Indicted member of Congress steers campaign funds to legal fees amid bribery allegations

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) has diverted over half of his 2024 campaign funds to cover legal fees as he faces charges related to allegedly accepting bribes from foreign actors in exchange for pushing policies favorable to them.

More than $784,900 of the roughly $1.5 million that Cuellar’s campaign spent in total through the end of March went to legal fees, a new OpenSecrets analysis found.

The payments represent a shift from previous cycles when Cuellar spent donor money mostly on media and other more typical campaign expenses.

In a statement denying the allegations, Cuellar claimed he “proactively sought legal advice from the House Ethics Committee, who gave [him] more than one written opinion, along with an additional opinion from a national law firm.

The bulk of the legal fees paid with Cuellar’s campaign funds went to Clifford Chance LLP, a British multinational law firm representing the congressman in the federal investigation. Cuellar’s campaign has paid the law firm about $690,000 since the start of the 2024 election cycle. No other federal political committees have reported payments to the firm.

Perkins Coie, a law firm known for providing political compliance and legal services to Democrats, received another $46,900 from Cuellar’s campaign coffers.

Cuellar’s campaign also paid $28,100 to Miller and Chevalier, a boutique D.C. firm that specializes in complicated financial cases and has represented former President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as well as several other candidates facing ethics inquiries or seeking counsel on other issues.

In February, Cuellar’s campaign started paying Mololamken LLP for legal services, racking up a $25,000 bill by March. The firm has only been paid by two other federal political committees. America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC, paid Mololamken LLP during the 2020 election cycle and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-N.H.) paid the firm about $12,100 in March of 2020. That year, Trahan faced a House Ethics Committee inquiry into whether her campaign accepted impermissible contributions and misreported information to the FEC. The inquiry was dismissed two months later in June 2020.

Cuellar is the second high-profile Democrat in Congress to face bribery and foreign influence charges in the past year. In September, the Justice Department charged Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and his wife after they allegedly accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for promoting the interests of three New Jersey businessmen and benefitting the Egyptian government. Menendez stepped aside from serving as Senate Foreign Relations chair but pleaded not guilty. Opening arguments for the trial began May 16.

Like Cuellar, Menendez has precipitously ramped up legal spending while facing mounting legal issues. Since the start of the 2024 cycle, the Menendez campaign steered more than 70% of its campaign donor funds to lawyers. By far, the scandal-plagued senator’s top campaign expense is legal services this cycle — with over $2.5 million of the $3.6 million it has spent in total during the 2024 cycle going to legal fees.

Piecing together Cuellar’s alleged bribery scheme

Prosecutors say Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, used shell companies to launder nearly $600,000 in bribes in exchange for agreeing to “influence U.S. foreign policy in favor of Azerbaijan” and advance the interests of a Mexico City bank from at least 2014 through 2021.

The Cuellars were charged with 14 counts ranging from conspiracy to commit bribery to wire fraud, money laundering and working on behalf of a foreign government. The Cuellars made their first court appearances on May 3 and were each released on a $100,000 bond. If convicted, the Cuellars could face up to decades in prison.

The Texas Democrat’s efforts to push U.S. policy in favor of Azerbaijan ranged from delivering a speech promoting Azerbaijan’s interests on the House floor to integrating language into spending bills to bolster U.S. backing for Azerbaijan. He also helped kill legislation supporting Armenia in its decades-old conflict with Azerbaijan.

Cuellar’s connections to Azerbaijan go back to at least January 2013, the same month Cuellar was appointed to the House Appropriations Committee. It was also the month that Cuellar and his wife flew to the Eastern European country on a trip sponsored by an entity calling itself the Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians, according to congressional disclosure reports.

The Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians was run by Turkish-American businessman Kemal Oksuz, who also formed the Assembly of the Friends of Azerbaijan months after Cuellar’s trip. The Office of Congressional Ethics later found that Oksuz “used the entities interchangeably.” The indictment’s description of “Individual-1” appears to reference Oksuz.

In disclosures to Congress, Oksuz initially claimed that Cuellar’s January 2013 trip and a subsequent May 2013 congressional tour of Azerbaijan were paid for by the Turquoise Council and the Assembly of the Friends of Azerbaijan. But Oksuz later admitted that the May 2013 trip was paid for by SOCAR, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic, a national oil and gas company wholly owned by the country’s government.

Oksuz openly stated that the event’s corporate backers included SOCAR, Caspian Drilling Company and drilling fluids businesses such as M-I Swaco and Azeri M-I Drilling Fluids Ltd, as well as oil and gas companies British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. But he later confessed to concealing sponsors’ role in funding travel for members of Congress, which is legally required to be disclosed.

A 2015 report by the Office of Congressional Ethics found that SOCAR steered $750,000 to the nonprofits in May 2013, which was then used to fund travel to Azerbaijan for Congress members and staffers.

The May 2013 conference’s guest list included members of Congress, congressional staff, state representatives, former governors and White House officials. Oksuz estimated that the event cost roughly $1.5 million. Attendees were paid thousands of dollars in honorariums on top of “pricey gifts.”

After the Houston Chronicle found that all 10 members of Congress who participated in the trip to Baku supported pro-Azerbaijan amendments in the U.S. House, the Office of Congressional Ethics launched an investigation into the funding behind the travel.

While Cuellar did not attend the second trip, both excursions were reported as funded through the Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians and at least one of Cuellar’s staffers joined the second trip. The itinerary for Cuellar’s January 2013 trip also included a “briefing” at SOCAR and “dinner with SOCAR Executive Team.”

After that trip, Cuellar’s relationship with SOCAR flourished. According to the indictment unsealed on May 3, agents working on behalf of the Azerbaijani government recruited Cuellar to work with them on U.S. policy helping their country.

In July 2013, Cuellar spoke at a Washington, D.C. reception in honor of SOCAR to highlight the importance of a pipeline to deliver natural gas to Europe.

By September 2013, Cuellar had sponsored a resolution in Congress expressing support for Azerbaijan’s Southern Gas Corridor project, asserting that it was in the “U.S. national interest” to have the pipeline completed. The House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted the resolution and a portion of the pipeline began commercial operations to deliver gas from Azerbaijan to Italy in 2020.

Cuellar’s campaign also accepted money from Oksuz, including $1,000 in 2012 and $2,500 in 2015.

After Oksuz pleaded guilty to filing false statements and “orchestrating a scheme to funnel money to fund the trip,” prosecutors say payments from SOCAR to Cuellar paused.

Cuellar is also accused of accepting bribes in exchange for helping to further the political agenda of a Mexico City bank.

“Foreign Bank-1” appears to reference Banco Azteca, a subsidiary of Grupo Elektra, a retail and banking company that’s part of a corporate conglomerate led by Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego. In 2012, Grupo Elektra acquired U.S.-based payday lender Advance America, which matches the indictment’s description of “U.S. Affiliate-4.”

The indictment describes “U.S. Affiliate-3” as a Spanish-language media and entertainment company that appears to be TV Azteka, a subsidiary of Grupo Elektra under the umbrella of Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas.

In addition to fighting an anti-money laundering policy that threatened the bank’s interests, prosecutors say Cuellar tipped off its vice chairman about a proposal to pause the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from making new regulations on the payday lending industry that could impact the company.

Similar to Cuellar’s arrangement with Azerbaijan, the Mexico City bank allegedly funneled fake consulting fees through a shell company operated by the congressman’s wife, Imelda Cuellar.

Prosecutors say “Individual-3,” whose description matches the identity of Florencio “Lencho” Rendon, served as a middleman between Cuellar and the Mexico City bank and used his consulting company to funnel money. In a plea agreement, Rendon said Cuellar ordered him to pay off a Mexican politician because he “brought the deal to the table.”

Another middleman described in the indictment is “Individual-4,” which appears to be a reference to Colin Strother, who served as Cuellar’s former chief of staff and campaign manager. Prosecutors claim that Rendon steered the monthly payments to Strother, who would then pass the money to sham consulting companies run by the congressman’s wife.

Prosecutors allege that Cuellar suggested using Strother’s consulting company as a middleman. Like Rendon, Strother also pleaded guilty and entered into a cooperation agreement, admitting to participating in a scheme to funnel funds “obtained through unlawful activity, namely bribery” to Henry Cuellar, who Strother says was the “true, intended beneficiary recipient” of the money.

Irada Akhoundova also entered into a plea agreement and admitted to helping facilitate a $60,000 payment while working for an affiliate of Azerbaijan’s state-run oil company.

All in the family

Imelda Cuellaris not the only family member with connections to the shell companies that were allegedly used to launder bribes. The indictment alleges Henry Cuellar recruited family, friends and associates to facilitate the payments.

OpenSecrets’ review of corporate records found that Henry Cuellar’s two daughters Catherine and Christine, wife Imelda and brother Martin are all listed as members, agents and owners of various limited-liability companies with little or no paper trail.

Prosecutors do not divulge the names of the entities allegedly used in the scheme to launder bribes in the indictment but describe three shell companies that match the identities of limited-liability companies incorporated in Texas.

Originally incorporated in 2012 as IRC Business Solutions Inc., IRC Business Solutions LLC was recreated as a limited liability company in 2014, matching the description of “Shell Company-1” in the indictment.

Imelda Cuellar wholly owns IRC Business Solutions, which her husband describes in personal financial disclosures on file with Congress as a “limited liability company that consults on business activities.” While Imelda Cuellar is IRC Business Solutions LLC’s sole member, it was incorporated in 2014 by Raul Vazquez, a former judge whose law office is listed as the registered office street address for the limited liability company and who has spoken highly of Henry Cuellar.

Personal financial disclosures also reveal that Imelda Cuellar has a 60% interest in Global Gold Group LLC, a limited liability company that the congressman claims “provides general consulting services.”

Incorporation records show Global Gold Group LLC was created in 2017 and its other two members are the Cuellars’ daughters, Christina and Caroline, matching the indictment’s description of “Shell Company-2.”

Obsidian Ora LLC, which operated out of the same address as Global Gold Group from 2021 to 2023 with Christine Cuellar as its sole member and agent, matches the description of “Shell Company-3.”

While three shell companies are highlighted in the indictment, the Cuellar family is also connected to other companies with little paper trail.

Ivcz Parts, Supplies, and Services LLC is described in Henry Cuellar’s financial disclosures as a limited-liability company that “sells business parts, supplies and services.” Created in 2015, the LLC is 50% owned by his wife. Ivcz Parts, Supplies, and Services LLC does not match any of the descriptions of purported sham companies in the indictment.

Henry Cuellar’s brother, Martin, is also listed as a member and registered agent of Ivcz Parts, Supplies, and Services LLC. Martin Cuellar serves as the sheriff of Webb County in Texas, where he is up for reelection this year. The primary runoff will occur on May 28 with the general election in November.

Through various contract agreements, money was funneled by SOCAR through Azerbaijani front companies.

The indictment’s description of one of SOCAR’s U.S.-based front companies “U.S. Affiliate-2” matches a now-defunct company in Katy, Texas called OLIMP USA LLC that was controlled from 2017 to 2021 by former Azerbaijani diplomat Elshan Baloghlanov.

Baloghlanov, who now serves as the Permanent Delegate of the Government of Azerbaijan to UNESCO, matches the indictment’s description of “Individual-2.” The indictment notes that “Individual-2 served as Vice Consul at the Azerbaijani Consulate in Los Angeles, reporting to Azerbaijani “Diplomat-1.”

“U.S. Company-1,” an import/export management company operated by Baloghlanov in Maryland, appears to be WCC International. Baloghlanov previously served with Suleymanov, who served as Azerbaijan’s U.S. ambassador from 2011 to 2021, and allegedly acted as Suleymanov’s middleman with Cuellar, helping to relay messages and arrange meetings.

That included an October 2017 lunch between Imelda Cuellar and SOCAR officials at a San Antonio steakhouse to negotiate their arrangement. The indictment doesn’t include the name of the steakhouse but federal campaign finance reports reveal that Cuellar’s campaign spent $103 at Ruth’s Chris in San Antonio around that time, as first reported by San Antonio Express-News.

“Diplomat-1” matches Elman Abdullayev, who served as the Consulate General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles from 2005 to 2010. Prosecutors claim he texted Cuellar to help arrange meetings for Imelda Cuellar.

TikTok’s last dance? The lobbying showdown over the app’s future in the U.S. continues

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

After an expensive lobbying blitz, Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed into law a sweeping foreign aid package that includes a provision barring TikTok from operating in the U.S. if the video-sharing app’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, doesn’t sell its stake in the platform within a year.

ByteDance’s federal lobbying spending reached nearly $2.7 million in the first quarter of 2024, the most it has ever spent during the first three months of any year. It is also more than the video-sharing app spent on lobbying any prior quarter, with the exception of the third quarter of 2023. The jump follows a year of record lobbying totaling over $8.7 million in 2023 amid increased scrutiny of the video-sharing platform’s ties to China.

Since kicking off its influence operations in 2019, ByteDance has spent more than $23.9 million on federal lobbying, a new OpenSecrets analysis found.

The largest sum ByteDance spent during the first quarter of any prior year was nearly $1.6 million last year, when the platform went on to set a new record for lobbying spending.

While TikTok maintains dual headquarters in Singapore and Los Angeles, it has faced increased scrutiny for being wholly owned by Beijing-based ByteDance due to national security concerns. After the bill’s passage by the Senate on Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray reiterated those concerns during an interview with NBC News, warning that “TikTok’s parent company is beholden to the Chinese government.”

For years, U.S. officials have expressed concerns about TikTok amid speculation that Chinese government actors may have access to the personal data of its more than 170 million U.S. users. TikTok has refuted allegations of spying on Americans.

After BuzzFeed News reported that ByteDance employees repeatedly accessed private data about American TikTok users, the company sought to distance itself from China by working with Austin-based software giant Oracle to stop storing American user data in China.

The Justice Department and FBI launched a criminal investigation into allegations of ByteDance surveilling American journalists in 2023, which is reportedly ongoing.

As allegations against TikTok mount, policymakers have struggled with weighing the potential national security risks posed by the app against the constitutional issues and backlash a ban could raise.

By including the TikTok provision in a bill to provide $95.3 billion in foreign aid amid escalating conflicts in Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine, congressional proponents were able to move the legislation further than previous proposals.

But the fight is far from over with TikTok already planning a legal challenge to the law on First Amendment grounds, and the infrastructure advocating for the video-sharing app’s interests in the U.S. goes far beyond K Street lobbyists — from megadonors to online influencers.

Trump’s TikTok flip-flop

The final iteration of the bill gives TikTok nine months to divest before facing the ban. An earlier version of the legislation passed by the House in March gave TikTok six months, which would have forced ByteDance to divest TikTok or stop U.S. operations before Election Day.

Since that divestiture deadline falls in 2025 and is extendable to a year by the president, the longer time frame also means whoever is elected in November will have the ability to decide whether to give TikTok more time.

Former President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Monday accusing Biden, his opponent in the 2024 presidential election, of being “responsible for banning TikTok.”

The post also accused Biden of wanting to shut TikTok down to “help his friends over at Facebook become richer and more dominant, and able to continue to fight, perhaps illegally, the Republican Party,” though he provided no evidence to support that statement. Trump has a history of making disproven claims about the social media platform.

Trump’s position on TikTok has evolved since his presidency, when he issued an executive order prohibiting all transactions with TikTok’s parent company for national security reasons. The former president also stated that a ban on TikTok would mean further success for Meta and Facebook, a company he clashed with repeatedly during and after his presidency.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and one of TikTok’s top competitors, also set a new record in the first quarter of 2024 with federal lobbying spending totaling $7.6 million.

Federal lobbying disclosures don’t specify whether Meta lobbied directly on legislation to crack down on TikTok but the Silicon Valley-based social media behemoth has a history of quietly countering the video-sharing app. In 2022, a Washington Post investigation revealed that Meta had paid GOP consulting firm Targeted Victory as part of a campaign to promote disproven stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook by placing op-eds in major news outlets and enlisting political reporters as well as local politicians to help.

“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” Trump posted on Truth Social in 2020.

Trump’s reversal on TikTok comes weeks after GOP megadonor Jeff Yass, a major TikTok investor, reportedly met with the former president at Mar-a-Lago.

Yass’ global quantitative trading firm, Susquehanna International Group, was one of ByteDance’s first major backers. The firm currently owns roughly 15% of ByteDance, a stake worth about $40 billion. Yass’ personal share is 7% of that, worth about $21 billion — accounting for a significant chunk of Yass’s net worth, according to the Financial Times.

In April, sealed court documents inadvertently released by a Pennsylvania court revealed that Susquehanna International Group played an even bigger role in the company than previously known.

While the megadonor supported other candidates over Trump in the Republican presidential primary, the New York Times reported that Yass is now investing in Trump’s Truth Social platform and is expected to make “a large donation to a group supporting the former president’s political campaign.”

Days after Trump’s public condemnation of legislation to effectively ban TikTok, the former president called Yass “fantastic” at a retreat for donors to conservative advocacy group Club for Growth, of which Yass is a major funder.

Club for Growth, a major player in contested Republican primaries, has advocated against legislation to clamp down on TikTok and reportedly warned that it will give Republicans who vote against TikTok’s interests in Congress a worse score on its annual scorecard. Yass has contributed $16 million to Club for Growth’s super PAC during the 2024 cycle through the end of March – accounting for nearly half of the super PAC’s total contributions, OpenSecrets’ analysis found.

The Club for Growth super PAC’s most recent monthly campaign finance report, filed April 20, indicates Yass accounted for $4.5 million of the $7.8 million it received. Other conservative and libertarian groups benefiting from Yass’ largesse have advocated against cracking down on TikTok as well, CNBC reported.

But Yass is not the only one who stands to lose if TikTok is banned in the U.S.

Chinese Embassy officials met with congressional aids to lobby against the bill, according to Politico, spurring outrage from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who widely construed the meetings as confirmation of TikTok’s importance to China.

While the meetings reportedly included discussions about legislation to force a sale or ban of TikTok, a spokesperson for the embassy told Politico the activities were “not about lobbying for a single company, but about whether all Chinese companies can be treated fairly.”

The Chinese Embassy has no foreign agents currently registered to lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act but any activities that diplomats and consular officials engage in as a part of their official functions are not legally required to be disclosed under FARA’s diplomatic exemption.

Oracle, a multinational software company currently headquartered in Austin, Texas that is housing TikTok’s U.S. data, also sent its top lobbyists to meet with Senate aids regarding the bill, CNBC first reported. During the first quarter of 2024, Oracle’s lobbying reached $2.4 million, a decrease from every quarter during the past year. Federal lobbying filings do not divulge whether Oracle lobbied for or against the bill, though the company stands to lose one of its largest customers should the ban take effect.

Ads fuel TikTok fight

The showdown over TikTok’s fate has also played out in advertising.

Starting in March, TikTok leveraged its own platform to send push notifications urging users to call their representatives to “stop a TikTok shutdown.” TikTok’s attempt to activate its users spurred a flood of angry calls to Congress.

But lawmakers expressed frustration with the overwhelming influx of calls from angry constituents and voiced concerns about TikTok’s power over its users, leading the effort to backfire, similar to how both sides of the aisle widely viewed the Chinese Embassy’s lobbying as confirmation of TikTok’s value to China.

TikTok has spent millions more on television and digital ads pushing back on legislation that could ban its U.S. operations. AdImpact has tracked $4.5 million in advertising spending by TikTok fighting the legislation this year alone, with $2.5 million of that since March.

That month, TikTok bought millions of dollars in airtime in Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all battleground states represented by vulnerable Democrats. The ads do not explicitly advocate for or against candidates, instead highlighting the possible consequences of banning TikTok in the U.S.

“Think about the five million small business owners that rely on TikTok to provide for their families,” a purported TikTok user says in the ad.

Some groups have also spent on advertising and lobbying to support the legislation to crack down on TikTok.

State Armor Action launched what they describe as a “multimillion-dollar ad campaign” urging a crackdown on TikTok in March and reported spending another $50,000 on lobbying related to “foreign adversary-controlled applications.”

The nonprofit, which does not disclose its donors online and did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication, was created in September 2023 and also operates as the “TikTok Coalition.”

Its “TikTok is the CCP” campaign has spread in online advertising and on television, spurring a cease and desist letter from TikTok, according to Federal Communications Commission filings reviewed by OpenSecrets.

An initial letter dated March 22 details what TikTok’s lawyers describe as “false claims intended to harm TikTok,” taking issue with the description of TikTok as “Chinese owned” and statements describing Zhang Fuping, the vice president and editor-in-chief of ByteDance’s Chinese operation, as an “editor of TikTok,” and a “top Chinese Communist” who “controls what 170 million Americans think.”

FCC records indicate that State Armor Action’s ads were slated to run through at least April 29.

In a follow-up letter dated March 28, TikTok’s lawyer indicates that the initial ads were removed and replaced by updated ads with slightly adjusted language clarifying that Zhang is the “editor of TikTok’s parent company.”

The letter emphasizes that Zhang is not employed by TikTok or ByteDance, which is a privately-held global holding company. Instead, the letter details that Zhang is employed by an “indirect subsidiary of ByteDance” that is part of the “Douyin Group (HK) Ltd.,” which is registered in Hong Kong, emphasizing that Zhang “supports businesses that operate only within China.”

Douyin is the Chinese version of TikTok, which is only accessible outside of the country. Both video-sharing apps operate under the umbrella of ByteDance.

According to TikTok lawyers’ letter in FCC records, TikTok Inc. is incorporated in California and wholly owned by TikTok LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that is wholly owned by TikTok Ltd., a Cayman Islands company, and the ultimate parent company is ByteDance Inc.

TikTok and ByteDance did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication.

Unprecedented surge in ‘dark money’ floods 2024 elections

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Dark money” groups and shell companies are on track to steer more money from undisclosed sources to the 2023-2024 election than any prior cycle

In 2023 alone, shell companies and dark money groups injected over $162 million into political groups such as super PACs, surpassing the level of dark contributions seen at the same point in any prior election cycle, a new OpenSecrets analysis of Federal Election Commission data found.

OpenSecrets has tracked more than $2.8 billion in dark money spending & contributions reported to the FEC since the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010.

While federal campaign finance law requires political committees including super PACs to disclose donors to the FEC, the ultimate source of funding can be concealed behind contributions from shell companies or dark money groups, such as 501(c)(4) nonprofits that do not disclose their donors

During the 2022 election, federal political committees reported taking in $616.8 million from such donors, more than any prior midterm cycle.

So far this election cycle, contributions from dark money groups and shell companies is outpacing all prior elections and may even surpass the roughly $660 million in contributions from unknown sources that flooded 2020 elections — a cycle that attracted over $1 billion in total dark money, counting political ad spending as well as contributions.

But more dark money is pouring into federal elections that is not disclosed to the FEC.

During the entire 2022 election cycle, 501(c)(4) nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors reported less than $25 million in spending to the FEC — the lowest total since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision rolled back restrictions on corporate political speech and the SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling paved the way for super PACs to spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures.

This has led to a rise in “gray money” spending by groups like super PACs that are required to disclose their donors but are funded — at least partially — by entities like dark money groups and shell companies where the ultimate source of funding is not disclosed.

Democrats benefiting more from dark money

Super PACs and other political committees supporting Democrats have reported about $85 million in political contributions from dark money groups and shell companies during the 2024 cycle to date, while political committees supporting Republicans have reported about $74 million.

The 2024 election cycle is on track to be the fourth consecutive cycle where Democrats benefit from more dark money than Republicans, though a lot can change during an election year.

This trend began during the 2018 midterm cycle when liberal dark money groups first outspent their conservative counterparts. That’s despite Democratic rhetoric decrying dark money and a series of failed efforts by some members of the party to crackdown on political contributions from undisclosed sources.

Liberal political committees reported about $318 million in political contributions from dark money groups and shell companies during the 2022 cycle while conservative political committees reported roughly $263 million.

Presidential race drives dark money contributions

Dark money groups registered as 501(c) nonprofits have collectively reported about $2.3 million in spending to the FEC during the 2024 election cycle. The bulk of that spending was reported by Defending Democracy Together, a dark money group that opposes former President Donald Trump in the presidential race.

Defending Democracy Together poured another $2.5 million into contributions to super PACs. In December, the organization routed $2 million of that to Republican Accountability PAC, which shares leadership with the dark money group. The groups are part of a coalition that organized to fight against Trump, along with a super PAC that goes by Republican Voters Against Trump, which launched a $50 million campaign this week to fight the former president in the 2024 presidential race.

Another $500,000 of the dark money group’s contributions went to a June 2023 contribution to Tell It Like It Is PAC, a super PAC run by allies of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who dropped out of the 2024 presidential race in January.

With the 2024 presidential election set to be another showdown between President Joe Biden and Trump, outside spending and dark money are likely to continue pouring in.

Americans for Prosperity Action, a hybrid PAC at the center of a network of conservative donors and activists led by billionaire Charles Koch, has reported more contributions from dark money groups than any other political committee at this point in the 2024 election cycle.

As a hybrid PAC, also known as a Carey committee, AFP Action has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC and a super PAC, as long as it maintains a separate bank account for contributions and another for independent expenditures.

AFP Action, which signaled its opposition to Trump in early 2023, endorsed Nikki Haley in November and spent nearly $50 million on the election before the former UN ambassador dropped out of the race. The super PAC reported receiving $25 million of that from Stand Together Chamber of Commerce, the flagship group at the center of the Koch political network.

Weeks before Haley dropped out, AFP Action halted its spending on the presidential race and said it will instead focus down the ballot on congressional races.

The League of Conservation Voters, a 501(c)(4) environmental advocacy group that does not disclose its funders, has also emerged as a top dark money contributor, steering more than $12.9 million to LCV Victory Fund, an associated super PAC.

While LCV Victory Fund has spent less than $750,000 to date — mostly on the race to replace ousted Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) — the super PAC is historically a major spender and is building a war chest to spend big money again in 2024.

During the 2022 midterms, LCV Victory Fund spent more than $33.3 million boosting Democrats and attacking Republicans in key swing states across the country, including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin, according to independent expenditure reports.


Multiple groups boosting Biden in the presidential election are also among this cycle’s top brokers of dark money.

Future Forward USA Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group that does not disclose its donors, has steered millions to an associated super PAC run by former Biden aides and has spent millions more on its own ads.

In addition to being run by the president’s former aides, Biden White House advisers have publicly signaled to donors that the president supports Future Forward’s efforts.

Future Forward USA, the group’s hybrid PAC, has received over $8 million of the $25 million it raised from the closely-tied dark money group. While the super PAC has not reported any outside spending to the FEC as of March 11, Ad Impact has tracked more than $109 million in ad time reserved.

Future Forward USA Action launched a multimillion-dollar ad blitz in 2023. But since its ads stop short of explicitly urging viewers to vote for Biden’s reelection, the spending is not legally required to be disclosed to the FEC even though the ads tout Biden’s record along with B-roll footage of the president.

Future Forward became the third-largest funder of advertising in the 2020 presidential general election, with the super PAC spending $126.4 million during the final months of the 2020 election.

In January, the super PAC announced plans to reserve $250 million in advertising in battleground states, allocating $140 million to television and $110 million to digital ads. The ads are projected to start the day after the Democratic National Convention concludes in August, the New York Times reported.

The constellation of groups that have announced plans to support Biden also includes other super PACs funded in part by allied dark money groups.

In 2023, the American Bridge hybrid PAC announced it plans to spend $140 million on ads ahead of the 2024 election while Priorities USA planned to drop another $75 million. Despite their big spending plans, neither super PAC has broken seven figures in spending during the 2024 cycle and are still ramping up operations.

Party groups steer dark money into 2024 elections

Groups affiliated with Democratic or Republican leadership in Congress have consistently ranked among the top-giving dark money groups each recent election cycle — and 2024 is no exception.

In 2023 alone, the four main groups affiliated with party leadership in the House and Senate steered more than $46.4 million to political committees such as super PACs that can spend unlimited sums on elections.

Majority Forward, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit aligned with Senate Democratic leadership that does not disclose its donors,spent over $18.7 million into contributions to federal political committees in the first year of the 2024 election cycle.

Senate Majority PAC, the main super PAC aligned with Senate Democrats, reported receiving about $16 million of Majority Forward’s contributions in 2023.

During the 2022 midterm cycle, Majority Forward contributed more money to federal political committees than any other dark money group, with its contributions nearing $76 million.

Duty and Country, a super PAC aligned with congressional Democrats that has been active in recent elections, was funded in 2020 by Duty and Honor, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dark money group funded by and affiliated with Majority Forward. IRS filings indicate that the dark money appendage has since shuttered. Majority Forward is now funding the super PAC directly. In 2023, Majority Forward was Duty and Country’s sole donor.

Majority Forward is the sole donor funding Last Best Place PAC, a new super PAC that has spent on ads attacking former Navy SEAL and entrepreneur Tim Sheehy, who is running for the Senate seat held by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

While the super PAC’s advertising explicitly mentions Sheehy’s Senate campaign, it has yet to report any independent expenditures to the FEC. Instead, it reported all of its media spending as operating expenditures, lumping the spending on political ads together with salaries, office supplies and overhead costs — and resulting in the Campaign Legal Center filing an FEC complaint against Last Best Place PAC.

House Majority Forward, Majority Forward’s congressional counterpart aligned with Democratic U.S. House leadership, made another nearly $8.3 million in political contributions in 2023. All of those contributions went to House Majority PAC, the main super PAC aligned with House Democrats.

In addition to making political contributions to its closely-tied hybrid PAC, House Majority Forward has spent millions on ads and billboards targeting swing district House Republicans.

One Nation, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit aligned with Senate GOP leadership that poured more money from undisclosed sources into 2022 elections than any other group, made nearly $5.2 million into contributions in 2023.

During the 2022 cycle, the Senate GOP-aligned dark money group gave $75 million to Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to retiring Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that shares staff and resources with the dark money group.

One Nation was also the biggest dark money contributor of the 2020 election cycle.

American Action Network, a 501(c)(4) group aligned with House Republican leadership, dropped another $82.2 million into federal elections during the 2022 election cycle. The dark money group steered at least $30.7 million of that into TV and online ads boosting Republican candidates, according to AdImpact data provided to OpenSecrets.

The 501(c)(4) group’s roughly $51.5 million in contributions largely went to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a hybrid PAC aligned with GOP House leadership that spent more than $227.3 million to boost Republicans in 2022 midterms.

American Action Network has also started spending on ads in battleground districts.

Committees Researcher Andrew Mayersohn contributed to this report.

Koch network ramping up political activity ahead of 2024 election

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Americans for Prosperity Action, the flagship political group at the center of an influential network founded by the billionaire owners of Koch Industries, is gearing up for the 2024 presidential election.

The super PAC, commonly known as AFP Action, kicked off the next phase of its campaign to support former U.N. Ambassador Nikky Haley’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Jan. 5 with a new wave of mailers, digital advertising and TV spots it projects will cost $27 million.

OpenSecrets’ analysis of Federal Election Commission filings reveals that AFP Action has already spent over $45.3 million in the 2024 election cycle. About $26.5 million was to support Haley while the super PAC targeted Trump and Biden with $9 million each in attack ads.

ALSO READ: King of GOP Never Trumpers just hurt a lot of big Republican feelings

The new ad blitz targets key early-voting states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as well as states that hold presidential nominating contests on Super Tuesday in March, including Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

AFP Action says it has contacted more than 650,000 voters since it endorsed Haley in November and is strategizing using information from interviews with more than 6 million Republican primary voters that were conducted in 2023.

A memo released by AFP Action explaining the group’s endorsement of Haley cites her recent momentum in the polls, and the super PAC’s new ads highlight Haley’s perceived “electability” against President Joe Biden.

“Nikki Haley is by far the strongest candidate Republicans could run against Joe Biden, and no one else is even close,” AFP Action director Nathan Nascimento said in a Jan. 5 statement. “Nikki Haley would boost Republicans up and down the ballot.”.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley campaigns in Ankeny, Iowa on Jan. 11, 2024. Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons

Although former President Donald Trump remains the frontrunner, polling aggregates compiled by FiveThirtyEight show that Haley rose in the polls over the course of the last three presidential debates while Florida Governor Ron Desantis’ numbers declined.

AFP Action previously backed Desantis’ 2022 gubernatorial reelection campaign in Florida, though the organization clashed with his administration earlier this year over a Florida bill aimed at making it easier to sue news outlets for defamation.

The Kochs have a more nuanced relationship with Trump after butting heads with the former president on several issues during his time in the White House. The super PAC announced it would oppose Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy back in February 2023, several months before endorsing Haley but reiterated its commitment to spend tens of millions of dollars to help “push the Republican Party past” Trump.

“Americans for Prosperity has already lit millions of dollars on fire this primary only to watch President Donald Trump’s lead grow,” a spokesperson for the Trump-aligned super PAC Make America Great Again Inc. said of AFP Action’s endorsement of HaleyNo amount of money can break the bond President Trump has with voters. He kept his promises.”

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch founded Americans for Prosperity in 2004. Koch Industries and groups affiliated with the Koch advocacy network are also the primary funders of the AFP Action super PAC.

Another pair of major contributors to AFP Action is Jim and Rob Walton, two heirs to the Walmart fortune. The brothers each made a contribution of $5 million in April 2023.

ALSO READ: Few Trumpers who embrace political violence understand its endgame

During the 2022 election cycle, AFP Action spent more than $69 million on independent expenditures supporting Republican candidates running for Congress. The super PAC ended June with more than $77 million on hand, having spent over $4 million on federal disbursements according to its most recent FEC filing.

AFP Action spent over $2 million in 2023 on Google advertising targeting Trump and Biden’s presidential campaigns, or later supporting Haley.

Since August 2023, AFP Action has spent over $1.6 million more on digital ads through Facebook parent company Meta. Many of those ads attack Trump and Biden or support Haley, though others support candidates running for offices in Congress and state-level legislatures in Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Haley is the only presidential candidate the group has explicitly endorsed. But the Koch political network has been working to support conservative candidates at all levels in the 2024 election cycle and AFP Action has also thrown its weight behind several other Republican House candidates.

AFP Action announced on Jan. 4 that it supports Pat Harrigan, a Green Beret and firearms manufacturer, in the House race to replace Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to represent North Carolina’s 10th Congressional District.

“He knows that heavy-handed government has made it harder to start and grow businesses, made life more expensive and completely neglected veterans who deserve the care they were promised,” Tyler Voigt, a senior advisor to AFP Action, said in a written statement.

The super PAC has also made several recent endorsements of state legislative candidates in the state, as well as in other states across the country.

In September, OpenSecrets reported that Americans for Prosperity spent more than $1 million on the 2023 Virginia primary and general elections. According to its filing with the Louisiana Ethics Administration, Americans for Prosperity also spent nearly $1 million supporting Republican candidates in the Louisiana legislature.

That month, AFP Action announced its endorsement of five other congressional candidates, bringing its total slate of endorsed House candidates up to eleven.

Four of the five additional candidates AFP Action endorsed in September are Republicans challenging Democrats in districts that the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to flip in 2024, Politico first reported.

Pennsylvania is a primary target of AFP Action’s spending as the state is catapulted into the limelight during the 2024 cycle. The super PAC’s endorsements in the state include state Sen. Ryan Mackensie’s bid to represent Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District and state Rep. Robert Mercuri’s campaign to represent the state’s 17th Congressional District.

The super PAC also endorsed and spent on canvassing to support the Senate campaign of former Deputy National Security Advisor David McCormick, the former CEO of the Bridgewater Associates investment firm who is running for a seat held by three-term incumbent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) in Pennsylvania.

Polling indicates that McCormick is currently the Republican party’s runner-up in the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate primary but his campaign has quickly ramped up fundraising, raising $5.4 million in his first quarter as a 2024 candidate, according to Axios.

AFP Action’s Senate endorsements include Afghanistan War veteran Sam Brown, who is running to flip a Senate seat held by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in Nevada, and has since spent on canvassing to boost the profile of the first-time candidate. Brown reportedly went on to break a new fundraising record in the final quarter of 2023, ending the year with a $1.85 million haul – more than any challenger to an incumbent running for reelection in Nevada history, according to Fox News.

Former Michigan state Sen. Tom Barrett, who is running in a Michigan open seat currently held by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and former Ohio state Rep. Craig Riedel’s campaign in Ohio’s 9th Congressional District are also among the Republican candidates endorsed by AFP Action.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

IRS free tax filing rollout faces hurdles after multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

New legislation could throw a wrench in IRS plans to launch a free government-run tax filing program after millions of dollars in lobbying by for-profit tax prep service providers.

On Monday, newly-minted House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) introduced a bill making $14.3 million in aid to Israel contingent on reducing funding for the IRS. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which President Joe Biden signed into law last year, set $15 million aside for the IRS to develop the free service. Leading for-profit tax prep companies oppose the program.

While Johnson framed the proposed cut as an attempt to offset the cost of the military aid package and reduce the national debt, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office found that defunding the IRS would actually increase the federal deficit by $12.6 billion over the next decade.

ALSO READ: Accused felon Rudy Giuliani praises The Citadel for letting him keep honorary degree

The House is expected to vote on the legislation this week.

But Senate Democrats, who hold a narrow majority in the chamber, have called the bill a “non-starter.” The White House has also promised to veto the bill, favoring a joint package with military aid for both Israel and Ukraine.

Still, IRS cuts could resurface in future proposals to send military aid to Ukraine — a priority for Democrats who need buy-in from Republicans.

The proposal to use IRS funds to cover military aid to Israel is new, but it follows a multiyear fight pitting the IRS against for-profit tax prep companies as the industry makes billions of dollars helping Americans file taxes each year. Tax prep companies in turn pour millions back into lobbying to preserve the status quo.

The tax prep services industry has poured over $90 million into lobbying on the Free File Program and other issues since the program’s inception in 2003, a new OpenSecrets analysis found.

Intuit, the company that owns TurboTax, and H&R Block lead in lobbying spending but are bolstered by groups like the American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights, a tax prep, software and financial services trade association whose members include Intuit, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, TaxSlayer and Liberty Tax Services.

Intuit spent about $2.8 million on federal lobbying in the first three quarters of this year, outpacing the prior year and putting the tax prep company on track for a new record.

The TurboTax parent company — which also owns QuickBooks and Credit Karma — spent $910,000 on federal lobbying in the third quarter of this year alone, new lobbying filings show. The company spent nearly $3.3 million on federal lobbying in 2021 and another $3.5 million in 2022.

"Intuit strongly believes in advocating on behalf of its customers. As our business grows so does our engagement and education of policymakers on various issues, from AI and innovation that benefits individuals and small businesses to stronger consumer protections and tax simplification,” an Intuit spokesperson told OpenSecrets.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The company lobbied for "intellectual property protections" as well as "AI and innovation to benefit consumers and small businesses," according to Intuit’s most recent lobbying disclosures, which cover activity during the third quarter of 2023. Intuit lobbyists also reported advocating for "consumer and small business prosperity related to data privacy.”

Over the two decades since the launch of the IRS Free File program, Intuit has poured over $46.2 million into federal lobbying, an OpenSecrets analysis found.

The Free File Alliance, a coalition of tax prep companies, reached a deal with the IRS in 2003 to offer free tax prep services to a larger portion of taxpayers.

The deal, negotiated by Intuit lobbyists, required companies to provide some tax filing services at no cost to certain individuals but also allowed those same companies to charge for other tax-filing products.

ALSO READ: New Speaker Mike Johnson: no assets, lots of debt

In turn, the IRS promised not to develop its own tax prep software or e-filing services. But a December 2019 addendum to the public-private partnership’s original memorandum of understanding lifted that restriction, despite tax prep companies spending heavily on lobbying to bar the government from creating its own e-filing software.

The December 2019 addendum also prohibited companies in the alliance from thwarting Free File internet search results.

Multiple companies have since pulled out of the agreement with the IRS, including Intuit in 2021 and H&R Block in 2020.

The lobbying intensified following passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and a December 2021 executive order instructing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to consider “expanded electronic filing options,” spurring the development of Direct File, a pilot program to provide government-run tax filing services.

“Direct File is not free tax preparation, but rather a thinly veiled scheme where billions of dollars of taxpayer money will be unnecessarily used to pay for something already completely free of charge today – free to the taxpayer and actually free for the government,” an Intuit spokesperson told OpenSecrets. “The Direct File scheme is a solution in search of a problem, and that half-baked solution now has the potential to become a financial nightmare for tens of millions of taxpayers.”

ALSO READ: Republican congressman loses nearly $10K in mail theft

“Direct File is asking Americans to file their taxes directly with the IRS after the organization publicly acknowledged systemic inequities that see low-income filers and Black taxpayers targeted for audit at a higher rate than non-Black taxpayers,” the Intuit spokesperson added, referencing a recent Stanford University study that found Black taxpayers are audited at a higher rate than non-Black taxpayers. After pressure from lawmakers, the IRS acknowledged the study’s findings in May and committed to “doing the work to understand and address any disparate impact of the actions we take.”

Despite the tax prep companies’ heavy lobbying spending, the IRS plans to launch the pilot program next year.

The agency announced in October that the initial rollout will be limited to taxpayers in 13 states with relatively simple returns and specific income types but indicated that the program’s scope could change.

ALSO READ: 'How many cheerleaders did he grope?’ Fans share outrage at Trump’s Iowa State game visit

According to the IRS, four of the 13 states — Arizona, California, Massachusetts and New York — will adopt the Direct File program for both state and federal taxes while residents in nine other states that don't have an income tax may also be able to participate in the pilot for federal taxes.

Taxpayers in other states — or whose filing needs are more complex, such as contractors — will not qualify for the services in 2024.

While the pilot program will only cover some taxpayers, a wider rollout could threaten the primary source of tax prep companies’ revenue. In August, Intuit announced that its annual revenue was over $14.3 billion for its 2023 fiscal year, which ended July 31, 2023 — a 13% increase from 2022.

H&R Block’s annual revenue was around $3.5 billion for its 2023 fiscal year, which ended June 30, representing a more modest increase of $9 million — or 0.3% from the prior year.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

Kentucky governor’s race on track for new fundraising record

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

The Kentucky governor’s race has been nothing short of a financial juggernaut, with gubernatorial candidates collectively raking in more than $36.8 million in contributions, a new OpenSecrets analysis found.

The booming fundraising puts the race on track to set a new record in the state. The most ever collectively raised by gubernatorial candidates in a prior election year was $37.1 million in 2007.

As money continues to pour into this year’s gubernatorial race, incumbent Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear has a hefty cash advantage after raising over three times as much as his Republican rival in the general election, Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

Beshear is leading the pack in fundraising with an eye-popping $17.3 million raised so far this election. About $10 million of that was raised for the general election, new campaign finance disclosures filed Sept. 12 show. The incumbent governor’s campaign has already spent more than $10.7 million on the general, with $4.2 million cash on hand at the start of September.

After winning the Republican primary in May to become the first major-party Black nominee for governor in Kentucky’s history, Cameron raised about $2.8 million for the general election. His campaign’s total fundraising this cycle has topped $4.6 million, according to new campaign finance filings submitted Sept. 12.

During the general election period, Cameron has spent about $1.4 million and had about $1.4 million cash on hand at the start of September.

ALSO READ: Minnesota Democrats fall victim to check fraud

While incumbents and top fundraisers are often at an advantage in elections, Cameron has won races where he was outraised before.

The top fundraiser in the 12-candidate Republican primary field was Kelly Craft, who served as United Nations ambassador in former President Donald Trump’s administration, though her campaign was heavily self-funded. Craft’s campaign brought in over $12.3 million ahead of the May primary including the candidate’s self-financing — over $10 million more than Cameron raised during the primary. But Trump ultimately endorsed the Kentucky attorney general, and he went on to win the nomination.

Both Beshear and Cameron took money from political action committees. But Beshear has benefitted from more than twice as much PAC money as Cameron, with the candidates having taken $134,000 and $69,900 respectively

The bulk of Beshear’s political action committee contributions during the 60-day pre-general election period have come from PACs affiliated with unions. He has also taken from several corporate PACs affiliated with companies in the healthcare industry including $2,100 from Eli Lilly And Company’s PAC, $1,000 from Genesis Healthcare Corp PAC, $2,000 from Molina Healthcare’s PAC, $2000 from Centene Corp. PAC and $2,000 from Elevance Health PAC.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (Shutterstock)

Beshear also took $2,000 from a PAC affiliated with WalMart, $2,100 from Duke Energy’s PAC, $2,100 from Deloitte PAC, $2,100 from CSX’s PAC, $2,000 from Dell Technologies’ PAC, $2,100 from Atmos Energy Corp’s PAC and $2,100 from a PAC affiliated with Nucor, a steel company.

Kentucky’s identity is intrinsically linked to bourbon, and the alcoholic beverage industry wields influence far beyond barrels of booze. Beshear’s campaign tapped into this, securing financial support from key industry players including $2,100 — the state’s campaign contribution cap — from Beam Suntory’s PAC, $2,100 from the Kentucky Distillers’ Association’s PAC and $2,100.00 from Diago North America’s PAC.

Cameron also enjoyed his share of corporate PAC support. His campaign’s top corporate contributors include PACs affiliated with Koch Industries, Home Depot and Lifepoint Health, which each gave $2,100 to his campaign — the legal limit in the state.

Cameron also received $2,100 from Save America, Trump’s PAC.

Some PACs played both sides. For example, the Kentucky Land Title Association gave $2,100 to each candidate.

Political ads flood Kentucky governor’s race

Political advertising has flooded the airwaves in Kentucky as a part of the hotly-contested gubernatorial race with abortion emerging as a key issue.

On Sept. 20, Beshear’s campaign released an attack ad targeting Cameron on abortion rights.

“Anyone who believes there should be no exceptions for rape and incest could never understand what it’s like to stand in my shoes,” the woman in the ad says, sharing a story about being sexually assaulted by her stepfather.

Earlier this month, Beshear launched another ad campaign describing Cameron’s previously stated opposition to exceptions for rape as “extreme” and “dangerous.”

While Cameron previously expressed opposition to exceptions to abortion bans, he indicated on Sept. 18 that he would sign legislation that allows exceptions for rape and incest. Cameron also announced that he supports birth control.

ALSO READ: Inside the 11 scenarios that deny Trump the presidency — without him actually losing Election 2024

Planned Parenthood Action Kentucky, a PAC largely funded by the political arm of Planned Parenthood’s national organization, also launched a six-figure ad campaign attacking Cameron over his anti-abortion rights stance.

While Beshear has an edge over Cameron when it comes to campaign fundraising and the support of several PACs, outside groups have poured big money into the race supporting both candidates.

School Freedom Fund, a super PAC allied with the conservative Club For Growth, is one group that has been heavily involved in opposing Beshear with spending reaching around $3 million.

The super PAC recently launched an ad claiming that Beshear’s decision to release some prisoners early during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed a man convicted of sodomizing a child to “roam free” — a claim that has been debunked. Multiple ads bankolled by School Freedom Fund have raise questionsand been debunked.

School Freedom Fund was almost entirely bankrolled by Jeff Yass, the billionaire founder of Susquehanna International Group, during the 2022 cycle. The School Freedom Fund super PAC is also affiliated with Club For Growth, a pro-free market group co-founded by billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow – whose close relationship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received recent scrutiny – and largely funded by Yass and Republican-aligned billionaire shipping magnate Richard Uihlein.

Bluegrass Freedom Action, another PAC supporting Cameron’s run, spent more than $4.4 million to help Cameron in the Republican primary and has continued to spend during the general election — racking up more than $1.43 million in ad buys by the first week of September, according to Lexington Herald-Leader reporting using numbers from ad tracking firm Medium Buying.

The largest contributor to the pro-Cameron PAC has been the Concord Fund, a “dark money” group previously named Judicial Crisis Network that does not disclose its donors. Concord Fund is part of a shape-shifting network of secretly-funded conservative nonprofits working to reshape the federal judiciary. It is connected to Leonard Leo, a powerful leader in the conservative legal movement who helped shape Trump’s unprecedented effort to stack the federal judiciary with conservative judges.

Defending Bluegrass Values, a PAC tied to the Democratic Governors Association, has also raised and spent big money on the Kentucky gubernatorial race. The PAC has reported more than $4 million in contributions in campaign finance filings and has made $13.7 million in ad buys supporting Beshear’s reelection campaign as of the first week of September — more than every other PAC spending on the race combined, according to Lexington Herald-Leader reporting.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

Tax prep companies that spent over $90 million lobbying against free tax-filing system face new scrutiny

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Leading tax prep companies have poured $90 million into lobbying on the Free File Program and other issues since the program’s inception in 2003, a new OpenSecrets analysis found.

Now the lobbying juggernauts are facing mounting scrutiny from members of Congress over their deployment of “revolving door” lobbyists in alleged attempts to undermine the federal government’s adoption of a government-run system that would allow taxpayers to file for free.

After years of lobbying and negotiations, a coalition of tax prep companies called the Free File Alliance reached a deal with the IRS to offer free tax prep services to a larger portion of taxpayers starting in 2003. The agreement, spearheaded by Intuit lobbyists, required companies to provide some tax filing services at no cost to certain individuals, those same companies could still charge for ancillary services and other tax-filing products.

ALSO READ: Busted: Vivek Ramaswamy campaign took money from a notorious Islamophobe

As a part of the public-private partnership, the IRS promised not to develop its own tax prep software or e-filing services. However, a December 2019 addendum to the alliance’s original memorandum of understanding lifted that restriction, despite tax prep companies spending heavily on lobbying to bar the government from creating its own e-filing software.

The December 2019 addendum also barred tax prep companies in the alliance from blocking Free File Internet search results. The change came shortly after ProPublica reported that tax prep companies in the alliance lured tax filers away from free tax filing options by hiding their Free File options from Google results and instead directing users to paid products – including products marketed as “free” that allegedly tricked clients into paying.

Since then, multiple companies have pulled out of the agreement with the IRS, including H&R Block in 2020 and Intuit in 2021.

While both leading tax prep companies have continued to spend heavily on lobbying, federal government efforts to roll out a government-run free tax filing system are moving forward – albeit not without some pushback.

ALSO READ: 'Why do we do this?': Unused government fund gets $3M cash influx from taxpayers

After President Joe Biden’s December 2021 Executive Order instructed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to consider “expanded electronic filing options,” Yellen testified before the Senate Finance Committee that building a free direct filing service is “definitely a priority.” The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 allotted $15 million for the IRS to explore the creation of a free federal tax filing service.

In May, the IRS released a report announcing plans to launch the pilot program for the 2024 tax filing season and indicating that most U.S. taxpayers are interested in filing their taxes directly to the IRS for free.

But in June, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee proposed a budget rider that would bar the IRS from using federal government funds to create a government-run tax preparation software, unless approved by the House and Senate’s appropriations committees.

The IRS report and pilot program have also faced fierce opposition from tax prep companies.

“An IRS Direct File system is redundant and will not be free — not free to build, not free to operate, and not free for taxpayers,” Intuit spokesperson Derrick Plummer told ABC News.

The Intuit spokesperson further told AP that the report “cherry-picks data to support its flawed conclusion,” noting the study found that only 12% of taxpayers said they would use a government-run system if state tax returns are not included in the program.

On Aug. 23, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) sent letters to Intuit, H&R Block, the Free File Alliance and the American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights, a tax prep, software and financial services trade association whose members include Intuit, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, TaxSlayer and Liberty Tax Services.

Warren and Porter gave the organizations until Sept. 6 to provide additional information about the tax prep industry’s lobbying activities and revenue.

The American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights spent $150,000 on federal lobbying during the first half of this year, a smaller sum than the leading tax prep companies but outpacing any of its prior years and putting it on track for another record-setting year. The coalition spent $80,000 of that on federal lobbying in the second quarter of 2023 with $50,000 of that going to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which started lobbying for the coalition May 1.

In 2022, the coalition spent $260,000 on federal lobbying — the most it has spent any year other than the $265,000 it spent the year it launched.

There is no record of federal lobbying by the Free File Alliance and its executive director, Tim Hugo, told AP that his organization “does not lobby, does not hire lobbyists, has not hired lobbyists in the past, and has never had a PAC.”

This is not the first time congressional Democrats have scrutinized the tax prep industry’s lobbying activities.

In 2022, several members of Congress called for probes into the company’s deployment of revolving-door lobbyists who previously held government positions, citing investigative reporting by OpenSecrets and ProPublica.

After OpenSecrets’ March 2022 reporting on Intuit’s lobbying in Washington, Warren sent another letterto Intuit’s CEO accusing the company of “extensive lobbying and adroit influence peddling.”

In a June letter, Warren, Porter and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) further called on federal inspector general offices to investigate Intuit’s “use of the revolving door to influence policy decisions” and the “extent to which Intuit — and other Free File Alliance members — have used the revolving door to exert undue influence on department and agency policies, particularly Free File.”

Intuit has also taken heat from the Federal Trade Commission, which filed a complaint in 2022 accusing Intuit of deceptively advertising their paid tax preparation services as free filing.

On Wednesday, an administrative judge inside the agency ruled against Intuit but the ruling will remained sealed until Sept. 6, pending redactions, Politico reported.

“We expect to appeal this decision to the FTC Commissioners and, if necessary, then to a federal court of appeals. We intend to continue to defend our position on the merits of this case,” Intuit wrote in its annual SEC filing filed Friday.

Even amid the scrutiny, tax companies continue to reap the profits of the current system.

On Aug. 23, Intuit announced its total revenue was $12.7 billion for the 12-month fiscal year ending June 31, up 32% from the prior year. H&R Block reported $3.5 billion in revenue during its own 12-month fiscal year ending June 30, a more modest increase of about $9 million — or 0.3% — from the prior year.

Over the two decades since Free File launched, Intuit has poured over $43.3 million into federal lobbying while H&R Block spent nearly $42 million.

Intuit, the company that owns TurboTax, has spent more than $1.8 million on federal lobbying in the first half of 2023, outpacing any prior year. H&R Block spent more than $1.5 million on federal lobbying during the same period.

Editor's note: This article was updated to reflect information Intuit’s annual SEC filing, which was posted after publication.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

ByteDance spends millions lobbying, outpacing prior years amid crackdown on TikTok’s China ties

This article originally appeared in OpenSecrets. Sign up for their weekly newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, poured millions into lobbying spending amid a nationwide push to ban the video-sharing app after U.S. officials increased scrutiny over data security and its Chinese government ties.

TikTok parent company ByteDance spent a record $2.4 million on federal lobbying during the second second quarter of this year — more than any other quarter since it started lobbying in 2019. Spending in the last quarter puts the company on track for another record-breaking year a new OpenSecrets analysis of Lobbying Disclosure Act filings found.

After ByteDance spent a record $5.3 million on federal lobbying in 2022 — more than all but three internet companies last year — the TikTok parent company poured another $4.28 million into federal lobbying during the first half of 2023, outpacing the roughly $3.25 million it spent at the same point last year.

RELATED ARTICLE: Former NFL player Derrick Dockery quietly becomes a guardian for TikTok on Capitol Hill

In total, ByteDance poured more than $17.7 million into lobbying since the Chinese-owned social media company first reported payments to federal lobbyists in 2019.

ByteDance’s lobbying team has several “revolving door” lobbyists who previously held federal government positions working for prominent members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, as well as several powerhouse lobbying firms with government connections in their arsenal.

Former members of Congress on the team of revolving door lobbyists working for TikTok’s interests include former Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and John Breaux (D-La.) as well as former Reps. Jeff Denham(R-Calif.) and Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.).

Despite ByteDance’s robust lobbying efforts and TikTok’s massive U.S. user base, the app has faced increased scrutiny from lawmakers looking to address potential national security and data privacy risks related to Chinese ownership.

On July 10, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) announced that Congress is considering changes to the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act — also known as the RESTRICT Act — a bill the Senate Intelligence Committee chair sponsored in March as part of efforts to crack down on TikTok and other companies that are deemed to pose a national security risk.

As written, the RESTRICT Act would grant the president and U.S. Commerce Department sweeping authority to address threats originating in countries deemed to be “foreign adversaries.”

The legislation is endorsed by President Joe Biden’s White House and has attracted bipartisan support in the Senate but Warner claims lobbying spending “slowed a bit of our momentum.”

Warner also told Reuters that Congress is working on changes to address concerns that his legislation would usher in a broad expansion of government power.

“The RESTRICT Act is using TikTok as a smokescreen for the largest expansion of executive power” in decades, Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee lamented when expressing opposition to the bill in March.

A wide range of advocacy groups and corporations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union have spent on lobbying around the legislation, scrutinizing it due to First Amendment concerns and the risk of executive overreach.

While the bill has received support from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, even some groups and lawmakers pushing to ban TikTok have criticized the bill’s approach as overly broad.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been especially critical of the bill, going as far as claiming “As it is written right now, it will not ban TikTok and it will probably make it impossible to ever ban TikTok.”

In December, Rubio joined Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) in introducing another bill to ban TikTok from operating in the U.S.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) introduced legislation in January that would bar TikTok from being downloaded on any U.S. devices and ban any transactions with its parent company, ByteDance, as well.

While the proposals to ban TikTok across the U.S. are still under consideration, Congress passedlegislation to ban TikTok from federal government-owned devices as part of an annual appropriations bill in December 2022 and efforts to block the app have continued to gain momentum across the country.

In May, Montana became the first U.S. state to prohibit app stores from offering TikTok for download.

TikTok is currently fighting the ban, which is set to take effect in Montana on Jan. 1, 2024. As part of that effort, the company is covering legal fees for influencers in the state who are challenging the legislation in an ongoing lawsuit. The next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 12.

At least 33 states have also taken action to restrict TikTok on state-issued devices and several more have proposed similar bans.

Last week, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research – which works to study the impact of technology on society — claiming a ban on TikTok at Texas state institutions violates the First Amendment. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) signed the law banning TikTok on state-owned or issued devices for employees in state agencies, including state university systems in December, though the law is not slated to go into effect until next year.

As lawmakers grapple with how to balance the perceived national security threats posed by TikTok with constitutional issues raised by prohibitions, the growing push to restrict TikTok across the U.S. has put pressure on President Joe Biden’s administration to address concerns around the video-sharing app due to suspicions that it could be used as a tool of foreign influence.

U.S. officials have long speculated Chinese government actors may be able to view the personal information of TikTok users and more information has continued to emerge.

In June 2022, BuzzFeed News reported that ByteDance employees based in China have repeatedly accessed private data about American TikTok users, prompting senators on both sides of the aisle to call on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the company.

TikTok has emphatically rejected spying allegations. To distance the video-sharing app’s U.S. operations’ backend functions and code from its Chinese arm, TikTok is currently in the process of working with Austin-based software giant Oracle to store all American user data in the U.S. As a part of the collaboration dubbed “Project Texas,” TikTok is also reportedly giving Oracle access to audit its algorithms and content moderation policies.

At a House hearing in March, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew testified that “American data has always been stored in Virginia and Singapore” and that “American data is stored on American soil by an American company overseen by American personnel.”

According to Chew’s testimony, all new U.S. user data is being stored inside the country and that TikTok started deleting historic U.S. user data from non-Oracle servers in March, a process expected to be completed this year.

Also in March, the Biden administration demanded TikTok’s Chinese owners divest their stakes or face a U.S. ban. Biden ordered the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review TikTok in June 2021, after withdrawing former President Donald Trump’s executive orders banning new downloads of the app in the U.S.

The battle over TikTok’s operations in the U.S. continues, with ongoing legislative debates and regulatory actions shaping the future of the popular social media app. As lawmakers and the Biden administration grapple with data security and national security concerns, ByteDance’s lobbying efforts remain a significant factor in determining the outcome of this high-stakes clash.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit research and news organization tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.