamala’s campaign raised a lot of money, but there were also a lot of outside actors who were on Trump’s side who didn’t necessarily get counted in with the Trump campaign money. And that’s sort of the unknown.

And that’s sort of—again, and I think, you know, with Elon Musk, like, the money he put in last time, he put it into specific places, and he put it into Pennsylvania get-out-the-vote. It was a big question mark: Would that work? Seems to have worked in some degree. And so that’s part of the problem with this one is that, you know, I just said $1.7 billion, but there’s also money that we don’t know about that could be coming in.

DC: Yeah, I want to ask you about that. I want to get to some of the most expensive races, but just to put a fine point on this, there’s something called dark money. We’re talking the money—the figures that we just talked about is money that goes to super PACs that have to declare where they’re getting money from and where they’re spending, and to campaigns, and to the Republican and Democratic outfits, the national campaigns, the Senate campaigns run by the Democrats. But there’s something else going on there. It’s like dark matter in the universe that you can’t see, right? There’s a whole possible flow of money that we may never know about.

RC: Yeah. And so one thing is the super PACs have to say that they got money, but they don’t—they can be fairly vague about who they got money from. They can get money from an LLC, and you don’t know who put that money in the LLC. So some of that money, even though it’s technically not dark money, it’s disclosed, we don’t know where it came from.

But then there’s this other class of money, and, you know, there are all these sort of arcane rules that were written for a different era, which have been applied to this one, which have allowed sort of, like, loopholes. And it’s allowed groups who maybe don’t get out and actually give money straight to the campaign but start spending money in other ways.

You know those ads, they’re called issue ads, where it’s like, call Congress and tell them that you don’t want them to, you know, and then it has some absolutely outlandish thing. And it’s not really trying to get anyone to call Congress, but it’s just trying to send, like, a scary message. And there’s—those, for instance, don’t get counted in that $1.7 billion. The things like the get-out-the-vote operation, which is just broadly get out the vote, but if Elon Musk is only targeting it at certain types of people, that doesn’t get reported. There’s all this money, and we don’t know what we don’t know.

And it’s been true every election since Citizens United. But I think the thing is—to what we were referring to before about this big influx of money from crypto and AI—is the money’s coming in on a different scale. So if it’s been there the whole time, we have to assume it’s coming in on a different scale than it’s ever come in on before.

I guess the one sort of counter to that, and this is something as a campaign finance reporter has always sort of, like, tweaked me, is that a lot of the apparent public feelings or shame about putting money into politics has gone away. And this is true on both sides. So it is possible that people are just—I mean, this thing where we have billionaires just opening their checkbooks and writing hundreds of millions of dollars. There was a time, even after Citizens United, where that wouldn’t happen because it was so unseemly. And now it just sort of seems to be the way we do politics. So, I mean, I guess that would be the one possible counter, is that everyone is just so brazen now.

But I do think that it’s very likely that there is quite a bit of money, if only because some of the ways they’re spending money are unsavory. You know, they’re sort of on dirty tricks, they’re on negative—which they might not be ashamed of spending the money, but they don’t want to give away the trick.

DC: So we may never know, really, all the deep money influences that are affecting this election or future elections. Let’s talk about some of the most expensive races that are happening now. We have Texas, we Ohio. Where have you seen the biggest influxes of money?

RC: I mean, the Ohio race is huge, and Texas race is huge. And Texas is always huge. But again, I think that this year in particular—and I think Ohio especially is seen as, like, such—I don’t wanna say bellwether ’cause that’s the cliché about it, but I mean, there’s a lot riding on this, and there’s a lot of big donors who feel very strongly about it, and they’re just spending. And—

DC: And we should say that the marquee race there, as you see on the picture here, on the video here, is James Talarico, the Democrat, running against Ken Paxton, the Republican, for a Senate seat, which once upon a time it would be almost inconceivable to think that a Democrat would be competitive for this seat.

RC: Yeah, no, and I mean, that’s, like you were mentioning before, I mean, we’re seeing money shifting. We’re seeing Republicans pulling out of some states, some of the big spenders, and we’re seeing Democrats going in. But I think there’s also—and there are competing factions as well. I mean, there are donors who don’t care what the GOP thinks, and they’re gonna send money in, and they’re gonna send money in for a certain type of candidate.

And I think that that was what we saw in the Texas primary, in the Republican primary, is we saw sort of different factions within the GOP fighting over that. The president happened to be one of the factions, and his faction won, but the money is not always universal. And—but again, like, that’s where it’s become this thing where very openly we’re using money to sort of settle these things, where I feel like before we—

DC: We should also say that there’s a competitive governor’s race in Texas too, where the Democrat’s been outspent, I think last I saw, 10-to-1, and yet Gina Hinojosa, running against the incumbent, Greg Abbott, is only a few points behind. So to your point earlier, Garrison, this is a place where even though she’s being tremendously outspent, she still has a—you know, she’s still in the fight, although that money differential might be too much for her to overcome.

GH: Yeah, it’ll certainly be challenging, as I understand it. To the point that both you and Russ are making, it’s been, what, 32, 33, 30-something years since a Democrat has won statewide there. And I guess, you know, to the point of our show, which is this idea of stress test, I’m curious, Russ, what we should be stressed about. Yes, you, you have to tell us what we should be stressed about. But, you know, as we think about money in politics, where should, you know, we be placing our attention, and what do you think should really be stressing the American people out?

RC: Yeah, I mean, I find the whole thing extremely stressful, but I think—

GH: Well, there it is.

DC: Well, you have to cover it, Russ.

RC: Yeah, yeah. I think that the—some of the specific things, actually—so here’s the thing that I find stressful, was that, you know, for years after Citizens United, and people would ask me and other campaign finance reporters, well, when are we gonna have some reform? When are we gonna have some change? And I was always very sort of cynical or skeptical about it, and I said, well, the next time we have a big scandal, the next time we have a Watergate, because most of the modern campaign finance rules are derived from Watergate.

Watergate was a campaign finance scandal, and it was one that was so bad that even people in the president’s party agreed we have to do something. And so a whole raft of changes came in, not just campaign finance, but all the big campaign finance rules came from that era. And so I always told people, well, you know, I think we’re going to need a big event, you know, something that really shocks people to get to the point where we want to have some reform and have some new serious rules and some serious thinking. And I think one thing that stresses me out is I don’t think we’re approaching that point.

I think that there are a lot of people who are outraged about this. I think that the numbers are shocking. You know, we’re seeing money come in in unprecedented ways. And I don’t have a feeling that anyone is getting that much closer to saying, all right, after this election, we’ve gotta do something about this. Like, there’s no sign of deceleration, there’s no sign of slowing down, it’s only acceleration. And it’s sort of like everything AI says, you know, it’s sort of accelerant has been put on it, and it’s taken off on a crazy level.

DC: So let’s talk about—you know, we’re talking about the quid here. Let’s talk about the quo. What examples do we see here of money coming into politics, particularly campaigns, and what people are actually getting for that? You know, Elon Musk, he has, you know, multiple, you know, billions of dollars’ worth of contracts with many government agencies, correct? You know, with NASA, obviously, but defense, and he has ideas for building a tunnel across from Alaska to Russia, all this stuff.

So the money he puts in, $100 million is nothing. Andreessen Horowitz has $100 billion in assets that they manage. If they put in $100 million into this campaign, and they’re doing more already, that’s one-tenth of 1 percent, if I did the math right. So what other examples do we see, Russ, of why this is a good investment, why people get good ROI?

RC: Well, I think it’s more than just the contracts. I mean, Elon Musk got an office, you know, and he got basically to control an agency that took apart other agencies. And I think that you’re seeing a lot of these big donors—and this is why I talk about, like, changing the whole landscape, the regulatory landscape—is they’re getting spots on seats of important commissions and rulemaking things. So it’s, you know, it’s not just I’m giving you some money and I’ll get this gift back. They’re getting more than total access. They’re getting inclusion, which is wild.

And again, I think that it seems a little weird to me as a reporter that, you know, both Elon Musk and Andreessen and a few other people, they’re surpassing what, say, George Soros has given. And George Soros has always been—for the right has been a big bogeyman, and the Kochs have been a bogeyman for the left. But I mean, those guys are being left behind by the amount of money that’s being put in. And we’re not quite seeing, like, the outrage over it, but yet they’re also getting so much more than I think that the Kochs or Soros ever imagined they would get.

DC: You just made me think of something, so I’m gonna go off the script we have for a second here. And that is, we’ve seen the Trump years just brazen corruption from Trump himself, right? And from his family. We’ve talked about that. We’ll be talking about that more as Stress Test goes on into the season. And it’s all corrupt, it’s brazen, it’s blatant. Republicans don’t say a word about it. There’s no Justice Department investigation. We know why.

And so compared to Trump making 7 billion, Andreessen Horowitz putting in a mere 100 million, it seems like chump change. I mean, he has sort of enhanced the whole culture of corruption, and maybe that’s why, Russ, we don’t see that type of reaction that you just said was absent.

RC: Yeah, no, and I think that a big thing—and this is not specifically about these midterms, although you’re seeing it play out in the midterms—is that Trump has changed the—what’s acceptable to do. And I think that also the constant headlines about his own corruption and all that, it changes the bar. But that’s a—you know, we are seeing sort of in polls people’s belief that the government is corrupt at an all-time high. And there have always been a lot of people who believe that the government was corrupt, but the problem is that now they’re right.

There’s a lot of corrupt things going on that haven’t—actually, they were the kind of things that people imagined were going on before but weren’t. And now we’re seeing them go on. And, you know, but that in itself is something that can affect the election, because it’s the kind of thing that depresses voters, and it depresses voter turnout when you don’t believe that there’s any point in voting because things aren’t gonna work out for you.

And I’ll say that a big part of campaign finance that I don’t think it’s talked about enough is that the most effective tools that a campaign can spend money on are negative ads. And the negative ads aren’t supposed to make you vote for someone, they’re supposed to make you not vote. And that’s the thing that has been proven. Positive ads don’t have very successful, if any, benefit to a campaign. A negative ad—other than name identification, I suppose. But a negative ad cannot—won’t make anyone switch to your side, but will make people stay home. And that’s, again, the more money there is, the less they’re trying to get people to participate.

GH: That’s the thing that stresses me out, Russ. Russ Choma, thank you so much for being here, joining us today. And listen, if you’re watching this, I hope you learned something. To our viewers and to our listeners, you can follow along for more of Russ’s reporting on MotherJones.com. He’s phenomenal. Thanks, Russ.

RC: Thanks, guys.

GH: All right, David. How are you feeling after listening to our colleague? More stressed or less stressed?

DC: Well, you know, I’ve been covering campaign finance for a long time myself, and it’s just always been frustrating that there’s not much more public revulsion against, you know, basically paying—you know, paying the ump, paying the referee. I mean, if there was one MLB baseball game and you found out that the pitcher was paying the ump, it would be in the news, and it would be a gigantic national scandal. But for decades, we’ve had big-money interests, you know, a lot on the right and some on the left, paying legislators who are supposed to do work for us, serve the public interest. And so it’s been a pretty corrupt, rotten system, and as Russ pointed out, it’s gotten worse.

But I’ll say this, and I’ll take issue with my colleague Russ on this one point. People do see—people are now telling pollsters that they see more corruption, and they don’t like that. And he says that depresses voting, and I think it has in the past. At the same time, though, I think it is adding a bit to voter anger. When you have corruption on one side and a bad economic status on the other side, people start making the connection.

And we just have to look to Hungary, where Viktor Orbán was voted out of office not too long ago after 16 years there and ruling as an authoritarian. And one of the major driving forces was the rampant corruption going on there. His son was driving around a car worth $100,000 or something, and the economy was not doing well, and people kind of melded those issues together.

So I think there is a sense now that Trump, you know, the crypto, the Russian guy, you know, financing Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding, and all this other stuff going on is beginning to register a bit. So I’m still stressed out about campaign financing, but I also think that maybe there’s a ray of light here, that other people out there will start paying a little more attention to the corrupt side of it.

GH: I think you’re spot-on. You know, we’ve been living in the kind of anti-incumbent kind of era in America for at least the last 10 years, maybe a little bit longer, depending upon when you start the count. But people are not enjoying the way things are, the status quo. And I think for the last decade, it’s been very much a, well, it’s the Republicans, and then when the Republicans fail, it’s the Democrats, and then when the Democrats fail, we’ll go back and choose Republicans again.

And I think sooner or later the American people will start to put the pieces together. I’d argue that they are already starting to put the pieces together, that there are these big-money spenders behind the scenes who are often influencing in ways that go beyond the ballot. And I think people will become increasingly sick of that kind of America. And so, you know, there’s always—there are always calls to end Citizens United and all of that. And maybe one day that will happen. But I do think you’re right, David, that we’re seeing a real frustration, a real anger, and people are starting to put those pieces together.

DC: That’s all we have for you on this episode. If you missed the first two episodes of Stress Test, you can go see them at our YouTube channel—that’s youtube.com/MotherJones—or wherever you get your podcasts.

GH: Remember that our great journalism, like the incredible work that Russ leads and does his reporting, and this show is made possible by your support. Yes, you. Your views and your subscriptions keep us going. So don’t forget to like this video or this podcast wherever you get it. Share it with a friend. Subscribe on our YouTube channel. That’s youtube.com/MotherJones. And if you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to leave a comment down below. We’re reading them, even the bad ones—even the bad ones. Or at least our producers are. We will be right back here in your feed again in just a few days with another edition of Stress Test. Thanks for watching.

ATTACHMENT EIGHT – FROM FULCRUM

SELF-INTERESTED ELITE SUPREMACY, 1776 TO 2026, AND A PATH FORWARD

By Hugh Campbell Oct 11, 2026

For 250 years, U.S. elites have maintained supremacy by embedding self-interest into the nation’s foundational structures, translating economic power into political dominance. From the plantation economy and the Gilded Age to modern corporate lobbying, wealth consolidation has consistently undermined democratic equality to favor the ruling class.

This trajectory of elite control and self-interest unfolds across the following core eras:

THE FOUNDING CONSENSUS AND PROPERTY RULE (1776–1860s)

Constitutional Architecture: The framers of the U.S. Constitution, many of whom were large property owners and slaveholders, designed a republic with checks meant to dilute the popular majority's power. They restricted direct democracy in favor of institutions like the Electoral College and an appointed Senate.

The Slave Power: The antebellum Southern elite built immense wealth on the backs of enslaved labor. This faction dominated the federal government for decades, ensuring laws, judicial rulings (like the Dred Scott decision), and territorial expansion protected their human capital and economic hegemony.

THE GILDED AGE AND CORPORATE OLIGARCHY (1870s–1920s)

Industrial Monopolies: Rapid expansion in the railroads, steel, and oil industries allowed "robber barons" to amass unprecedented private fortunes. These monopolies controlled markets and labor and routinely utilized state and federal troops to crush union strikes.

Capitalist Influence: Wealth was actively leveraged to influence elections and legislation. The era established a precedent of the judiciary striking down progressive labor laws and income taxes under the guise of "freedom of contract."

POWELL MEMO & CONSERVATIVE COUNTER REVOLUTION (1971-Present)

The Policy Network Backlash: Beginning in the 1970s, elites restructured their political dominance. The creation of corporate-funded think tanks and policy-planning networks (e.g., the Business Roundtable and the Heritage Foundation) laid the groundwork for decades of deregulation and privatization.

Wealth Polarization: The modern era has seen a massive upward transfer of wealth. Tax cuts for corporations and high-income earners, coupled with stagnant working-class wages, have returned economic inequality to Gilded Age levels.

Purchased Politics: Campaign finance deregulation and a system of corporate-funded lobbying have made political representation highly responsive to the interests of the wealthiest donors and multinational corporations. The result is a political economy in which elite self-interest often dictates both domestic legislation and foreign policy.

PERIODS OF RELIEF

Over the last 250 years, relief from elite supremacy has occurred during periods of mass mobilization, institutional reform, and progressive legislation. These eras temporarily decentralized wealth and political power, giving the working class, marginalized groups, and broad coalitions greater influence.

Notable periods of relief over the last two-and-a-half centuries include:

The Progressive Era (~1890s–1920s): Driven by the immense inequality of the Industrial Revolution, grassroots movements and reform-minded politicians challenged the power of corporate monopolies (trusts). This era brought relief through antitrust laws, the federal income tax (16th Amendment), and the direct election of senators (17th Amendment).

The New Deal & World War II (~1933–1945):

Elite Concessions: Facing the existential threat of the Great Depression, the corporate elite were forced to accept the New Deal. This period featured the growth of the labor movement and the highest marginal tax rates in U.S. history, creating a robust middle class.

In response to the Great Depression and the threat of global fascism, the federal government enacted sweeping economic and labor reforms. Policies like Social Security, the Wagner Act, and wartime wage controls drastically reduced the wealth gap and strengthened labor unions.

The Post-WWII "Great Compression" (~1940s–1970s): Economically, this remains the most egalitarian time in American history. A highly progressive tax structure, a booming post-war manufacturing sector, and powerful labor unions created an era in which the middle class flourished, and the top one percent saw a historic low in wealth concentration.

The Civil Rights Movement & Great Society (~1950s–1960s): Massive social upheaval successfully challenged the supremacy of entrenched political elites. The resulting legislative achievements—most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid—established vital legal and social egalitarianism.

PATH FORWARD

The 1894 midterms marked a pivotal political realignment. The catastrophic conservative collapse, shattering the laissez-faire consensus of the Gilded Age. This massive voter shift forced the newly empowered progressives to adopt early interventionist policies, sparking a new nationwide era. The 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential elections provide similar opportunities.

Escaping the "Second Gilded Age" requires a modern-day equivalent to the Progressive Era. Overcoming extreme wealth concentration and corporate dominance relies on structural reforms, grassroots organizing, and building lasting institutions that prioritize the working class and restore democratic accountability.

The necessary steps forward involve:

Need for Electoral Reform to Precede Kitchen-Table Reform

To combat the extreme wealth inequality and entrenched corporate power defining the "second gilded age," electoral reform is a necessary precondition for kitchen-table reform. Because the current political system is financed and shaped by a billionaire class, foundational democracy must be fixed first to prevent vested interests from co-opting or blocking everyday economic relief.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, America's first Gilded Age was defined by monopoly capitalism and widespread political corruption. Meaningful economic changes only materialized after structural democratic reforms—such as secret ballots and direct election of senators—loosened the grip of political bosses.

Today’s second gilded age requires a parallel sequencing. Without structural changes to the political arena, efforts to legislate "kitchen table" issues like higher wages, fairer taxes, and lower living costs will continually face gridlock. Entrenched monied interests are incentivized to protect the status quo, utilizing lobbying power and campaign financing to block broadly popular economic reforms.

Targeted Electoral Solutions: To restore political equality, several structural electoral changes are vital:

Electoral Mechanisms: Mitigate the effects of the Winner-Take-All (WTA) Electoral College through a constitutional amendment or by adopting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Adopting reforms like open-primaries/ranked-choice voting or proportional representation to reduce polarization and elect lawmakers who are genuinely responsive to working-class economic struggles rather than donor class preferences.

Reducing/Eliminating the Effect of Gerrymandering: The combination of open primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) reduces the effects of gerrymandering by shifting the political incentive from appealing to partisan extremes to building broad, majority coalitions. In addition, implementing independent, non-partisan redistricting commissions to ensure congressional maps represent the populace rather than protect incumbent power.

Remove Money from Politics: Reversing the corrupting influence of wealth in elections by instituting public financing systems.

Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.

ATTACHMENT NINE – FROM FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION (FEE)

THE MYTHS ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS ARE WORSE THAN THE REALITY

by Yaël Ossowski

Claims about the dangers of money in politics are riddled with ignorance and hypocrisy.

In each election cycle, there’s a ritual to the mantra about the role of money and how it influences our politics.

It was triggered incessantly during the 2012 presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, only to see the conservative “dark money” lose by huge margins.

It became an obsession for many in the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election in which Gov. Scott Walker clung to the seat in the Governor’s Mansion despite record opposition from union groups and liberal activists who flocked to the Badger State from around the country.

In the meantime, top progressive voices like Jane Meyer have etched out books warning about the influence of money in politics and the consequences for democracy, using Wisconsin as a key example.

Fast forward to a post-2016 election world, and the fear of billionaire conservatives has been replaced by Russian trolls with swanky algorithms and puny ad budgets.

Still, many activist researchers retain their obsession with the “dark money” demon. Almost on cue, articles and research are published that aim to uncover vast alleged conspiracies among very wealthy political benefactors and nonprofit groups and politicians who espouse free-market beliefs.

In concocting these webs, however, the authors draw connections so tenuous and present rationalizations so shoddy that we’re left to wonder what has become of plausible journalism.

ACTIVIST RESEARCH

The latest investigation is found in the Guardian, which Elon Musk has labeled the “most insufferable newspaper on planet Earth.” It is written by academic researchers from Columbia and Harvard and is intended to uncover the “big money” scandal between the Koch brothers and the group Americans For Prosperity.

Adding a touch of irony, the research is funded by the Ford Foundation, a left-leaning group with a $12 billion war chest and a frequent flyer status in the modern political debate arena.

In their investigation, they look back to the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election with a key focus on the Koch brothers and AFP. For the researchers, the union reforms Gov. Walker proposed were tantamount to billionaire-inspired sabotage. In truth, AFP and the groups present in the debate presented basic facts about the influence of unions on the political process.

They advocated for union reform by pointing out various inefficiencies with public sector unions: The law in contention, Act 10, struck down mandatory contributions to unions in private firms and limited collective bargaining for public sector employees, among other pension reforms (for example, it reduced the vastly bloated pensions available to politicians).

I was in Wisconsin that summer, reporting on the recall election for Watchdog.org, and I was able to interview activists and politicians from around the state on this topic. Their support of the law came down to the state’s finances and the rights of unionized employees. Should unions speak for their workers in politics, or should workers speak for themselves?

Whatever the case, what happened in Wisconsin in 2012 was vindicated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 case Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, where the court determined that mandatory union fee collection in public sector unions is unconstitutional. Good riddance.

Too often, employees had their paychecks go directly to supporting (mostly Democratic) candidates they might or might not have agreed with. That is a violation of the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court got that right.

Considering large labor unions contributed over $1.7 billion in the 2016 political cycle, the issue of who actually represents “dark money” is unclear.

POLITICS TODAY

In today’s political cycle, the billionaire Koch brothers, philanthropists who believe in free market ideas, have put serious money into defeating the ideas of the Trump Administration, particularly when it comes to trade tariffs and immigration restrictions.

The fact is that if the Koch brothers’ money had the influence on politics that their detractors claim, Donald Trump wouldn’t be president in 2018. Mitt Romney would.

Another egregious case also floated up to our northern neighbor, as witnessed with Canadian public broadcaster CBC during its interview with former foreign minister and now leader of the People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier. The interviewer cited Bernier’s former role at the Montreal Economic Institute, which received funds from the libertarian Atlas Network, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that has received some money from Koch-affiliated groups in the past, as proof that “billionaire libertarians” were trying to sway politics in Canada. It seems the lunacy has made its way north, as well.

Of course, money in politics is something that is far from ideal. Unless, of course, it comes from people like Tom Steyer, the billionaire who has spent a small fortune trying to impeach President Trump, or comedian and talk show host Bill Maher, who donated $1 million to re-elect Senate Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections. He also threw $1 million toward the re-election campaign of Barack Obama in 2012.

That’s the reality of the debate today on the influence of money in politics. There is a lot of effort to showcase the interconnectedness or supposed conspiracies of the right but almost no focus on the left.

Topping this all off with more scaremongering about effective policy organizations is just another sign that the latest “dark money” claims are based on false assumptions and a misunderstanding of the realities of public policy. And that’s a shame.

ATTACHMENT TEN – FROM EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

THE POLITICS OF AI

A Campaign Finance Reform Proposal

By Bob Bauer Oct 07, 2026

Campaign finance regulation as conceived and pursued from the 1970s to the present day has mostly failed, and badly. It did not survive a range of pressures: one party’s implacable opposition, both parties’ complaints about the growing complexity of the statutory scheme, and changes in the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence that sharply limited congressional authority to restrict political money flows. Polarization played its part. As elections became close in margins and as political actors deemed their outcomes to be “existential” in significance, neither party—Democrats included—had much use for impediments to spending as much as they believed that they needed to win. And this has unleashed a free-for-all in spending, now amounting to billions of dollars, epitomized for many observers by the surge in “dark” (undisclosed) money to influence elections and the rise of the largely unregulated “super PACs.”

But the question of the role of money in politics—and certain kinds of money in politics—now assumes a different form than in the past and calls for carefully sculpted reforms to address a special case: the monies spent by the technology companies whose innovations and competition in the development of AI can transform the nation’s economy, its culture, and its politics. Companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic have effectively limitless resources that they can channel in various ways, including through super PACs and unregulated “dark money” vehicles, to win elections. A number of them are now doing so, and this spending, and the companies and executives engaged in it, can be expected to steadily increase as the policy and political conflicts over AI intensify. Individual company executives have also contributed millions of dollars in support of their companies’ political programs. Forbes recently estimated that of the AI executives who gathered at the recent White House meeting to discuss industry self-regulation, ten had collectively donated $145 million in connection with the midterm elections.

Much of campaign finance law that might once have constrained corporate electioneering has eroded to the point of uselessness. But the companies in question are corporations of a particular kind, providing IT services to the government: they are federal contractors subject to special legal restrictions that, while astonishingly weak, could be substantially strengthened. The courts have left Congress more room in this than in other big-money spending contexts to fashion reforms that would address this type of spending. The prospect that the Supreme Court would uphold well-crafted federal contractor reform is reasonably good.

Since

1940, under an amendment to the Hatch Act, federal law has restricted political spending by federal contractors. A lead sponsor in the Senate declared that “the greatest source of corruption in American politics today is the use of money obtained from those who make profit out of contracts with the Government.” Congress’ action built on the original 1939 Hatch Act, which had constrained various partisan activities by federal government employees. In both cases, the overriding concern was the integrity and efficiency of the executive branch: its capacity to function competently and impartially, free of political influences and pressures.

The law as it stands today broadly prohibits any federal contractor from making—and any person from knowingly soliciting from a contractor—“any contribution of money or other things of value to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose.” The relevant regulations clarify that the prohibited spending includes “expenditures” as well as contributions. It is a “prohibition” largely in name only. Federal law generally prohibits corporations from contributing directly to candidates or parties, leaving this ban to affect primarily limited liability companies that have not elected corporate status for tax purposes, partnerships, and individual proprietors. But a contracting corporation is free to establish a “political action committee” or PAC with funds voluntarily contributed by its executives and administrative personnel, and use those monies to support candidates or parties. The Federal Election Commission has in the past construed the corporate restriction as narrowly as possible. In one such case, it concluded that the parent company of two LLC contractors was “a separate and distinct legal entity” able to contribute to candidates and parties without regard to the prohibition.

These weak restrictions operate against a background fact: the corruption risks that moved Congress in 1940 have not receded. In fact, the problem is vastly more acute. There is striking evidence that the risks increase sharply when “political principals have a strong grip over their bureaucratic agents, in particular through appointees.” And “large donations to the party of the president substantially increase these risks, especially when the awarding agency is highly politicized (i.e., least insulated from the president).” With the advent of the unitary executive, and the experience now unfolding with the overlap of presidential control, weaponization and politicization, it would seem that the dangers of federal contractor politicking have risen to an entirely new level.

We are faced then with something of a perfect storm: a major policy commitment—the insulation of government contracting from political money—undermined by a law shot through with loopholes, the rise of the politicizing unitary executive, and a tech industry commanding trillions in the quest for political influence. The case for reform in this corner of campaign finance regulation is exceptionally powerful. And yet it may appear that the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence, especially the affirmation of corporate spending rights in Citizens United, has closed the door on any meaningful reform initiative.

There is reason to believe otherwise. In Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ruling en banc, unanimously upheld the law against a challenge by three plaintiffs whose personal services contracts with the federal government subjected them to the prohibition. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment and the guarantee of equal protection. In rejecting these claims, the court noted that even the plaintiffs had acknowledged that “Congress has greater latitude to restrict the expression of both employees and government contractors than it does with respect to the general public.” It emphasized in particular the government’s interest in protecting “against interference with merit-based public administration.” The court also indicated that the Congress might have significant flexibility in devising the means to that end, possibly “targeting only certain specific kinds of government contracting or doing so only during specific periods.” The Supreme Court declined without noted dissent to hear an appeal from the appellate body’s decision.

It is especially significant for purposes of the current reform issue that, in evaluating Congress’ regulatory interest, the court took account of the changing landscape it perceived in the field of government contracting. It noted that the “most relevant change…has been the enormous increase in the government’s reliance on contractors to do work previously performed by employees,” which meant that “if anything, that shift has only strengthened the original rationales” for the statutory ban. The government already spends billions of dollars on private technology services, and the share of AI within its total IT budget is soaring as agencies issued 2,255 identified AI-related awards between FY 2019 and 2025, with $4.1 billion in total obligations. This reliance on private industry will only continue to grow. President Trump refers to AI as “technology that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution,” and those who run the leading tech companies as “the biggest people in the world.”

Reform legislation that replaces the largely useless prohibition now in place would certainly face energetic, well-funded resistance, from lobbying of the Congress to the constitutional challenge that would follow enactment. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court—this Court in particular—would closely scrutinize the reform’s nature and sweep.

Yet, in carving out more room for the regulation of this very specific kind of corporate political activity, the Justices who are committed to expansive constitutional protections for political speech and association would not be abandoning or seriously undermining their deregulatory agenda. A law that eliminates the current exceptions to the ban and expands transparency requirements would be a modest reform measure. It would apply to all federal contractors and should stand a fair chance of favorable constitutional review. The Congress could also clarify that the political spending ban applies to companies that provide uncompensated services to the government, as Meta does in supplying its “Llama” AI to federal government agencies.

It is even conceivable that, for the special category of federal contracting, Congress could go further and impose limits on certain other “independent spending” protected under Citizens United case law, such as executive and employee contributions to super PACs. The effect would not be insignificant: Elon Musk alone has donated millions to super PACs in this election cycle. At a minimum, the Congress could fashion special transparency requirements that would provide more visibility than at present into the AI interests behind much of this spending.

Legislative focus on one powerful sector of federal contracting might pass muster under an analysis like that of the Wagner Court, which pointed to the possibility that Congress might permissibly target “certain specific kinds of government contracting.” The Supreme Court may well decline to allow this targeted approach. Congress can only know if it builds the record for reform and makes its case.

Editor’s note: This piece is cross-posted at the NYU Law Democracy Project.

Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith, two former senior government lawyers from different political backgrounds and administrations, decode the presidential power issues and controversies of the day.

ATTACHMENT ELEVEN - FROM ELECTION LAW BLOG

BOB BAUER (!) SUGGESTS NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION LIMITING AI-RELATED CAMPAIGN MONEY, POTENTIALLY EVEN INDEPENDENT SPENDING OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY CITIZENS UNITED

BY Rick hasen October 9, 2026, 12:51 pm

But the question of the role of money in politics—and certain kinds of money in politics—now assumes a different form than in the past and calls for carefully sculpted reforms to address a special case: the monies spent by the technology companies whose innovations and competition in the development of AI can transform the nation’s economy, its culture, and its politics. Companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic have effectively limitless resources that they can channel in various ways, including through super PACs and unregulated “dark money” vehicles, to win elections. A number of them are now doing so, and this spending, and the companies and executives engaged in it, can be expected to steadily increase as the policy and political conflicts over AI intensify. Individual company executives have also contributed millions of dollars in support of their companies’ political programs. Forbes recently estimated that of the AI executives who gathered at the recent White House meeting to discuss industry self-regulation, ten had collectively donated $145 million in connection with the midterm elections.

We are faced then with something of a perfect storm: a major policy commitment—the insulation of government contracting from political money—undermined by a law shot through with loopholes, the rise of the politicizing unitary executive, and a tech industry commanding trillions in the quest for political influence. The case for reform in this corner of campaign finance regulation is exceptionally powerful. And yet it may appear that the Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence, especially the affirmation of corporate spending rights in Citizens United, has closed the door on any meaningful reform initiative.

There is reason to believe otherwise. In Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ruling en banc, unanimously upheld the law against a challenge by three plaintiffs whose personal services contracts with the federal government subjected them to the prohibition. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment and the guarantee of equal protection. In rejecting these claims, the court noted that even the plaintiffs had acknowledged that “Congress has greater latitude to restrict the expression of both employees and government contractors than it does with respect to the general public.” It emphasized in particular the government’s interest in protecting “against interference with merit-based public administration.” The court also indicated that the Congress might have significant flexibility in devising the means to that end, possibly “targeting only certain specific kinds of government contracting or doing so only during specific periods.” The Supreme Court declined without noted dissent to hear an appeal from the appellate body’s decision.

ATTACHMENT TWELVE – FROM CBS INVESTIGATIONS

WEEKS BEFORE ELECTION DAY, THE NATION'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATOR CAN'T ENFORCE THE LAW

By Gabe Kaminsky October 7, 2026 / 6:00 AM EDT / CBS News

In July, Reps. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, and Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, had a request for the Federal Election Commission: help make sure artificial intelligence chatbots do not feed voters false information about the 2026 midterm elections.

The lawmakers, writing to the FEC as well as the Justice and Homeland Security departments, urged the agencies to coordinate on "AI-driven threats to election integrity" and to press AI companies on their safeguards. Their concerns come as a quarter of likely voters use AI tools daily and at least 38% have gotten information about candidates or voting from AI search summaries, according to a September survey released by the American Association of Political Consultants Foundation.

But later that month, FEC Commissioner Shana Broussard, a Democrat, wrote back with a blunt answer: the agency couldn't help. With only two of its six commissioner seats filled, the FEC "cannot proceed," she wrote, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

Broussard signed the letter as an individual commissioner. Without a quorum — the four members needed out of a total of six — she could not under federal law even speak for the agency.

With Election Day just four weeks away, the exchange offers a window into how little the FEC can do as campaigns enter their final stretch. Without a quorum, agency staffers are limited to collecting and publishing campaign finance reports, answering questions from candidates about the law and fielding new complaints.

But the agency charged with policing how campaigns raise and spend money can't open investigations, issue fines, write rules or give candidates formal legal guidance. It hasn't been able to fulfill any of these duties since May 2025.

Since then, the FEC has not voted to resolve a single enforcement case or approved a dollar in new civil penalties, both of which require four commissioners. In the 12 months before that, it closed 180 cases and imposed about $1 million in civil penalties, according to agency records.

Meanwhile, the FEC's backlog of enforcement cases has doubled in a year, from 154 to 307, agency data show. (The FEC declined to comment for this story.)

"Please advise on what I can do," she wrote in an email. An FEC official replied the next day that the commission could not issue advisory opinions until a quorum is restored.

Luna said in an interview that she reached out to the White House to convey the importance of the FEC regaining a quorum, so questions like hers can be answered.

"Until the FEC meets, we're going to be operating in a gray area, which is why we need them to get a quorum to get a yes or no," Luna told CBS News. "Obviously, we don't want to get in trouble."

For those less worried about getting in trouble, the standstill has had the opposite effect, said Adav Noti, a former top lawyer for the FEC. The agency rarely acts quickly on complaints even with a full commission, he said, but the perception that anything goes has led to "more boundary-pushing than we would otherwise see."

Noti is now executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group that seeks to strengthen campaign finance enforcement. Last month, it filed a complaint alleging President Trump illegally controls MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC that supports Republican candidates.

Unlike candidates, super PACs like MAGA Inc. can raise unlimited sums from donors, but federal law bars officeholders from controlling them or directing how that money is spent.

"Since there is just absolutely no enforcement mechanism right now, there's sort of blanket impunity for lawbreaking," Noti said. (A spokesperson for MAGA Inc. denied any impropriety and said in a statement that it complies with the law.)

Conservatives are frustrated, too. "It is very disconcerting that the FEC is incapable of carrying out any enforcement actions," said Paul Kamenar, a lawyer at the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative nonprofit. Earlier this year, the group accused Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, of illegally using campaign money to pay a psychiatrist. That complaint is also stalled. (Ocasio-Cortez's office and campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)

"We are hobbled"

"Other people report that we're hobbled, and I hate to agree with it, but we are hobbled," Broussard said at the time. Mr. Trump nominated two Republicans to the commission in February. But nearly eight months later, the Senate has not held a hearing on either nominee.

The paralysis has left lawmakers in both parties without answers.

Rep. Mike Levin, a California Democrat, asked the FEC earlier this year to investigate allegations that Hungary's government funneled money to the Conservative Political Action Conference. Without four commissioners, Broussard replied, complaints "cannot proceed through the enforcement process." In June, Broussard and Democratic Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum gave Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, the same answer on a separate request.

Requests for guidance fared no better. When Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat, wrote to the FEC this year to see if it would consider guidance on whether trading on prediction markets like Kalshi by candidates and PACs could count as a contribution or expenditure that must be reported under campaign finance law, Broussard replied that the FEC "is currently unable to commence rulemakings or to issue advisory opinions."

Thompson said in a statement to CBS News that such markets "can be easily manipulated by wealthy special interests" and that Congress and the FEC "should be tackling this emerging issue now."

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, was sent a similar answer.

Last year, her chief counsel asked the FEC whether campaign money could be used for defense lawyers "if the senator is sued for something that happens in the course of her official employment," emails show.

A spokesperson for Slotkin said the inquiry was a question about how campaign funds could interact with Senate-sanctioned liability insurance, and that no lawsuit was anticipated.

RECORD SPENDING

The lack of a quorum is colliding with the most expensive election on record.

Candidates and their allies are still filing FEC complaints against each other, even though the agency cannot act on them. In Texas, Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico's campaign accused Republican Ken Paxton of illegally spending dark money; the groups involved say they follow the law. Conservative critics have accused independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn in Nebraska of misusing PAC and campaign money, which his campaign called politically motivated.

With no commission to issue guidance, campaigns and spenders are left to decide for themselves what the law allows, said Craig Holman, Public Citizen's lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance rules.

"We've got no one that can judge the merits of what's going on, enforce the law and provide guidance to candidates and political committees that seriously want it," Holman said. "So everyone knows you can do whatever you want this time around."

ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN – FROM BREITBART

SCOTUS RULING ON CAMPAIGN SPENDING WILL MAKE AMERICAN POLITICS MORE TRANSPARENT

By Peter Schweizer: 8 Jul 2026

Political parties may soon make a comeback. A new Supreme Court decision “could fundamentally change the equation in American politics,” says Peter Schweizer about a Supreme Court decision on campaign finance.

“This will allow the parties to have more influence and more direction on who their nominees are,” he says.

Why? Because the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Republican Senate Committee v. Federal Elections Commission struck down rules that prevented political parties from coordinating their candidates’ spending directly. Now, political parties will become a more attractive way for donors to give money to a preferred candidate since the party can help steer how the money is spent.

Political campaigns are already too expensive, as most will agree. Will Rogers once said that “Politics is so expensive that it takes a lot of money just to lose.”

But the real problem, Schweizer says, is more distinct. “With some of the Super PACs [Political Action Committees], if you’re a 501(c)(4), there’s much less transparency. And there is a lot of dark money there.” On this week’s episode of The Drill Down, he and co-host Eric Eggers explain why it matters.

Super PACs accept a lot of dark money, whose donors are not required to disclose their contributions. Since the Citizens United ruling in 2010, PACs and Super PACs have been able to spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of their candidates. They tend to be sharply ideological and focused on one main political issue.

Parties, of course, tend to support candidates with more broad appeal. The Court’s ruling means parties can directly fund expenses for their chosen candidates in a way that PACs cannot. Donors who contribute to parties, instead of PACs, can see that money put to direct use for their chosen candidate.

This gives political parties an advantage over special-interest PACs, but it also means that candidates who need party funding will have to moderate their stances to appeal to a broader audience rather than seek the dark money from activist Super PACs.

“I think this ruling is going to be really important as far as transparency is concerned,” Schweizer says. “People can actually now know who the major backers are.”

Schweizer ties this to the recent success of socialist candidates like Zoran Mamdani who are affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. “The DSA is not officially a political party. They are, essentially, a faction within the Democratic Party,” Schweizer says. “They are a 501(c)(4), not a political party.”

The same holds true for big-spending billionaires such as George Soros, who made massive contributions on behalf of candidates in statewide races such as district attorneys.

“Soros is a very famous example of someone who spends a lot of money to put his thumb on the scale. He’s largely credited with the rise of the socialist candidates that you’re seeing across the country, but when a voter casts a ballot, they only see the political party next to the candidate’s name,” Schweizer says. “You don’t see who their top donors are, or which Super PACs they received money from.”

With those forces pushing the Democratic Party further left, the court’s decision to allow political parties to coordinate “seems more honest,” Schweizer says. “I know that’s a weird thing to say.”

“The very aim of a political party is to influence the candidates,” adds co-host Eric Eggers. “It’s literally their job to get these guys elected.”

Up until the ruling, the dark, undisclosed money has been driving more extreme candidates. And it is growing. “The New York Times found that in 2024, there was one $1.9 billion dollars in dark money that went into the election cycle,” Schweizer said. “Nobody knows who spent it. That is nearly double the previous record of $1 billion in 2020. So, it is trending in that direction.”

ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN – FROM WASHINGTON TIMES

FCC ASKED TO UNLEASH CAMPAIGN ROBOCALLS BEFORE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

By Mary McCue Bell - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 7, 2026

What to know

· A conservative group petitioned the FCC for political robocalls before the election.

· Club for Growth wants an exemption for AI-generated political calls to cellphones.

· The group argues outdated rules hinder the use of AI calling tools.

A conservative advocacy group has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to allow political robocalls to voters ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

Club for Growth requested that its petition be expedited for action before the election, which is now just four weeks away.

The FCC was asked to exempt noncommercial political calls to cellphones that use an artificial or prerecorded voice, including voices generated with artificial intelligence, from the requirement to get prior express consent.

If approved, voters could begin receiving unsolicited robocalls from political campaigns and other political players.

In the petition, which was filed in late August, Club for Growth said it wanted to use AI-powered calling tools to call voters but can’t under current rules.

“Outdated rules create litigation risks hindering the Club and its affiliates from utilizing emerging AI-powered calling capabilities,” it said.

An exemption to the rule would protect First Amendment speech rights, correct polling inaccuracies and help campaign reach more voters, including by communicating in more languages, according to the petition.

Club for Growth proposed that robocalls get the same conditions that apply to landlines, including no more than three calls per 30 days, an automated opt-out mechanism and a company do-not-call list.

David McIntosh, the organization’s president, said that these are not robocalls.

The FCC determined in 2024 that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s artificial or prerecorded voice technology restrictions “encompass current AI technologies that generate human voices.” At the same time, the law allows the FCC to exempt certain such calls.

Granting the exemption would advance both the FCC and Trump administration’s goals to “reduce unnecessary regulations and remove barriers to the deployment of new AI technologies,” Club for Growth said in the petition.

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN – FROM OPEN SECRETS

DEFYING PARTY LINES, VOTERS COME TOGETHER ON LIMITING BIG MONEY’S ROLE IN POLITICS

By Claire Cleary October 13, 2026 3:40 pm

Even in the most politically divided parts of the country, voters from both parties agree that the role of money in politics must be curbed, according to a new survey by the University of Maryland.

The school’s Program for Public Consultation queried nearly 20,000 Americans in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive House districts, asking questions on a range of political reforms, all based on proposed legislation.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided by the Supreme Court in 2010, rolled back prohibitions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. Weeks later, under the precedent of the Citizens United ruling, a federal court ruled in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees were unconstitutional.

The two decisions dramatically changed the role of money in politics, opening the door for unlimited raising and spending by what became known as super PACs. Since the decision, outside spending has jumped from $574 million in 2008 to $4.5 billion in 2024.

The PPC survey also found that a bipartisan majority favors banning individual stock trading by members of Congress, the president, the vice president and Supreme Court justices. The largest majorities favored banning members of Congress from trading – 65% to 94% among Democrats in the surveyed districts and states, 63% to 88% among Republicans. Nationally, 75% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans were in favor. But overwhelming majorities also favored banning the White House and Supreme Court from trading (Democrats, 54% to 92%; Republicans, 55% to 82%; nationally: Democrats 70%, Republicans 74).

On Sept. 30, the Stop Insider Trading Act failed a procedural vote in the Senate, going down 53-47 on a procedural vote that required 60 Senators to say yes in order to advance to a final vote. The legislation would have prevented lawmakers from buying new stocks in publicly traded companies, but allowed them to keep existing stocks and continue to buy private stocks. Democrats who voted against the bill argued it did not go far enough to address corruption.

The PPC said the findings reveal bipartisan agreement at a time when trust in U.S. political institutions “remains near an all-time low.”

“The American people believe the current rules of the political system produce a government that serves special interests and politicians themselves,” said Steven Kull, director of the PPC. “They agree on major reforms to make elected officials more responsive to the people, and more likely to serve the common good.”

ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN.A – FROM KCRA

CAL VOTERS TO DECIDE ON PROP 4 TO SEE IF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS CAN USE TAXPAYER MONEY

Proposition 4 would overturn current law, allowing state and local governments to be able to create public financing programs for campaigns

By Teo Torres Updated: 8:30 AM PDT Oct 11, 2026

In November, voters will decide whether political campaigns in future elections will be able to use taxpayer money in their push for office.

Proposition 4 would overturn current law, allowing state and local governments to be able to create public financing programs for campaigns. It would have restrictions on how the money could be used.

"A yes vote on Proposition 4 is a vote to simply lift the ban on public financing of our elections," said Jenny Farrell with the League of Women Voters. Farrell said this would give candidates without wealthy donor networks another way to compete.

"Public financing really allows qualified candidates from all walks of life to compete and win," Farrell said.

Proposition 4 outlines that the public funds could not come from money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety.

Candidates receiving taxpayer dollars would have to meet eligibility requirements and agree to spending limits.

Kline argues Proposition 4 would not eliminate private or special-interest campaign spending.

"It’s just a misuse of tax dollars — pure and simple. It doesn’t remove any special interest funding. It just augments it with your money and my money," Kline said.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the measure could lead to significant costs for governments that choose to create public financing programs. The state would face relatively small ongoing costs, estimated at a few hundred thousand dollars a year.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 states and Washington, D.C., provide some form of public financing option for political candidates.

ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN – FROM ISSUE ONE

NEW DATA ILLUMINATES HOW SECRET MONEY FUELS 2026 MIDTERMS

By Georgia Lyon Jul 22, 2026

Mysterious donors are playing a major role in the 2026 midterms, and while Republicans are benefiting from more secret money, both parties are getting in on the action.

According to an Issue One analysis of newly filed campaign finance reports, the four main super PACs focused on helping Democrats and Republicans win House and Senate elections raised a combined $197.7 million from their affiliated dark money groups between January 2025 and June 2026.

During this time, the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund (SLF PAC) and Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), plus the Democrat-aligned Senate Majority PAC (SMP) and House Majority PAC (HMP), have raised $714.6 million combined.

Their four affiliated dark money groups – respectively known as One Nation, the American Action Network, Majority Forward, and House Majority Forward — account for more than $1 of every $4 these four super PACs have raised.

Republican-affiliated groups have abused secret contributions significantly more than Democrat-affiliated groups. The two Republican-aligned super PACs account for 58% of the total receipts and 58% of the money raised from affiliated dark money groups, while the two Democrat-aligned super PACs account for 42% of the total receipts and 42% of the receipts from affiliated dark money groups.

Issue One Director of Money in Politics Reform Michael Beckel issued the following statement:

“Our campaign finance system needs meaningful transparency for voters to be able to follow the money in politics. Anti-corruption guardrails don’t work when voters are kept in the dark about who’s bankrolling political ads. It’s long past time for members of Congress in both parties to take seriously the tsunami of dark money polluting our politics.”

Additional key findings from the report include:

· During the second quarter of 2026, the Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund each raised more than twice as much money from unknown contributors giving through their affiliated dark money groups donors than they did during the first quarter. The Democrat-aligned Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC saw more modest increases in dark money funding.

· In June, the Republican-aligned, Senate-focused Senate Leadership Fund super PAC received $24.29 million from its affiliated dark money group, known as One Nation. That was more than double the $11.18 million it received from One Nation during the previous quarter.

o Since January 2025, the Senate Leadership Fund has now collected $70.74 million from One Nation — about 28% of its total receipts.

· Similarly, the Republican-aligned, House-focused Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC received $20 million in June from its affiliated dark money group, known as the American Action Network. That was more than double the $7.5 million it received from the American Action Network during the previous quarter.

o Since January 2025, the Congressional Leadership Fund has now collected $44.2 million from the American Action Network — about 27% of its total receipts.

· Meanwhile, the Democratic-aligned, Senate-focused Senate Majority PAC super PAC received $28 million in June from its affiliated dark money group, known as Majority Forward. That was up just 12% from the $25 million it received from Majority Forward during the previous quarter.

o Since January 2025, Senate Majority PAC has now collected $61 million from Majority Forward — about 35% of its total receipts.

· And lastly, the Democratic-aligned, House-focused House Majority PAC super PAC received $6.5 million in June from its affiliated dark money group, known as House Majority Forward. That was up from the $4 million it received from House Majority Forward during the previous quarter.

o Since January 2025, House Majority PAC has now collected $21.7 million from House Majority Forward — about 18% of its total receipts.

Read Issue One’s full analysis.

See charts and graphs here.

ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN – FROM CAL MATTERS

PUBLIC FINANCING OF CALIFORNIA’S ELECTORAL CAMPAIGNS COULD CURB POWER OF MONEY IN POLITICS

by Mary Gomes October 9, 2026

This year’s gubernatorial primary illustrated vividly that California needs better ways to fund political campaigns.

Proposition 4, The California Fair Elections Act, is a crucial step in the right direction, allowing Californians the freedom to create systems of public financing of elections.

In the 38 years since it was banned in California, the corrupting influence of money in politics has become increasingly problematic, severely narrowing our options. This came into sharp focus in the recent primary, where Democratic voters faced a choice between Tom Steyer and Xavier Becerra.

Like many progressive Californians who voted for Steyer, I did so with great ambivalence. I agreed with many of his policies, but like many others I strongly mistrust billionaires. I suspect for many who voted for Becerra, their wariness of billionaires outweighed their resonance with Steyer’s policies.

All of us were in a bind due to the choice before us.

Ironically, Steyer’s personal wealth was one of the things that liberated him from the shackles of external funding. The fact that Steyer received as many votes as he did, despite voters’ mistrust of the ultra-rich, is evidence of the powerful appeal of his progressive messages, including a strong stance on protecting the climate and support for California’s proposed wealth tax, Proposition 40. In contrast, Becerra’s centrist policies were in line with the contributions he received from the fossil fuel industry and other large companies.

If you look beneath the soundbite debates, you see a persistent, systemic problem: Our current political system makes it very difficult to get elected without the backing of either personal wealth or wealthy corporate or individual donors.

These California Republicans have one advantage in the race for Congress: Money

by Maya C. Miller

How many strong progressive candidates for California governor — who lacked access to either of these sources of funding — were shut out due to this systemic, baked-in bind? How much of our entire political system in California is driven by access to wealth?

The outsized influence of those with excessive wealth not only removes input from the hands of “we the people,” but it puts it in the hands of those whose ethics are often severely compromised.

Prop. 4 repeals the 1988 ban on the public funding of elections in California, providing the opportunity to create local and state programs on a case-by-case basis. It does not mandate public funding or create a system. It simply allows the state and local governments to decide if they wish to do so, and sets general guidelines. Our decisionmakers, with public support, would determine spending limits, eligibility criteria and the form of the matching funds system.

In recent years, we have witnessed growing evidence of the inherent corruption of excessive wealth. As a psychology professor, I have been fascinated by the research of Dr. Paul Piff of UC Irvine, who has demonstrated that upper-class individuals are more prone to entitlement and narcissism and less inclined toward empathy, compassion and generosity than people from middle- and lower-classes.

They are also more likely to display notable ethical lapses, such as taking goods intended for others, cheating to win a prize, breaking traffic rules or endorsing unethical workplace behavior. These tendencies show up under a broad range of conditions, from long-term upper-class status to temporary artificial “wealth” in a psychology experiment’s rigged game of Monopoly.

From the shockingly broad network of inhumane behavior revealed by the Epstein files to this substantial body of psychological research, there is no denying that exorbitant wealth undercuts basic human empathy and imperils people’s ethical bearings.

The resulting self-serving behavior by people whose wealth imparts outsized power has the potential to unravel the fabric of community and threaten democracy. A now-classic paper by Northwestern University political scientist Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens, then of Princeton, illustrated this, demonstrating that economic elites and business interests have a substantial influence on public policy, while average citizens have little impact at all.

This is not inevitable. Good, successful approaches to democratizing elections already exist. For example, Zohran Mamdani would not have won New York City’s mayoral race without access to the city’s matching funds program, which aims to minimize the power of private wealth through the public financing of candidates who agree to strict limits on individual donations. New York’s state government has a similar program for statewide races, as do 13 other states.

Let’s learn from our recent experience of the Steyer-Becerra conundrum — and Mamdani’s once-improbable victory — and open the door for a similar system in California, where wealth does not determine who represents us and what policies become law.

ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN – FROM THE OAKLAND (MI) PRESS

WOULD ‘MONEY OUT OF POLITICS’ PROPOSAL LIVE UP TO ITS NAME?

A ballot proposal barring political spending by large-scale utilities and those making $250,000 annually in state contracts aims to get ‘money out of politics.’ Opponents claim it doesn’t.

By Jordyn Hermani, Bridge Michigan: PUBLISHED: October 10, 2026 at 11:24 AM EDT

· Proposal 2 to get ‘money out of politics’ is slated to appear on Michigan’s Nov. 3 general election ballot

· Opponents claim the proposal doesn’t live up to its name because it wouldn’t fully stop ‘dark money’ or union spending

· Organizers say the proposal ‘was never designed to fix every single part of our campaign finance system’ but would improve it

LANSING — A Michigan ballot proposal to restrict political giving by large-scale utilities and state contractors is facing scrutiny over whether it will actually get “money out of politics,” as its name suggests.

The initiative by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, also known as Mop Up Michigan, is slated to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The politics and power behind Man City's major soccer controversy

If approved by voters, Proposal 2 would prohibit direct or indirect contributions to Michigan politicians by DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and companies with more than $250,000 in state government contracts, along with immediate family members and other people with close connections.

But opponents contend the law would not stop political spending by out-of-state groups, dark money nonprofits and a major source of political giving in Michigan: unions.

Here are the facts.

‘MONEY IN POLITICS’

As drafted, the proposal would prohibit monopoly utilities and large state contractors, whether based in Michigan or outside the state, from donating to Michigan candidates or elected officials.

State law already prohibits corporations from directly contributing to Michigan candidates. But under the proposal, that ban would extend to officials at impacted companies, along with other people who have “substantial” ownership interests or serve on a board of directors.

Company officials and immediate family members also could not donate to entities that are affiliated with elected officials or candidates and pay for their travel, meals, conference fees or other expenses.

But what about out-of-state donors that aren’t contractors?

They would not be impacted by the proposal, as critics are quick to point out.

What about dark money?

The proposal would not directly prohibit dark money spending through 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, which do not have to disclose their donors, making the money difficult to trace.

It “was never designed to fix every single part of our campaign finance system,” McBrearty said.

But the proposal does seek to end the “dark” nature of some of that spending by shining a light on donors. It would require groups to disclose their donors if they run so-called issue s within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary.

That means any outside group that makes even tangential reference to a candidate or ballot issue in an ad — even if they don’t explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against” — would have to report donors and expenses to the state.

At least 11 other states require donor transparency for issue ads that have evaded disclosure rules in other parts of the country, but Michigan would be the first political battleground to do so.

It’s an attempt to close “loopholes” in Michigan’s campaign finance system, McBrearty previously told Bridge.

“There will need to be more reforms after we pass this ballot initiative,” he added this month. “But this ballot initiative — we designed to take out the biggest chunk that we can, and to do the most to help working people in Michigan have a level playing field and get their voices heard again in Lansing.”

BALLOT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS

Opponents like Consumers Energy contend it’s “hypocritical” for Mop Up Michigan organizers to say they want to get money out of politics “while accepting out-of-state dark money from their supporters.”

Mop Up Michigan has received millions of dollars in contributions from dark money groups known for spending on left-leaning political causes.

State filings include $5.4 million in donations from All Hands on Deck Network Inc. of Massachusetts and $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal clearinghouse based in Washington, DC.

McGillivray, co-chair of the ballot committee, defended the group’s fundraising, arguing it shouldn’t be penalized for “operating under the exact same rules everyone else is.”

As for unions…

Another issue opponents have with the initiative is that it does nothing to curtail the spending powers of unions, which have historically been big supporters of Democratic causes in Michigan.

Asked about that language, McBrearty clarified that some individual union members could theoretically be impacted by the petition if “any union becomes a government contractor.”

“There’s no need to name labor unions explicitly,” McBrearty added. “Just like you won’t find DTE or Blue Cross Blue Shield or Consumers’ names specifically in here—this was written to target a behavior which is pay-to-play politics, drowning out the voices of regular folks across the state.”

Like corporations, unions are prohibited from directly giving to candidates in Michigan. But they can spend through political action committees and make independent expenditures, neither of which would generally be prohibited unless a union is a state contractor.

According to July campaign finance statements filed with the Department of State, a PAC associated with the United Auto Workers — Michigan’s largest union — spent nearly $800,000 between April 21 and July 20, 2026.

The PAC has spent more than $1 million so far this year, including $24,000 in campaign contributions to state Sen. Chedrick Greene, D-Saginaw, who was elected in a May special election that could have changed control of the Michigan Senate if he’d lost.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The Mop Up Michigan proposal generally would not prohibit political spending by out-of-state interests — unless those groups had a contract with the state government worth $250,000 or more. Same with unions.

It would not ban dark money spending outright but would require donor disclosure for groups that run so-called issue ads in the run-up to Michigan elections.

Voters will get the chance to weigh in during the Nov. 3 general election.

ATTACHMENT NINETEEN – FROM KTVQ MONTANA

REPUBLICANS ARE FLOODING SENATE RACES WITH AD MONEY, BUT PAYING A PREMIUM

Republicans are pouring millions more into Senate TV ads, but Democrats are stretching their dollars further in several key battlegrounds.

By: David Wright, CNN Newsource Posted 7:25 AM, Oct 14, 2026

Republicans are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising in battleground Senate races as they scramble to defend increasingly competitive GOP seats in the final stretch of the midterms.

But when it comes to how far they can stretch a dollar, they’re effectively paying premium prices at Whole Foods while Democrats are shopping deals at Costco.

Across nine of the most competitive Senate races last month, Republicans cumulatively outspent Democrats on broadcast TV ads by nearly 100% more, $233 million to $121 million, according to AdImpact data, but only saw about 40% more rating points.

The disparity comes down to a difference in strategy. Republicans are relying heavily on outside groups, like super PACs, that pay elevated rates for ads and are making big buys late in the campaign, when inventory is stretched.

By contrast, Democrats are taking advantage of discounted rates for candidates and earlier, less expensive reservations.

A better metric, he said, is to consider the gross rating points, or GRPs, a unit advertisers use to measure the reach and frequency of an ad campaign, independent of how much was paid for it.

In those nine races – where outside groups accounted for about 9 in 10 Republican ad dollars, compared to about half for Democrats – Democrats paid $201 per GRP, while Republicans paid about $274.

In some races in September, Democrats actually outpaced Republicans in GRPs, completely overcoming their spending edge.

In North Carolina, for example, Republicans outspent Democrats by about $17 million to $14 million on TV ads in September, as former Gov. Roy Cooper poses a major threat to former RNC Chair Michael Whatley and the GOP chances of holding Sen. Thom Tillis’ seat. But Democrats got more than 71,000 GRPs from their spend while Republicans got about 58,000. And at the beginning of October – recognizing the costly, difficult road ahead for Whatley – Republicans actually began cutting their remaining ad bookings by about $15 million.

Democrats were also outspent last month by Republicans in Maine by about 32%, another premier battleground race where former state Sen. Troy Jackson is looking to unseat veteran GOP incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, who has received major backing from national Republicans. But here, again, despite being outspent, Democrats got 6% more GRPs for their money.

Even in Texas – where Democrats were blasted by Republican ad money in September, outspent more than 4 times over – the GRP gap was proportionally much smaller. Republicans got only 2.6 times more GRPs.

A GOP super PAC had to spend more than $22 million to air its top ad, touting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s record as a prosecutor, about 15,500 times in September. Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico’s campaign spent a little under $4 million to air its most aired ad, casting Paxton as “the most corrupt politician in Texas,” about 8,000 times. That amounts to less than one-fifth the spending for about half the airtime.

Lauren French, communications director for Senate Majority PAC, a leading Democratic super PAC, also emphasized that buying TV late in the cycle becomes exorbitantly expensive. “The nitty-gritty of campaigning is that not all ad space costs the same,” she said.

“If you are buying something in February, it’s going to be a lot cheaper, and you’re going to get a lot more bang for your buck than, say, if you’re buying it in September. So that’s why you’re seeing this huge disconnect between what Republicans are paying and what Democrats are paying on average in some of these races,” French said.

In seven of the top nine Senate races by total TV and radio ad spending in September, Democrats paid less per GRP than Republicans.

The two exceptions were New Hampshire and Alaska. Confident in their nominees, Republicans were able to secure comparable or better rates in both states’ key markets. In New Hampshire, this was reinforced by Republicans allocating relatively more to cheaper secondary markets.

“Broadly speaking, Republicans are using their money pretty ineffectively, and public polling is saying that people are not seeing their ads as much as one would expect. So, by that definition alone, some of their money is being set on fire. We are being outspent in a lot of these states, which means we have to make more strategic decisions,” French said.

Thomas said that Texas, in particular, was emblematic of this effect, with GOP outside groups mounting an urgent rescue effort for Paxton and pouring money into the state. He noted that Paxton allies had taken to buying ad time on national NFL broadcasts because local markets had grown so crowded. That’s why people across the country are seeing Texas Senate ads in games that don’t include the Dallas Cowboys or Houston Texans.

“In some cases, because the commercial rate is so high in a local, like a Houston spot, it actually sometimes can be cheaper to buy a national spot,” he said.

Democrats’ efficiency advantage might have been much greater, given their candidates have consistently raised more money their Republican opponents on a campaign-to-campaign basis, allowing them to spend more directly on their own ads at cheap rates.

But thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, for the first time this year, national party committees can take advantage of candidate ad rates through coordinated buys.

This means well-funded national committees like the National Republican Congressional Committee or National Republican Senate Committee can team up with candidates – like Mike Rogers in Michigan or Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio – and foot the bill for pricey ad campaigns while getting candidate discounts.

The expansion of coordinated buying has allowed Republicans to blunt the Democratic candidate fundraising advantage. Democrats can do the same, but the GOP has taken to it far more aggressively: In September, GOP advertisers spent more than $30 million on coordinated ad buys, compared to about $5 million from Democrats.

Outside groups like super PACs still play a dominant role, however, due to their unique ability to accept unlimited donations and make unlimited expenditures.

“The money is actually very, very inefficient, but the benefit, even with the inefficiency of a super PAC, is one or two people can cut checks and fund the whole thing,” Thomas said.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY – FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

CHOOSIN’ TEXAS

There are a number of tight races in the coming midterm elections, but there isn’t a more expensive one than the Senate showdown in Texas. It pits James Talarico, the Democratic nominee, against Ken Paxton, the state’s conservative attorney general. More than half a billion dollars has been spent on advertising already, and the race could become the most costly nonpresidential contest in U.S. history.

Democrats are hopeful, because Talarico has a tiny lead in the polls. But “such optimism stands in defiance of the political axiom that Texas is where idealistic Democrats go to be mugged by reality,” writes Robert Draper, a three-decade veteran of Texas political reporting. The party has not won a statewide race there for 32 years.

The race may turn on who each man says he — and his opponent — is.

Talarico has introduced himself to the state’s 32 million residents as a good Christian member of the Texas House, with a record of bipartisanship. At a town hall meeting last night, Talarico spoke about his faith and appealed to undecided voters. “I’m a proud Texas Democrat, but I already have a religion and I already have a sports team,” he said. “So, I have no problem sharing hard truths with my party if it’s what’s best for Texas.”

His appeal is meant to be broad, with proposals to cap credit card rates, cut middle-class taxes, lower prices and assist people with their first down payment on a home.

In return, Paxton and his supporters paint Talarico as a “weird” radical who believes that “God is nonbinary” and that there are more than two biological sexes. (Talarico did say those things but later renounced them.) Vice President JD Vance, stumping in Texas on Tuesday, mocked Talarico — whose girlfriend is a former aide — with a gay joke. “I love you too sir,” Vance told a man in the crowd. “In a totally platonic way, to be clear. I’m the vice president, not James Talarico.”

It gets uglier. Recently, Talarico disappeared from the campaign trail for nine days. He and his aides said it was a bad case of the flu. His conservative opponents pounced, spreading a rumor that he had been at a mental health facility in Ohio, a state Talarico said he had never visited.

That story proved false — The Times obtained time-stamped security camera images showing that Talarico spent a week at home — but the episode offered a lesson for the age of misinformation, my colleague Bayliss Wagner reported: “It is politically risky for a candidate, even one too ill to campaign, to disappear for nine days.”

There’s a reason Paxton and his allies have clawed at every possible advantage. He’s got baggage to spare. During a quarter-century in Texas politics, he has never lost an election. But as attorney general, he was charged with felony fraud. He cut a deal to drop the charges in exchange for paying restitution and performing community service. Then, a group of his aides accused him of bribery and abuse of office. The Texas House impeached him in 2023. (The State Senate acquitted him.) And last year, his wife, Angela Paxton, a state senator, filed for divorce on “biblical grounds,” after his impeachment trial revealed that he’d used burner phones, a shared Uber account and secret email address to conduct an affair.

No wonder her appearance in a new ad doesn’t mention Paxton’s name, but simply urges people to vote for the Republican ticket.

And Trump, for his part? His endorsement was strangely backhanded: “He may not dress right. He may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I’ve ever seen,” Trump said last month. “But you know what he is? He’s the greatest attorney general in America.”

Jess Bidgood, who writes our On Politics newsletter, had a good line about that:

It’s never great when the two people most crucial to your political survival struggle to simply say nice things about you.

It’s worse when one of those people is the president, and the other is your estranged wife.

More on politics

The Democratic candidate in a tight race for U.S. Senate in Kansas is also the leader of a megachurch. It’s been a big part of his campaign.
More has been spent on election ads in this cycle than on ads by the N.F.L. last season: At more than $10 billion, it will soon eclipse the spending in the 2024 presidential election.
At a rally in Arizona, Trump said that government “leakers should be shot.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY ONE – FROM US NEWS

HOW HIDDEN DONORS AND $11.6 BILLION IN SPENDING ARE REWRITING THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Projected political ad spending is up from $8.9 billion in 2022 and on pace to rival the 2024 presidential race, with top donors giving more than $100 million.

By Holliday Woodard Oct. 7, 2026, at 7:00 a.m.

Each U.S. election cycle tends to be more expensive than the last, and the November midterm elections are no different.

Political ad spending is projected to reach $11.6 billion this cycle, according to AdImpact. This figure is up from $8.9 billion in the 2022 midterms and exceeds the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 presidential race.

Much of this money comes through super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations from wealthy donors and organizations. And some of it is what the campaign industry calls dark money, or spending from political groups that hide the identities of their donors.

The Supreme Court first opened the door to unlimited funding from super PACs with its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. But super PACs must disclose their donors. Now, campaigns are using nonprofits and other tactics to keep their donors secret. And the unlimited money flowing into campaigns has reached new heights.

Dark money has become increasingly common, making it difficult to trace the origin of many of the contributions in elections. Structural loopholes and tax advantages for wealthy donors have made it a popular way to donate, leading to more dark money contributions each year.

“I think the reason why you have such spending is because the stakes are so high,” said Bruce Freed, president and a founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Still, there are a handful of megadonors who have donated to PACs that are moving the needle for candidates.

WHO ARE THE NOTABLE DONORS? AND WHO IS SPENDING MORE – DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?

Republicans are outspending Democrats in the midterms, according to a New York Times analysis of the latest FEC data from Nov. 5, 2024, through July 31, 2026.

The New York Times found that Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz – founders of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz – gave $115.3 million to Republican super PACs focused on cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence.

And father and son George and Alex Soros, philanthropists known for large contributions to the Democratic Party, gave $103.7 million to Democratic super PACs and left-leaning groups.

Elon Musk, the world's richest man, gave $90.5 million to Republican super PACs and is expected to donate millions more to help Republicans win the midterms, according to The New York Times.

Governor Races: The Toss-Up States

Executive mansions are up for grabs in dozens of states on Election Day. Here’s where the races could go either way.

WHICH GROUPS ARE USING DARK MONEY TO FUND CAMPAIGNS?

The New York Times identified five dark money groups that contributed $265 million. One Nation, American Action Network and American Prosperity Alliance are Republican-aligned groups. Majority Forward and House Majority Forward support Democratic-aligned causes. One Nation raised the most with $75.7 million and is set to air roughly $134 million in midterm ads, according to The New York Times. And Majority Forward raised the second-most with $63 million.

The updated donation amounts will be released after Oct. 15, the next major FEC filing deadline.

HOW ARE OUTSIDE SUPER PACS AND DARK MONEY GROUPS ABLE TO HIDE DONORS?

There are several ways political spending can make a donor’s identity harder to see, Brendan Fischer, the director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center, said. First, a donor can fund a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group that spends money on political ads, mailers or canvassing. However, the organization's primary purpose cannot be influencing elections. And the nonprofit does not have to disclose its donors.

The second is when a nonprofit raises the money but transfers it to an aligned super PAC for spending. While super PACs must disclose their own donors, they do not have to reveal their donors’ contributors. The super PAC can then spend the money as it sees fit while keeping the identities of the contributors secret.

One Nation and Majority Forward are both examples of dark money groups that transfer funds to aligned super PACs to spend money directly on s or other efforts to influence voters.

“That's become an increasingly common way for dark money to come into elections,” Fischer said. “(It) undermines the transparency requirements that the law is intended to advance. So super PACs have to disclose their donors. But if they receive a large donation from a group that does not disclose its own donors, then all you know is the name of the nonprofit group.”

Third is the use of a “pop-up” super PAC. Created shortly before an election, the super PAC times its formation and its receipt of donations to come after the close of books for the reporting period.

“The pop-up super PACs are gaming the reporting calendar to avoid disclosing donors until after voters had already cast the ballot,” Fischer said. “So eventually you get some level of transparency, but not at the point where it really matters.”

PARTY MATTERS LESS TO VOTERS THAN EVER

American politics is becoming less about right vs. left, and more about populism vs. elitism.

WHICH KEY RACES ARE GETTING THE MOST CASH?

The Senate race in Texas is one of several receiving significant financial support from outside groups. The race has seen nearly $259 million in ad spending through September – the most of any Senate race this cycle.

The Senate race in Michigan is another close one. Since Michigan's primary election on Aug. 4, independent groups have spent more than $35 million on ads for Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate, according to The Detroit News. Outside groups that support Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate, have spent $16.5 million in the same period. In the primary, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent $30.6 million against El-Sayed, the most it's ever devoted to a single race, according toCommon Dreams.

The Ohio Senate race is also drawing lots of money. Fairshake, a super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry, announced plans to spend nearly $30 million against Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, who is facing Republican Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio. The Senate race in Ohio is one of the cycle's most competitive races.

DOES MONEY WIN RACES?

Money matters but is not always determinative, Fischer said. A competitive candidate is likely to have substantial financial backing, but money alone is not enough to win.

Case in point: Cornyn, the Texas incumbent, lost his primary to Paxton despite roughly $35.6 million of support from Texans for a Conservative Majority, a Republican-aligned super PAC. He raised more than $14 million, according to FEC filings.

Funding goals have changed and in many races this midterm cycle, money has been used as a weapon against the opposing candidate to ensure that lawmakers who win will back the industry's preferred policies.

Money continues to matter after a candidate wins as well. Undisclosed spending can backfire and can create reputational risks for the companies behind it.

“They're not considering the risks until after the fact,” Hanna said. “They don't have a plan for addressing their political spending, or for addressing people who question their political spending.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY TWO – FROM WASHPOST

THE EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF MONEY POURING INTO THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS

How much is too much?

Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, have thrown half a billion dollars into the midterm elections this year. And that's only a fraction of the money being spent.

Analysis by Amber Phillips October 7, 2026

These midterm elections may be remembered as the year the wealthy dominated in political spending for congressional and state elections — to questionable results.

The elections are on track to break spending records, reports the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit that advocates reducing the influence of money in politics. And some of the richest Americans and corporations are dominating the spending.

But money doesn’t seem to be solving Republicans’ problems yet, and all the spending can even backfire amid voters’ discontent with the economy and their government.

“Voters are seething,” writes Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center. “They see big money as a major issue, deeply connected to government’s failure to work for them.”

Here’s what to know about money in politics in the 2026 election.

There is a LOT of it: Dark money, super PACs and Republican spending

In the primaries alone, there was at least $1 billion in dark money spent to sway voters, a New York Times analysis found. Dark money is the term for donors who spend money through nonprofits that don’t have to disclose who is giving them money. They proliferated after a 2010 Supreme Court decision commonly known as Citizens United that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on politics.

Special interests are another huge factor in this election, particularly in tech: The artificial intelligence industry and cryptocurrency groups have spent more than $100 million in primaries so far, according to Politico, and are ready to deluge any race with ads when a candidate doesn’t agree with their positions.

Some candidates have become cautious about the money being thrown around in their races. The pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee is spending a lot of money in this cycle, particularly against progressive Democrats — but as its influence and popularity wane, even a Republican Senate candidate in Michigan, Mike Rogers, has asked AIPAC not to spend money on his race. His Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, won his primary after making AIPAC’s spending for his opponent a big deal.

Political parties have more power than ever too in this election. Over the summer, the Supreme Court sided with Republicans and allowed political parties to spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with candidates. (Previously there were strict limits.)

The timing was great for Republicans, who have raised far more than Democrats this year. President Donald Trump has started spending hundreds of millions of dollars from his political war chest to help struggling Republicans.

But the half a billion dollars Republicans have poured into races over the past few weeks doesn’t seem to be helping them much, reports The Washington Post’s Isaac Arnsdorf. It hasn’t moved the polls in Republicans’ favor; in some cases, some Democratic Senate candidates are more popular after all that spending, he reports.

Texas’s Senate race may be the epicenter of extreme political spending

In Texas, Republicans’ spending on Senate candidate Ken Paxton rivals that of a presidential campaign spending in the state. Republicans have expressed confidence that with enough money, Paxton, who has survived a series of scandals during his political career, will win.

The Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, James Talarico, has tried to turn all the political spending against him into a major argument for his election: mainly, that the money is why Republicans have struggled to address Americans’ affordability concerns.

“This is the rot at the core of this broken system,” Talarico said in a speech earlier this year. “It’s why we can’t afford anything. It’s why we can’t get ahead no matter how hard we work. For 50 years, billionaire megadonors have been buying politicians like Ken Paxton. And then those politicians turn around and rig the rules of the economy in favor of those billionaires at our expense.”

Polls show it is a very tight race.

MONEY MATTERS IN POLITICS — TO A POINT

Money can define the conversation in a campaign, said Meredith McGehee, a government ethics expert who serves on the National Task Force on Election Crises.

“Money allows candidates to saturate the conversation with ads on every conceivable media outlet,” she said, “which allows candidates to increase name recognition and create a public persona to present to voters.”

Related Articles

Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending could give GOP a boost

May 14, 2026

Meet the megadonors pouring more than $1.7 billion into the 2026 elections

September 22, 2026

Trump begins major midterm spending with $10 million ad buy in Texas

September 5, 2026

More money, more corruption require more attention, nonprofit says

December 13, 2025

Supreme Court weighs further loosening campaign finance limits

December 9, 2025

How billionaires took over American politics

November 21, 2025

The top 20 billionaires influencing American politics

November 21, 2025

We asked 2,500 Americans how they really feel about billionaires

November 21, 2025

AI money is already influencing the midterms. And more is coming.

March 12, 2026

Why Trump’s payout fund was too much for Republicans

June 3, 2026

Money can also fund get-out-the-vote efforts — or suppress them with negative ads. The Ohio governor’s race is a particularly striking example of the latter: Wealthy businessman and Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican nominee, he has spent millions trying to cast Democrat Amy Acton as a drunk. (She disputes that and has called him a “con man.”)

But analysts in Ohio have warned that all the negativity might cancel out and just be something voters drown out.

Elon Musk is another potential case of money backfiring in politics. He’s a rare billionaire spending openly. After spending hundreds of millions to help put Trump back in the White House, his super PAC is spending tens of millions to help Republican Senate candidates.

But he’s also an unpopular figure nationally, and Democrats are hoping to use his presence in the midterms as a rallying cry for their donors and voters. Last spring, Musk spent $13 million on a Wisconsin Supreme Court election. It became a major issue in a normally quiet election, and his candidate lost.

“Having tons of money doesn’t guarantee victory,” McGehee said. “But the contrary is true — not having ‘enough’ does guarantee defeat. And no one ever really knows what ‘enough’ is.”

In Montana, a pro-Trump state, voters will decide whether to become the first state in the nation to ban corporations from spending on elections.

Neither side has concretely shared what exactly they would do to curb all the money in politics, says Waldman, head of the Brennan Center.

“The question for whoever wins is what they will do to try to curb corruption,” he wrote this week. “Otherwise we will be sentenced to one election after another where parties club each other with populist anger, alternating in power with little changing.”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY THREE – FROM NPR

HOW GOP GROUPS ARE SPENDING CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO RALLY SUPPORT AHEAD OF MIDTERMS

By Steve Inskeep October 8, 2026 4:44 AM ET

NPR's Steve Inskeep asks Jessica Taylor with the Cook Political Report how Republican groups are shifting spending amid unfavorable polling for their party ahead of the midterms.

Transcript

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

We just heard about 43 House races that are competitive, according to the Cook Political Report. And we've now called Jessica Taylor, who tracks polling and campaign spending for the Cook Political Report. Jessica, good morning.

JESSICA TAYLOR: Good morning, Steve.

INSKEEP: I feel that 43 competitive House districts doesn't - it's not really that many compared with some past big elections. This is still kind of a narrow playing field. Am I right?

TAYLOR: It is. It's a bigger playing field than we had at the beginning of the cycle. But in 2010, Republicans picked up 63 House seats. In 2018, the last Trump midterm, it was 40. So we're not expecting that big of a shift, but certainly the map has moved in favor of Democrats, and, you know, we're constantly reevaluating these races, especially as we're just 20 days from the election. So the map could be shifting further as well.

INSKEEP: Yeah. I think a year ago, or even six months ago, people anticipated that maybe Democrats would narrowly win the House. Now they have a chance at least for a substantial win. And I think people anticipated that it was very hard to imagine Democrats winning the Senate, but I think you can imagine that now.

TAYLOR: I mean, the Senate is a true toss-up, but it's moving in Democrats' direction, and certainly Democrats are the heavy favorites to win the House. Our current projections have them winning - have them with a - between a 5 to 15 seat majority, but that's trending on the upper end of that range.

INSKEEP: Let's talk about the Senate then. Is it really possible that Democrats could win in places like Texas, Iowa and Kansas?

TAYLOR: You know, those states are states that Trump carried by 13 and 14 points. But when we look back at 2006, which a lot of sources I talked to say this feels like you have an unpopular war in the Middle East. You have an unpopular president. You have rising prices. It's almost a perfect storm, a confluence of events. And the average seat that a Democrat outperformed the previous presidential baseline by was 13.6 points. So it's within the range. However, 20 years later, we're certainly more polarized.

So the fear that Democrats have and the hope that Republicans have is that people put back on their partisan jerseys in these final days. They retreat back to their camps. And that - but the worry that Republicans have, though, is that enthusiasm among their base voters are so low, while we see higher Democratic enthusiasm, that that's further tilting the playing field toward Democrats.

INSKEEP: Yeah. I think you definitely have evidence of more dispirited - if that's the word - Trump voters or more conservative voters. But let's see if those conservative voters feel that they have any choice. When you focus on some of the more conservative states like Kansas, how have Democrats done in restoring their brand or appearing credible to people who are not automatic Democrats?

TAYLOR: Well, Kansas is probably the most interesting race to me right now. We just shifted that race, which is a Trump plus-16 state, into the toss-up category.

INSKEEP: Wow.

TAYLOR: You have Roger Marshall, the incumbent there, a little slow to wake up to the challenges. He's been hit hard by a New York Times story. He's a OB-GYN of suing patients for unpaid debts. I think in this economy, people are feeling so strapped, and I think that's a story that's really resonating and has hit him hard. Plus, you have an unusually strong Democrat in Reverend Adam Hamilton. He's a pastor of the largest Methodist church in the country. He comes across as a moderate. He has, I think, a compelling speaking style as a pastor, and so he is outperforming that baseline.

But again, I think it's still hard in a state like Kansas, but just the fact that Republicans are having to spend money there to try to shore up this seat tells you just how bad Trump's brand is in these days, but how much of a drag, I think that, you know, both parties are not popular. So I think that Democrats should also not overread if they do win the House and the Senate 'cause I think this is - this election is more sort of about a pox on both of their parties.

INSKEEP: Really interesting to think about Democrats running pastors in places like Kansas and Texas. I want to ask a question about the money here. We do hear about Republicans having to pull back in some states - pull back some spending in North Carolina, to give one example. And yet we also hear Republicans have a huge money advantage. Do they have the money to compete everywhere they need to compete to maybe hold on to the Senate?

TAYLOR: I think that still - does it overcome the momentum and the message that Democrats have? I think is a real question. And when they're coming in with some of this money - for instance, in Texas, where they're having to try to rescue a really weak candidate in Ken Paxton - they're spending multiple times what the candidate has to spend, so their money doesn't go as far when super PACs are spending it. And we're not seeing, for instance, a notable movement in Texas where James Talarico is still up. So I think there's a real question of maybe a couple of points in these close races could swing some of these seats, but money may not be everything either.

INSKEEP: I guess we'll just remember as you go that Democrats have dreamed of winning Texas before and always fall a little short. We'll see what happens this time. Jessica, thanks so much.

TAYLOR: At least they have football (ph). Until Sat!

INSKEEP: (Laughter) Jessica Taylor of the Cook Political Report. Thank you.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Steve.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FOUR – FROM WIRED

ELON MUSK’S AMERICA PAC IS SPENDING BIG ON THE MIDTERMS. WE’RE TRACKING IT DAILY

To follow Elon Musk’s America PAC money, WIRED created a live-updating tracker that highlights the trillionaire’s overall

Elon Musk’s political operation is focused on the most consequential races of the midterm elections, according to a WIRED analysis of federal campaign finance data.

As of October 6, America PAC, the main Musk-affiliated super PAC, had deployed $24.8 million of the $31 million it has spent on this year’s races into seven key US Senate contests that are widely seen as close—if not toss-ups—and represent a path for Democrats to take control of the chamber this November.

To monitor America PAC’s spending in the midterms, WIRED has created a live tracker that updates daily and highlights where America PAC is putting money into the midterms, from individual races to Musk’s overall influence on the election season. It draws on America PAC’s filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which the agency processes daily and which lists all the payments America PAC has made for ads, mailers, and texts.

America PAC appears, based on filings to date, smaller, and aimed differently, than it was two years ago. The $31 million it has spent on candidates so far this year is about a third of the $85.9 million it had spent on them by the same point in 2024, when more than 90 percent of that money went to the presidential race and almost none to Senate races. America PAC registered with the FEC in May 2024 and overall spent $261 million that cycle, with about 95 percent of its funding coming from Musk.

For this election cycle, most of America PAC’s spending has been concentrated on financing campaign efforts attacking Democrats, WIRED’s review shows. For every dollar spent supporting a Republican candidate, more than two went to opposing a Democrat, as of October 6. In Senate races, it was three.

The political stakes are especially high for Republicans this November because of the possibility of Democrats taking the majority in the US Senate, should the party flip four battleground races and retain three of the Senate seats it currently holds. The implications of a Democratic-controlled Senate would also be far-reaching for Musk in particular, who could become the target of congressional investigations, while his companies might be affected by bills related to tech and AI regulation.

In the most fraught Senate races, where the GOP has been on the back foot, the ratio of negative to positive campaign messaging has been even more skewed, the filings show.

The DOJ Is Weighing Perjury Charges Against Cassidy Hutchinson

By Hugo Lowell

For the Senate race in Texas, where Musk lives and where his companies Tesla and SpaceX are based, the group has spent more than $9.4 million on ads opposing Democratic candidate James Talarico and $1.8 million backing Republican candidate and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. In part due to a litany of past scandals, including a federal investigation into alleged misuse of office, which the Department of Justice closed without any charges brought against him, Paxton has trailed Talarico in every public poll since the middle of August. The most recent poll of registered voters by Marist University places Talarico 6 points ahead.

The largest single expenditures by America PAC in Texas have been two $1.3 million digital media buys opposing Talarico. Most of the rest of the money has gone to paying for printed materials, postage, and campaign calls. America PAC has not put any money into television ads, which is being handled by other outside groups.

In Iowa, the PAC has spent 14 times more money attacking Democrat Josh Turek than it has backing Republican Ashley Hinson. More than three-quarters of all Senate spending so far has gone to defending seats Republicans already hold.

Even in races where the disparity has been lower—for instance, in the Ohio Senate race—America PAC has spent double the amount attacking former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown as defending the record of incumbent Jon Husted.

Husted has faced a particularly bruising campaign, dogged by his support for the Iran war and battered by negative ads portraying him as “the face of data centers” because of a planned Nvidia data center project in the state that will be leased by OpenAI.

More generally, WIRED’s review of the filings submitted to the FEC shows that America PAC has spent more than $83 million boosting Republican candidates and causes since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

More than half of that figure came in the first six months of 2025, including nearly $13 million on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race that the GOP lost—Musk had claimed the future of “Western civilization” was on the line—and $27 million on petition incentives. Prior to the election, America PAC posted on social media that it would pay people $100 to sign the petition and $100 per referral for that race. (Voting officials in the state alleged probable cause to believe that Musk’s offers of $1 million payments had violated election bribery laws, but prosecutors ultimately declined to bring charges.)

In between Musk’s public fallout with Trump last year and his return to politics this summer, the outflows from America PAC largely went quiet. Musk’s own checkbook did not. Between June 2025 and May 2026, he personally gave $40 million to other Republican groups.

And since late August, America PAC has whirred back into gear, throwing $11.2 million into the Texas Senate race and about $5 million each into the Ohio and Michigan Senate races, as well as $10.2 million in other House and Senate contests.

It isn’t clear yet how much America PAC has put into field operations and other get-out-the-vote efforts this year, though future filings will shed light on this. Nor is it clear who is paying for the surge. The group reported $274,171 in the bank at the end of June and has spent $31 million since; the donors behind the difference will not be disclosed until its next report, October 15. Through June, virtually all of its money had come from Musk. A spokesperson for the super PAC declined to comment.

Additional reporting by Dhruv Mehrotra and Maddy Varner.

Update: 10/7/2026, 1:09 pm ET: WIRED has updated the story to clarify a comparison of spending in this cycle and the last one.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY FIVE – FROM READERS DIGEST (“A TRUSTED FRIEND IN A COMPLICATED WORLD”)

ELON MUSK IS SPENDING MORE THAN $275 MILLION ON THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS. DID WE ALWAYS HAVE THIS MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS—AND IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?

By Elizabeth Yuko Updated on Oct. 13, 2026

Money in politics is out of control, and it all has to do with a particular Supreme Court ruling

Since July, trillionaire Elon Musk has spent $276 million dollars on the upcoming midterm elections, according to the New York Times. He directed that astonishing amount of money to both his super political action committee (PAC) and Republican groups in a bid to stave off what is expected to be major losses for the party this fall.

Much of this money, about $158 million, went to the Senate Leadership Fund in an effort to maintain a majority in that chamber of Congress. Another big outlay, $76 million, went to Musk’s super PAC, which will spend the cash on canvassing for candidates in seven Senate races and dozens of House ones.

And that’s just since July. All in all, he has spent roughly $366 million dollars on the 2025–2026 election cycle. This isn’t the first time Musk has made influential campaign contributions either. He spent more than $290 million on the 2024 election, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings—more than any other donor.

As of the latest FEC filings from July, PACs from all parties had raised $8.3 billion and spent $6.5 billion during the 2025–2026 election cycle. (The FEC filing deadline is coming up on Oct. 15, 2026, so these numbers are even higher now.) It’s hard to believe that it’s legal for people like Musk to spend these staggering amounts to influence elections, but thanks to a landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling, it is.

Ahead, we spoke with politics and election-law experts Jen Heerwig, PhD, Donald Tobin, JD, and Alex Keena, PhD, to understand this consequential (and controversial) court case. Read on to learn more about the influence of money in politics and how this case changed campaign spending.

How much more money is in politics than it used to be?

In inflation-adjusted terms, the elections of 2020 broke all records: Nearly $19 billion was spent on the presidential race and congressional races combined, says Heerwig, an associate professor of sociology at SUNY-Stony Brook who studies political contributions by American corporate elites. In 2016, that number was less than $10 billion. “It’s unusual to see the cost of elections nearly double in the space of four years,” she says.

One reason for this increase is the gradual influx of super PACs, Heerwig explains. “In 2016, over $1 billion was spent by super PACs. In 2020, over $2 billion was spent by these groups.” A large proportion of this money goes to political advertising, which is getting more expensive every year.

That said, the composition of spending in our elections had been changing even before the explosion of money in 2020. And as you’ll see coming up, there’s a reason why super PACs have become such an important driver of election spending.

What caused this massive shift in campaign contributions?

The driving force behind this substantial shift in campaign contributions was a 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to support or oppose a candidate running for federal office.

Essentially, the Supreme Court reasoned that corporations should have the First Amendment right to speak in elections. “After Citizens United, a private company could decide to make an advertisement to support the candidacy of, say, Donald Trump or a candidate running for the U.S. House or Senate,” Heerwig says. “Since there are no limits on independent expenditures, a company could spend unlimited amounts to support its favored candidates, so long as it did so on its own.”

The ruling has had a predictable influence on our elections. “Since the Citizens United ruling, super PACs have gradually become more important in election spending,” Heerwig says.

How is a super PAC different from a regular PAC?

The Citizens United ruling created a new type of PAC—a super PAC—that can give unlimited money but cannot directly “coordinate” with a campaign. “In practice, this requirement is unenforced,” Keena explains. “For example, Elon Musk created a super PAC to help Trump win in 2024, and he was in frequent contact with the Trump campaign and even appeared on stage with Trump when he was a candidate.”

Interestingly, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission began in the lower courts as a case about what kinds of information must be disclosed by entities making political advertisements and communications, Heerwig explains. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of the case revolved around the ban on corporate independent spending—contributions made directly from company treasuries to influence elections, like a political advertisement made to support or oppose a candidate for the U.S. House or Senate, she notes.

HOW CAN THIS SKEW ELECTION RESULTS?

This massive shift in contributions makes candidates, campaigns and political parties more reliant on corporate and monied interests, Keena says. “The increase in money being spent means candidates have to spend more of their time asking the rich for donations, and in response, the political parties have become more responsive to the interests of the wealthy and special interests that support them,” he explains.

The result? Congress now gives preferential treatment to the ideas and policies favored by the donor class and makes symbolic overtures to ordinary citizens rather than offering substantive representation, Keena says.

Super PAC spending tends to target the most competitive races, where spending even a small amount of money may be more meaningful, Heerwig says. “In these races, we’ve seen super PACs inundate media markets with advertisements of all types—online, print, television, etc.,” she explains.

Hold on—is this even legal?

Yes, it’s totally legal for Elon Musk to channel hundreds of millions of dollars into our elections through his super PAC. “The courts view this money as a constitutional right,” Keena says. “All Americans are entitled to spend as much as they want on election advertising and communications.”

However, Musk’s super PAC can’t coordinate with official candidate committees, Heerwig says. But that restriction doesn’t have much bite these days. “In practice, we know that super PACs can and do coordinate with candidates, and our chief federal election watchdog, the Federal Election Commission, has not meaningfully intervened,” she explains.

It’s important to recognize that Elon Musk could spend unlimited dollars on the midterms prior to Citizens United as long as he did not coordinate with any candidate, says Tobin, an election and tax law professor and former dean of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. What Citizens United did was allow Musk to make such contributions through a corporate form.

“In reality, it had no serious impact on an individual’s ability to spend unlimited funds,” he explains. “It just made it easier because Musk can create an independent expenditure PAC and he can just contribute to that PAC.”

COULD THE CITIZENS UNITED RULING EVER BE REVERSED?

Yes, it’s possible that the Citizens United ruling will be reversed at some point, Keena says.

If (or when) the membership of the Supreme Court changes (such as through death, resignation or future expansion) or when societal attitudes change, “future courts could reverse this ruling,” Keena says. “Otherwise, reversing it would require a constitutional amendment.”

Alternatively, Congress could pass legislation creating a different regulatory system for campaign contributions, Tobin says.

What should you pay attention to before the 2026 midterms?

If you live in a state or district with a competitive race, Heerwig suggests paying very careful attention to the disclaimer that appears at the end of political advertisements. “If the advertisement does not explicitly contain the endorsement of the named candidate, then it’s an ad that’s been funded by a third-party group, likely a super PAC,” she explains. “Stay vigilant about fact-checking the claims coming from these groups.”

Sources:

· Jen Heerwig, PhD, associate professor of sociology at SUNY-Stony Brook; email interview, Oct. 2, 2026

· Alex Keena, PhD, associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University; email interview, Oct. 2, 2026

· Donald Tobin, JD, election and tax law professor and former dean of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; email interview, Oct. 2, 2026

· The New York Times: “Inside Elon Musk’s $276 Million Midterm Rescue Mission for Republicans”

· Forbes: “Elon Musk Becomes a Trillionaire—Again—After SpaceX Stock Jumps”

· CNN: “Elon Musk spent more than $290 million on the 2024 election, year-end FEC filings show”

· Open Secrets: “Elon Musk tops list of 2024 political donors, but five others gave more than $100 million”

· Federal Election Commission: “Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity of the 2025-2026 Election Cycle”

· Open Secrets: “Total Cost of Election (1998-2024)”

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SIX – FROM COMMON DREAMS

FOR A FUTURE ON OUR TERMS

In the midterm election, American Promise seeks to return power to the American people through campaign finance reform.

By Jiana Saade Oct 09, 2026

As we approach the midterm elections, our country’s most prominent voting concerns are back on the frontline. The US is experiencing historically high voter turnouts, yet voters are expressing record levels of dissatisfaction. Perhaps it is because one of the most salient topics across party lines is missing from the conversation: campaign finance reform.

The upcoming midterm election cycle is projected to be the most expensive in American history. Analysis by The New York Times found that 20 donors have already spent $1.2 billion on this year’s campaigns to push candidates in battleground states and integrate corporate agendas into public policy. Special interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Musk’s America PAC are spending big to elect allies friendly to their political and economic interests. Not only do AI groups fund candidates, but increasingly dishonest and weird deepfake AI videos circulate online. Further analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) Action Fund found that 172 billionaire families spent $1.7 billion. Over $1 billion in untraceable dark money is corrupting American democracy.

RECOMMENDED...

People march on bridge against data centers.

‘Halt the Out-of-Control Tech Oligarchs’: Advocates Demand Data Center Moratorium in Washington State

Sun solar

‘Solar For All, Everywhere’: Global Leaders Pitch the Sun as a Solution to Climate Crisis in Open Letter

Americans are unhappy with the state of campaign finance in the US. But how did we end up here? In 1976, the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo paved the way for campaign finance laws by equating campaign donations to “free speech,” protected as a First Amendment right. In, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling enabled the creation of “super PACs,” allowing unlimited corporate donations beyond the previous $5,000 limit. As a result, US elections are dominated by corporate interests and lobbyists, increasing the cost and accessibility of running for office.

The For Our Freedom Amendment is here, and campaign spending limits are not far behind.

Several polls confirm Americans’ discontent. Many in both parties and in all regions of the country have lost faith in our system, feeling elected officials cater to lobbyists rather than constituents. Nearly 80% of voters believe big donations are linked to corruption, while merely 4% of American voters believe the United States’ current political system works well. This pattern is similarly present in congressional elections;8 out of every 10 adults in the US believe that people who donate money to political campaigns have too much of an influence over congressional decisions.

However, while many remain dissatisfied with the state of campaign finance, large majorities are optimistic about reform. Approximately 60% of Americans believe in the possibility of adopting laws that limit spending on political campaigns. An even greater majority desire doing so, with 72% of Americans believing in imposing spending limits on campaigns. All around the country, Americans support enforcing limits by margins of 3-to-1 or even greater.

Although many may be skeptical, wondering how campaign finance reform can take place when unlimited spending is protected under the First Amendment, change is already underway. The pathway lies in the very foundation of the American democratic system: the United States’ Constitution. Supermajorities up to 80% across the country support an amendment to limit campaign spending. Already, the cross-partisan nonprofit American Promise has drafted and is proposing the amendment.

The For Our Freedom Amendment was developed meticulously through the collaboration of citizens, lawmakers, and scholars from all parties. Its text gets straight to the point: It empowers the government by granting it constitutional authority to enforce campaign spending limits. The full text of the amendment is as follows:

Section 1. We the People have compelling sovereign interests in the freedom of speech, representative self-government, federalism, the integrity of the electoral process, and the political equality of natural persons.

Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions and spending in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.

Section 3. Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, including by prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.

Its concise and clear language makes it accessible to the average American. It conveys a refreshing honesty and constituent-first sentiment recently missing from political debate, placing it at the heart of political and individual dignity.

Not only is it drafted, but support for the amendment is significant. Twenty-three states have passed official resolutions calling on Congress, meaning it has garnered nearly half of the three-quarters majority required for Congress to propose the amendment.

While a constitutional amendment may feel beyond reach, we must keep constitutional change at the forefront of our political imagination. The seeds of reform have already been planted by the electorate. Electing proactive candidates enables conversations and reform in Congress. Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) proposed the House Joint Resolution 191, Constitutional Campaign Finance Reform Amendment, in collaboration with American Promise. With this, Rep. Barrett expressed unwavering American democratic spirit, and this is just the beginning.

It is now our job as citizens in this election cycle to keep the pressure on, which means greater voter participation. Congressional leaders are in charge of the Committee on Appropriations, which oversees and enforces campaign finance laws. Participating in the election of competent leaders can lead to higher standards of regulation; but beyond that, it may very well be a key stepping stone on the road to ratification.

Unequivocally, the facts do not lie: Americans want change. So, call your friends and family, or chat with your neighbors, and let them know: The For Our Freedom Amendment is here, and campaign spending limits are not far behind. We can make this happen.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY SEVEN – FROM WASHINGTON TIMES

‘TIS THE SEASON OF MUDSLINGING AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LOOPHOLES

It's enough to make anyone stay home on Election Day

By Cal Thomas - Monday, October 5, 2026

OPINION:

You cannot escape them unless you turn off the TV. One after another, with barely enough time for commercials hawking adult diapers and a cure for toe fungus, they come. They are repetitious and annoying.

One candidate promises to lower gas and grocery prices and criticizes the incumbent for failing to do so (as if politicians can control the market). Another candidate sits on a toilet, and the ad calls for his socialist opponent to be “flushed.”

Still another speaks of improving education. We are already spending record amounts on education, so what is the point?

None of the ads that I have seen speaks of school choice, which is growing across the country. Not one ad promises to lower the $40 trillion debt or reform Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to run out of money in late 2032 and 2033, respectively.

Few of these ads are positive or uplifting. No “Morning in America” ads, such as those President Reagan ran in 1984. No, this is mourning for America. It is depressing. These people cannot possibly live up to their promises. If the incumbents who are running similar ads could fulfill their promises, would they not have done so by now?

All they seem capable of is running up the debt and, if Democrats win majorities in Congress, investigating President Trump and his family’s alleged corruption (which some Republican stalwarts believe is just revenge for what Republicans tried to do to Hunter Biden).

This is not governing. It does not improve any lives.

Surveys show that a majority of voters dislike negative ads, yet they must be effective — or millions of dollars would not be spent on them.

The history of negative campaigning precedes the TV era. EBSCO, a major company that provides research databases, e-journals, e-books and discovery tools to libraries, schools, universities and hospitals, has cataloged some of that history.

It recalls: “During the first presidential election in 1796, Thomas Jefferson was labeled an atheist and a Francophile (the public had grown wary of France, which at the time was mired in the French Revolution; Jefferson had previously been the U.S. ambassador to that country). Some of Jefferson’s political opponents published statements claiming that if elected, he would ban the Bible and allow the nation to fall into a state of moral decay. On the other side of the campaign, John Adams was labeled by Jefferson’s proponents as a monarchist with aspirations to become king of the new United States. Adams won the election, and Jefferson came in second; in accordance with the Electoral College procedure at the time, Jefferson thus became Adams’ vice president, forcing the two rivals to work together after the election.”

Imagine that: working together after an election.

Numerous efforts have been made to control campaign spending and the content of political ads, but like water running downhill, politicians manage to get around restrictions. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was an effort to control campaign spending and ad content.

The bipartisan bill — authored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Russell Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat — was supposed to limit the amount of “soft money” in campaigns by prohibiting national political parties from raising or spending money not subject to federal limits. That included state and local races and even discussion of issues close to an election.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down the law’s limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, but not the law’s ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals. That prohibition has been circumvented, critics say, by third-party entities that “launder” outside money before it is sent to parties, candidates or their political action committees.

The court ruled that independent political expenditures by U.S. corporations are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

The disingenuous campaign ads, the obscene amount of money spent to air them and the promises that are rarely fulfilled are enough to make one cynical and unwilling to vote. I will still vote (perhaps out of habit), but count me among the cynics.

ATTACHMENT TWENTY EIGHT – FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

JUDGE ORDERS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO CANCEL TAXPAYER-FUNDED TV ADS

By Gene Johnson, Associated Press Oct 12, 2026 3:00 PM EDT

President Donald Trump must cancel any remaining television commercials paid for with millions of dollars in taxpayer money to promote his political message, a federal judge ordered Sunday night, even as the administration said the ad campaign was coming to an end.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads as an illegal misuse of funds. She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.

"Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements" during the two-week duration of her order, the judge said.

Asked for comment, the White House referred to an Oct. 5 social media post from Trump in which he defended the taxpayer-funded ads as "rather standard" but, amid backlash, said he would pay for them from his political fundraising. In a court filing late Saturday, the Justice Department argued that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because "the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow."

The Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million in taxpayer money for the ads. Legal experts have suggested that violated a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for "publicity or propaganda" and potentially other laws.

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements because they aren't aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The ads, which began airing in late September, glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms. One features a clip of Trump talking about the threat of communism and another is a replay of an ad from his last presidential campaign. The fifth ad in the campaign began airing Tuesday, focusing on the Trump administration's capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The use of public funds to pay for the ads drew heavy criticism — including from some in the GOP.

"It shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters.

The Democratic National Committee has separately sued the Republican administration over the ads.

Amid the backlash, Trump said he would start paying for the (future) ads with a campaign account. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.

Associated Press reporters Collin Binkley and Ali Swenson contributed

ATTACHMENT “A” – THIRD QUARTER FEC REPORT & COMMENTS

Deals, steals and the wheels of the money machine revealed Wednesday by the FEC (see complete report with receipts and expenditure tables for House and Senate candidates here) confirmed that the common knowledge that Democratic candidates outraised and spent the ‘Pubs while dark money PACS made up and, in fact, more than doubled the consummate outlays.

In the House, the big spenders were: Cait Conley, challenging Republican icon Pat Lawler in New York, raised $5,319, spent $5,482; little known Bobby Pulido raised $3,241 and spent $3,025 in Texas Dist. 15 and AOC raised $4,609, spending $3,055.

On the low end, many candidates raised less than the price of a troubled used car and several reported raising zero.

Zero!

The DON JONES INDEX…