"There are no federal regulations requiring disclosure of payments for political support on social media, and only a few states have such rules."

"That allows influencers, in most instances, to endorse candidates for a fee without ever disclosing those payments in their posts. Creators say some campaigns have even asked them to actively conceal the fact that they’re being compensated, making it impossible to know what’s genuine support — and what is pay-for-play. In most cases, the only way a viewer would know an influencer is being paid would be to search a candidate’s campaign finance reports, as The New York Times did to discover the payments. Even then, such compensation is regularly obscured by funneling the payments through middlemen...."

From "Influencers Have a Lot to Say About Politics. Many Are Quietly Paid for It. Their videos have proliferated on social media, but the payments are frequently hidden from viewers" (NYT gift link).

Ugh. I already scroll right by anyone who's just talking at the camera in support of a candidate. But to think it's a paid ad sleazily evading disclosure and not just volunteer nitwit!

"The Democratic Party is so short on cash that leaders at its headquarters have undertaken a new gambit to mask the severity of the problems: asking vendors not to send bills until after the midterm elections...."

"At the center is Ken Martin, the 53-year-old party chairman, who has found himself increasingly isolated, gripped by the fear that he will lose his job and relying on a vanishingly small circle of people he trusts, according to interviews with more than two dozen Democrats, including current and former D.N.C. officials and members. Most of them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the party’s troubled state of affairs. Martin’s fraying nerves are showing. In a pique of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone-tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the D.N.C.’s human resources department.... "

From "Inside the Phone-Throwing Drama at the Troubled, Broke Democratic Party/The Democrats should be well positioned to make gains in this year’s midterms. But inside party headquarters, every week brings paranoia, worries about money and, on occasion, emotional eruptions" (NYT gift link).

Just 5 days ago, we were talking about how unusual it is, in a work environment, for someone to throw something. I blogged a story about Troy Jackson, now the Democrats' candidate for Senator from Maine, who, according to WaPo, "once angrily threw a water bottle in a meeting after he couldn’t persuade a lawmaker to vote his way." I asked: "Have you ever thrown anything as a way of expressing emotion? Even in a private, non-work environment? It's some kind of red flag, throwing things. Who does that?"

Various answers in the comments over there, and now we have a new answer: Ken Martin.

"Experts said that the decision would immediately cut into one of the Democratic Party’s critical financial advantages in television advertising."

"That’s because federal law requires that television broadcasters give political candidates low advertising rates, but extends no such requirement to super PACs, which are often charged double, triple and even four times as much for the same television time. Republicans in recent election cycles have been more reliant on super PACs and national party committees than Democrats, whose candidates have tended to out raise Republicans and who therefore often have been able to take advantage of the lower television ad rates. Allowing unlimited coordinated spending between candidates and parties would essentially permit both to take advantage of the lower rates...."

From "Supreme Court Lifts Spending Limits on Political Parties and Candidates/Republicans had asked the court to strike down restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates" (NYT)(gift link).

"Wealthy Republicans were first to form a daisy chain of nonprofit giving to funnel anonymous money into the political system."

"But recently, this path has been exploited to a far greater degree by wealthy Democrats, many of whom are seeking anonymity to avoid reprisals from President Trump, even as they donate tens of millions of dollars at a time to defeat Republican candidates. In the 2024 election cycle, over 40 percent of the nearly $2 billion raised by the largest Democratic super PACs came from entities that did not disclose their donors, according to the Times analysis. That was twice the rate of the largest Republican super PACs that cycle. Alexandra Acker-Lyons, an adviser to several prominent progressive donors, said that liberals had to use everything in the campaign finance arsenal to fight Mr. Trump. 'When we get power, we can change all of the rules so that everyone plays nice,' Ms. Acker-Lyons said. 'But until we have power, we can’t do that.'"

From "Wealthy Donors Are Hiding Political Money in Secretive Nonprofits/Using philanthropy for campaign donations is illegal. But an exception for some nonprofits has allowed Democratic billionaires like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg to remain anonymous when they want to play politics" (NYT)(gift link).

If the Minnesota fraud was so huge, why didn't government officials notice and take action?

The question is asked on today's episode of the NYT podcast "The Daily."

The answer is two-fold:

1. A group called Feeding Our Future accused the state of racism for "slow walking" their application. This wasn't long after the "national reckoning" that followed the death of George Floyd, and "at that time, nobody wanted to be called a racist, even it was wholly unfounded" and "that really had a paralyzing effect on people in state government who knew something funny was going on, but didn't really want to stick their necks out and stop it."

2. Money was cycling back to the Democratic Party. "Somali Americans have become politically quite powerful in the state... and... became important donors to their campaigns.... [S]ome democratic elected officials... worried that any action they took to question or intervene in a way that would maybe stop these schemes, could have alienated a really important constituency."

Now, the podcasters clearly wish the fraud problem could be solved by Minnesota. But Trump has jumped at the opportunity to emphasize what reads as racial. He forthrightly — brutally — connected the fraud problem to immigration from the wrong places:

"The Democratic Party Faces a Voter Registration Crisis/The party is bleeding support beyond the ballot box, a new analysis shows."

That's the headline in the lead article at the NYT this morning. 

Here's a free access link. Excerpt:

There are still more Democrats registered nationwide than Republicans, partly because of big blue states like California allow people to register by party, while red states like Texas do not. But the trajectory is troublesome for Democrats, and there are growing tensions over what to do about it. Democrats went from nearly an 11-percentage-point edge over Republicans on Election Day 2020 in those places with partisan registration, to just over a 6-percentage-point edge in 2024.... 

It must be quite a crisis or I don't think the NYT would openly call it a crisis. They even used my favorite word, "flummox": "... Democrats are divided and flummoxed over what to do."

A big part of the problem is that they can't use nonprofits the way they used to:

"There is no precedent for politicians so aggressively raising money for their own entities when they do not have a campaign to use it for."

Writes Theodore Schleifer, in "Trump, Term-Limited, Amasses $200 Million War Chest for Political Ambitions/The money is meant to beat Democrats, but some Republicans worry it could be used to beat Republicans, too" (NYT).

In the first half of 2013, a similar political group supporting a term-limited Barack Obama, Priorities USA, raised just $356,000. As of that June, it held $3.4 million, less than 2 percent of the cash on hand of Mr. Trump’s super PAC.... 

"Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump demands Kamala Harris, Beyoncé, Oprah be prosecuted over 2024 campaign payouts: 'Totally illegal'" (NY Post).

What about paying them to not denounce you? Wasn't Trump prosecuted for that?

Can you pay celebrities millions to appear at your rally and report it as an "event production" expense to the FEC?

I'm reading "Did Kamala Harris Pay Celebrities to Endorse Her? Oprah Winfrey Speaks Out" (Newsweek)(examining various claims, e.g. Beyoncé got $10 million just to walk up to the podium and say a few pro-Kamala words):

Nonprofit fact-checking website FactCheck.org said that a Harris campaign official told them the claim "is not true." PolitiFact also said that it had found "no evidence" for the claim and that Beyoncé's publicist told them it was "beyond ridiculous."

Newsweek reached out to the Harris campaign for comment via email outside of regular working hours. Newsweek also reached out to representatives for other celebrities who endorsed Harris and have been accused of being paid for it, including Beyoncé, Megan Thee Stallion, Lizzo, and Eminem, via email. 

Some social media users pointed out that two payments to Winfrey's production company, Harpo Productions Inc, can be found under the Harris campaign's disbursements on the Federal Election Committee website. The payments, of $500,000 each, were made on October 15 and are marked as "event production."

"Marked as 'event production'"? I hope they didn't mismark anything! What was the "production" that cost a million dollars? Causing Oprah to appear onstage? The social media users are trying to help, but it looks as though they are calling attention to what might be a false statement to the FEC.

Wouldn't that be much worse than mislabeling the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels in private business records?

We'll forget how to agonize about money in politics if it keeps getting spent with such ineffective and hilarious profligacy.

"The Harris campaign paid Oprah $1 million to do that interview, and she spent $100,000 building the set of the Call Her Daddy podcast so Kamala Harris wouldn’t have to fly out to LA to film it."

The Harris campaign paid Oprah $1 million to do that interview, and she spent $100,000 building the set of the Call Her Daddy podcast so Kamala Harris wouldn’t have to fly out to LA to film it. pic.twitter.com/rg0dthCR7c

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) November 9, 2024

ADDED: "How Kamala Harris plowed through $1 billion" (Washington Examiner).

The delightful subjectivity of money in politics.

Funny that she has never said a word about Soros, who has cumulatively put a hundred times more money into elections than I have 🤔

If I can figure out 🚀science with SpaceX and 🧠 surgery with Neuralink, then maybe I can figure out politics too 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/cW9sKHGgs3

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 4, 2024

"Harris Is Said to Have Raised $1 Billion Since Entering Race."

The NYT reports.

Why isn't she crushing Trump by now with all that dough? All you can do with money is buy things. At some point, what is there left to buy? We're told the money "is being spent on a wave of television and digital advertising and an expansive operation of offices and staff in the seven battleground states and beyond."

"The sums are so large because both candidates are raising funds into jumbo committees that can collect checks of more than $900,000 by including state parties nationwide and the national party."

Does anyone complain about all the money in politics anymore or is that an antique concern? Now, one simply exults and taunts.

"In the past, campaigns and official party committees, which are subject to contribution limits, generally observed a firewall that blocked information-sharing with super PACs..."

"... and nonprofits that accept unlimited contributions. Now, campaigns and outside groups are free to share messaging and exchange data. That new opportunity has allowed the Trump campaign to supplement a bare-bones in-house field program with allied programs fueled by megadonors.... By contrast, the Harris campaign and allied outside groups said they are not changing their approach in response to the FEC decision...."

From "Trump team gambles on new ground game capitalizing on loosened rules/The campaign is joining forces with outside groups such as Turning Point Action after regulators cleared the way for more coordination. But it comes with the risk of untested outfits duplicating efforts or working at cross purposes" (WaPo).

"At a Turning Point Action office in Waukesha, Wis., in June, about three dozen newly hired full-time community organizers got together with poster boards and scented markers to brainstorm techniques to meet their targeted neighbors..... [Organizers were instructed] not to come on too strong by showing up with MAGA hats and fliers. Instead, they should research their marks and start reaching out through Facebook groups, community events, or neighborly gestures such as recommending plumbers or harp teachers. They could even arrange seemingly chance encounters on coffee runs or dog walks. 'Some of these things sound like stalking,' one staffer whispered. 'Professional stalkers,' his colleague joked back. As one slide from the training implored: 'BE NORMAL. BE NORMAL. BE NORMAL.'"

"Can Kamala Take the Money … Legally?"

That's the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast (audio and transcript, here). 

Is the legal question too abstruse to think about? I'd say yes, but one thing jumped out at me. I'll put it in boldface:

SARAH ISGUR: It definitely won't be resolved until well after the election if it's ever resolved at all... [And Harris either] gets $96 million in the Harris campaign [or]... $96 million in the DNC coffers to help the Harris campaign. And... probably this $96 million is just not make or break for the Harris team or for the Trump team to prevent the Harris team.

LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER: That's, that's probably right. Although I would point out, and this is the slightly cynical take —right? — you know, we, we do have a candidate running who, uh, was, uh, convicted of felonies for intentionally misrepresenting paperwork relating to campaign finance funds.

"It felt like he was still the smart, witty guy we’ve all followed for many years, but the volume and speed are turned way down — to an alarming level."

Said an unnamed female Democratic Party donor quoted in "Inside the glitzy fundraiser where Biden lost George Clooney/At the June 15 event at L.A.’s Peacock Theater, some donors said this week that they noticed Biden seemed slow. He seemed frail. As he greeted donors lined up for photos, he trailed off or spoke too quietly in small talk conversation to be heard" (WaPo).

Making small talk with the current and former presidents while preparing for a photo, the donor said that she and Obama shared a brief joke that Biden initially seemed to miss. The current president only attempted a retort “in a barely audible voice” after the photo was over and others had moved on, she said.

So this lady got her big moment, wafted a joke/"joke," and Obama laughed, because that's what sharp people do when someone they want to please say something intended as a joke, and Biden did not laugh. In the wealthy woman's opinion, conveyed to The Washington Post with a demand not to use her name, Biden seemed to miss the joke/"joke." Initially. What was the purported joke and was it explained to him so that eventually he acted as though he got it? Maybe Obama explained it: Joe, this woman and her husband donated $100,000 and she believes she's said something amusing — don't you understand? And then Joe seemed to understand. But Joe had to have known he was at a fundraiser. And who could this lady be but a donor?

"To suggest that the donor community could do that is scary. Money plays too much of a role in politics already."

Said Craig Kaplan, a Democratic Party donor, quoted in "Big Donors Turn on Biden. Quietly. Some of the president’s past supporters want a new candidate, but they are leery of going public" (NYT).

At a breakfast on Friday morning at the Hotel Jerome in Aspen, Colo., where nearly 50 Democratic donors had gathered for a preplanned meeting convened by the super PAC American Bridge, one person asked the crowd for a show of hands of how many thought Mr. Biden should step aside. Nearly everyone in the room raised their hands, according to two people present.... 

The deliberations among wealthy Democrats, detailed in more than two dozen interviews as well as in written communications reviewed by The New York Times, only intensified as the Biden campaign and the party establishment formed a protective wall around him in the days after the debate....

How can anyone but Kamala Harris get their hands on the money contributed to the Biden campaign?

I'm reading "Campaign Finance Laws Give Harris Big Boost in Biden Dropout Scenario/If Biden were to withdraw his candidacy, only Kamala Harris could seamlessly use funds raised by the Biden-Harris campaign committee" (American Prospect).

The Biden for President campaign committee controls candidate contributions for the 2024 election... If Biden, as candidate, wanted to contribute money from this account to another candidate for the presidency, he’s limited to $2,000 per election. If Biden withdraws, he could convert this campaign committee to a political action committee. In that case he could direct $3,300 to another candidate.... It’s simply not allowable for a presidential candidate to directly transfer millions of dollars to another candidate....

[T]he Biden PAC could operate an independent expenditure campaign on behalf of the new candidate. But that PAC would not be able to coordinate with the new candidate.... [I]f Harris succeeded Biden, she would control all the funds in the [Biden/Harris] campaign committee and could use them in the election campaign....

One more reason why bypassing Harris would be a huge insult. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is pre-attacking her:

"Donors channeled tens of millions of dollars to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee immediately following his May 30 conviction..."

"... all but erasing the massive fundraising advantage that President Biden’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee once held.... The Biden campaign’s long-standing fundraising lead allowed his campaign to build a much larger footprint than Trump’s and to significantly outspend Trump’s effort on the airwaves.... But at the end of May, the Trump campaign and the RNC had a combined $171 million in cash on hand, surpassing the Biden campaign and the DNC’s combined total of $157 million, according to reports filed late Thursday."

I'm reading "Trump’s convictions fueled donation surge that could reshape contest/The Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and an allied super PAC raised more than $170 million in May, including tens of millions that came in after Trump’s May 30 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records" (WaPo).

The Democrats tried too hard. It backfired. 

"Academy Award-winning actor George Clooney called one of President Biden’s top aides last month to complain about the president’s criticism of the International Criminal Court’s action against Israeli leaders..."

"... a case his wife, Amal Clooney, worked on, according to three people familiar with the conversation. Clooney called Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president, to express concern about Biden’s denunciation of arrest warrants sought by ICC prosecutors for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, especially his use of the word 'outrageous.'... The actor was also upset about the administration’s initial openness to imposing sanctions on the ICC because his wife might be subject to the penalties, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Clooney’s call came just weeks before he is set to appear at a fundraiser for Biden’s reelection campaign June 15 in Los Angeles. His concerns spread throughout Biden’s orbit.... In 2020, [George Clooney] donated more than $500,000 to Biden’s campaign effort and co-hosted a virtual fundraiser for him that raised $7 million.... The White House later said sanctions against the ICC were 'not the right answer'...."

From "George Clooney called White House to defend wife’s work on Israel warrants/Biden had sharply criticized a move by the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for Israeli leaders" (WaPo).

"The Wisconsin ad doesn’t show Mr. Evers until the end. It focuses on solar projects, which the ad says will power 750,000 homes in the state."

"'Governor Evers is working with the Biden administration to do even more,' the ad’s narrator says as photos are shown of Mr. Evers and Mr. Biden touring a Milwaukee factory last summer. 'Your home value goes up and your energy bill goes down.' The ad concludes with footage of Mr. Evers’s annual State of the State address.... Because Evergreen is technically an issue-advocacy organization, it is prohibited from making an explicit push to vote for Mr. Biden, but the message here is not subtle.... ... Evergreen is seeking to remind voters that something they like — ... using solar power in Wisconsin — is brought to them by the Biden administration. Less than six months out from the presidential election, Mr. Biden has failed to convey that message to voters, leaving supportive outside groups and Democratic governors to do it for him."

From "Climate Group Is Running Ads on Biden Policies in Wisconsin and Michigan/The group, which has ties to Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, has a $1 million plan for TV spots playing up the president’s record on green power" (NYT).

1. "Mr. Evers" is the unflashy personage who serves as Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers. He appears in the last 5 seconds of the ad... in all his low-key glory.

2. $1 million spent on TV ads seems too trivial to be warrant a NYT article. Is it an effort to cheer readers up: $1 million to the rescue? Or is this a gentle raising of the alarm: "Mr. Biden has failed...."?