Jimmy Cloutier, OpenSecrets

Outside spending in 2024 federal election tops $1 billion

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

Outside spending in the 2024 election cycle has surpassed $1 billion, outpacing prior election cycles, according to a new OpenSecrets analysis of federal campaign finance reports.

Super PACs and other outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money have poured about $1.1 billion into 2024 federal elections as of Aug. 15 — nearly twice what similar groups spent over the same period in the 2020 presidential election cycle when independent expenditures hit an all-time record.

More than half of all outside spending during the 2024 cycle — about $585.8 million — has gone into the presidential election, which saw an especially expensive Republican presidential nominating contest.

SFA Fund and Never Back Down, the main super PACs aligned with former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, respectively, sank a combined $119.6 million on independent expenditures during the Republican presidential primary.

ALSO READ: Donald Trump deep in debt while foreign money keeps coming: disclosure

However, the largest spender, by far, is former President Donald Trump’s flagship super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc. To date, MAGA Inc. has spent about $125.1 million boosting Trump in the presidential election, including nearly $33.2 million attacking his GOP rivals and more than $65.6 million opposing President Joe Biden.

Future Forward and American Bridge 21st Century, the first and second-largest Democratic hybrid PACs, have spent a combined $74.7 million on the presidential race as of Aug. 15. Both super PACs pivoted to supporting Vice President Kamala Harris after Biden suspended his campaign last month.

Outside spending slowed after Haley, Trump’s last-remaining Republican challenger, bowed out of the presidential race in March. But independent expenditures continue to outpace previous election cycles.

Congressional races have also attracted millions in outside spending.

Americans for Prosperity Action, a super PAC at the center of a network of conservative donors and activists led by billionaire Charles Koch, spent more than $31.2 million supporting Haley. After she suspended her campaign, AFP Action, which hasn’t endorsed Trump, pivoted to congressional races, spending nearly $27.7 million to help Republicans hold onto the U.S. House and win back the Senate.

Another top spender is Fairshake, a super PAC established last year to prop up candidates it sees as friendly to the crypto industry. Fairshake and its affiliated super PACs, Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, have spent a combined $45.7 million on elections in 2024 — more than any other industry-focused group.

Of that, nearly $10.1 million went toward defeating Democratic Rep. Katie Porter in California’s open primary election for the U.S. Senate. Porter, who questioned the crypto industry’s impact on the environment, finished a distant third behind Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Republican Steve Garvey, a former professional baseball player.

Fairshake and its affiliated super PACs are slated to spend millions more on the general election in coming months. Earlier this month, Fairshake announced that it had reserved $25 million in TV advertising to support 18 House candidates — nine Democrats and nine Republicans. Politico also reported that Defend American Jobs intends to spend at least $12 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in his race against Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a longtime skeptic of the crypto industry. Democrats need to hold onto Brown’s seat to maintain their majority in the Senate.

ALSO READ: Sen. John Fetterman violates financial law with botched corporate bond disclosures

Meanwhile, Protect Progress is preparing to launch a pair of approximately $3 million ad campaigns supporting Reps. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) in their Senate races. Both lawmakers have voted for crypto industry-backed legislation in the House.

The crypto-focused super PACs’ largest donors include the digital asset firms Coinbase and Ripple, as well as the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has also poured millions into influencing 2024 elections. United Democracy Project has spent more than $35.6 million on congressional races this cycle, mostly on efforts to oust Democratic incumbents over their criticism of Israel’s military response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

Last week, AIPAC-backed Wesley Bell, a county prosecutor, won the Democratic primary election in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, defeating incumbent Rep. Cori Bush in the state’s most expensive nominating contest on record. United Democracy Project spent more than $8.6 million on the race, far more than any other outside group.

The AIPAC-affiliated super PAC also pushed out Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who lost the Democratic primary election in New York's 16th Congressional District to George Latimer in June. United Democracy Project poured more than $14.6 million into the race.

NRA slashed spending on federal lobbying amid legal troubles

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

Following years of legal setbacks, internal strife and declining revenue, the National Rifle Association reported spending $540,000 in federal lobbying spending during the first quarter of 2024 — the least amount of money the group has spent at the start of a year since 2009, according to lobbying disclosures reviewed by OpenSecrets. Last year, the preeminent gun rights group spent $2.3 million, a near-record low.

In February, a New York jury found former NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre liable in a civil trial for misusing millions of dollars of the organization’s money to pay for his lavish lifestyle, including exotic getaways and trips on private planes. LaPierre resigned as executive vice president and CEO on the eve of the trial.

Five years ago, the New York State Attorney General’s office launched a probe into the nonprofit after an investigation by The Trace, a newsroom that reports on gun issues, exposed self-dealing at the organization.

As the NRA’s legal troubles mounted, NRA revenue fell 40% from $352.6 million in 2018 to $211.3 million in 2022, the lowest in ten years, tax records show. At the same time, the organization nearly doubled the amount of money it spent on legal expenses.

The NRA’s federal lobbying spending peaked at $5.1 million in 2017 but then dropped off to $2.2 million in 2020, a 10-year low as the COVID-19 pandemic brought Washington to a standstill. When President Joe Biden entered office in 2021, the NRA ramped up spending to $4.9 million but quickly cut back to $2.6 million in 2022.

That year, Congress passed the most significant federal gun safety legislation in decades after a gunman killed 19 fourth-graders and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Signed into law on June 25, 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act expanded background checks, closed loopholes in federal gun laws and funded community-based violence prevention programs and mental health services. Twenty-nine congressional Republicans backed the bill, defying the NRA and other gun advocates.

The NRA also cut back on lobbying in state capitols, OpenSecrets found. Spending by the organization fell nearly 65% from a record-high of $1.3 million in 2020 to $458,000 in 2023 across the 19 states that release meaningful data on lobbying expenditures.

What all this means for the organization as it emerges from the scandals of the last few years remains unclear. The NRA did not respond to requests for comment but longtime watchers of the organization told OpenSecrets that the nonprofit will likely remain a powerful force in American politics, at least in the near future.

Though the NRA is losing revenue, shedding members and spending far less to influence federal policy than in previous years, the NRA remains one of the most powerful and well-funded groups within the gun rights movement. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry’s largest trade association, and the Gun Owners of America are the only gun rights groups that have spent more than the NRA on federal lobbying since 2021. But these groups represent smaller and more niche factions than the 150-year-old NRA, experts said.

“I don’t think there are any groups that are in a position to really build a level of relevance that would rival that of the NRA,” Matt LaCombe, a politics professor at Case Western Reserve University, told OpenSecret. LaCombe is the author of Firepower: How the NRA Turned Gun Owners into a Political Force. “These groups have had opportunities to grow during this period, and they probably have grown at the margins. But the NRA is just so much bigger.”

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist and the author of six books on gun policy, said no other group has managed to attract the same level of support.

“The single most important thing to understand about the NRA in terms of its influence politically is its grassroots base of support,” Spitzer told OpenSecrets. “Its membership is highly motivated and mobilizable, and they will do things in politics to a degree of activism that the typical American does not.”

The NRA also continues to spend about as much on lobbying as all gun control advocates combined, OpenSecrets found. Groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Sandy Hook Promise, Giffords and the Brady Campaign collectively spent about $2.3 million on federal lobbying in 2023 — roughly as much as the NRA. In the first three months of 2024, gun control advocates outspent the gun rights organization by just $40,000.

Protecting gun rights is to some degree “baked into Republican politics,” LaCombe added. The NRA has been closely aligned with the GOP for nearly 50 years, and it has successfully made opposing and even loosening restrictions on gun ownership a linchpin issue within the party, even though public opinion polls show a majority of Americans support stricter firearm regulations.

Ian Vandewalker, a senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program, told OpenSecrets that issues are “so well sorted from a polarization perspective” that the gun lobby doesn’t have to endorse or back a Republican candidate financially to know that they will be reliable on gun rights.

Despite some recent setbacks at the federal level and in left-leaning states, the gun rights movement has been largely successful at loosening state restrictions on gun ownership in most of the Deep South and Midwest. Since Biden entered office in 2021, 13 states have enacted NRA-backed measures eliminating the need to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm. Earlier this year, Louisiana and South Carolina became the 28th and 29th states, respectively, to repeal permit requirements.

Gun advocates also stymied efforts by Uvalde families last year to raise the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle in Texas from 18 to 21 years old. Instead, Texas state lawmakers approved a safety bill requiring an armed guard at every school. They also passed three NRA-backed bills, including a measure to prohibit local governments from requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance.

And efforts are underway to undercut the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. On May 15, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — who helped negotiate the landmark bill — joined 43 of their Republican colleagues on a resolution to strike down a regulation created under the law. The new rule, which Cornyn called a “flagrant distortion of congressional intent,” would expand the number of gun sellers required to run background checks, closing a loophole that allowed tens of thousands of weapons to be sold by unlicensed dealers to buyers who may not have been legally permitted to purchase a firearm.

Days later at its annual convention in Dallas, the NRA endorsed former President Donald Trump, no stranger himself to legal troubles. During his convention speech, Trump vowed to roll back gun safety regulations enacted under Biden.

Shell company steering $2.6 million to Republican PACs raises concerns of illicit funding

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

A complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleges that a shell company with ties to the former chief financial officer of the Republican State Leadership Committee illegally steered nearly $2.6 million to half a dozen political committees.

The complaint filed May 7 by the nonpartisan watchdog Campaign Legal Center revolves around Ardleigh Impact Corp., a company incorporated in Delaware on Oct. 24, 2023, which appears to exist only on paper. The Campaign Legal Center found no reference to the company online or record of it doing business. But barely three months after it was organized, the company made multiple large donations to six super PACs connected to high-ranking Republicans and conservative groups.

The Campaign Legal Center argues that Ardleigh Impact does not appear to have conducted any business activity from which it could have generated enough money to make the donations and alleges that whoever is behind the company violated federal law by using it as a “straw donor” to hide the identity of the true contributor. Federal campaign finance regulations have long recognized that it is illegal for anyone to make a political contribution under a false name or in the name of someone else, including an incorporated entity.

Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center, told OpenSecrets that straw donor schemes strike at the heart of disclosure laws meant to keep voters informed and protect elections from corruption and undue influence.

“Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence them,” Ghosh said. “That whole scheme is backed up by federal reporting requirements for candidates and committees. But those reporting requirements aren’t effective if folks can give money in the name of somebody else or in the name of a completely opaque business entity.”

Ghosh said shell companies can also be used to conceal illicit contributions from government contractors and foreign nationals, who are not permitted under federal law to spend money on U.S. elections.

In 2022, three Hawaii defense contractors were indicted for allegedly making unlawful campaign contributions to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and a PAC that supported her. According to the indictment, the contractors created a shell company and used family members as conduits to make the donations.

Such schemes have long been illegal, but they have become increasingly common since the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate political spending in Citizens United v. FEC, according to watchdog groups. The 2010 court decision spurred the creation of super PACs, which can raise unlimited money from corporations and nonprofits, and led to the proliferation of so-called dark money from undisclosed sources.

Nearly one out of every 10 dollars raised by super PACs this election cycle have come from corporate coffers, including millions of dollars that lead back to opaque and hard-to-trace shell companies, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of federal campaign finance reports.

From the start of the 2023-2024 election cycle through March 31, 730 companies contributed a combined $181.3 million to super PACs and hybrid PACs, OpenSecrets found. Those donations accounted for 9% of the $2.1 billion raised by such groups. About $10.3 million came from suspected shell companies.

Several states like Delaware with lax disclosure rules make it easy for anyone to create a shell company without divulging basic information to the public, such as the owners of an entity or where it is located. This makes it difficult to discern whether a donation came from a genuine business or one set up to facilitate a straw donation. Watchdog groups look for large donations from companies with little-to-no commercial activity and made within a short time of the entity being organized.

Ardleigh Impact Corp raised these red flags.

In February, the three-month-old company funneled $150,000 to AFC Victory Fund, a super PAC behind efforts to elect candidates who favor school voucher programs. Another $200,000 went to More Jobs, Less Government, a super PAC backing Tim Sheehy’s U.S. Senate bid to unseat Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) in Montana.

The following month, the Ardleigh Impact steered $700,000 to Defend Ohio Values and $625,000 to Buckeye Leadership Fund — two super PACs that backed Republican state Sen. Matt Dolan’s unsuccessful senate bid. It also donated $500,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, House Republicans’ main PAC, and $400,000 to Conservatives for American Excellence, which seeks to defeat Republican candidates aligned with members of the hardline Freedom Caucus.

Incorporation records do not provide an address for Ardleigh Impact, but the address listed in federal campaign finance reports is a home in Springfield, Va. that belongs to Michael Goede and Staci Goede, according to Fairfax County property records. Michael Goede is an account manager at the American Society of Clinical Oncology while Staci Goede is the former chief financial officer of the Republican State Leadership Committee, a national campaign committee that works to elect Republicans to state office.

Staci Goede left the RSLC in 2020 after 18 years with the organization, but she remains active in Republican circles. She is the treasurer of Spirit of Virginia — a campaign committee affiliated with Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin — and at least 21 national PACs currently registered with the FEC, records show.

Ardleigh Impact also isn’t the only opaque entity that traces back to her, OpenSecrets found.

Another shell company called the Leon Rachel Corporation was organized on Dec. 7, 2023, also in Delaware. About two months later, the corporation steered $100,000 to Secure NYS PAC, a super PAC formed a month prior, to oppose Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) in a special election to replace ex-Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.). Like the other PACs, Secure NYS listed the Goedes’ Springfield address for the Leon Rachel Corporation in campaign financing filings.

Staci Goede did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication.

Researchers Andrew Mayersohn and Alex Baumgart contributed to this report.

FEC urges Congress to close foreign money loophole

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

The Federal Election Commission is urging Congress to close a loophole in federal law that allows foreign corporations to finance ballot measures.

The Federal Election Campaign Act currently prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making political donations and independent expenditures in connection to an election for federal, state or local office. But the ban does not apply to political spending on ballot measures, referenda or even recall elections where a candidate is not seeking office.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

This month, the FEC unanimously approved more than a dozen legislative recommendations to federal lawmakers, including proposals to close the loophole and make it illegal to help foreign nationals circumvent the restrictions.

For years, government watchdog groups have stressed the need to limit foreign meddling in state and local ballot questions, but federal campaign finance regulators say their hands are tied.

In 2021, the FEC dismissed a complaint alleging that the Australian mining company Sandfire Resources violated federal campaign finance law when it spent nearly $288,000 to defeat a Montana ballot measure that would have made it easier for regulators to deny mining permits. The commission concluded that foreign campaign contributions in connection to ballot questions fell “outside the purview” of federal law.

In a statement explaining the commission’s decision in the case, then-Chair Shana Broussard, a Democrat, wrote: “Until Congress expands the (Federal Election Campaign) Act’s foreign national prohibition to encompass state and local ballot activities, which I urge it to do, the Commission is bound by the law as it currently stands.”

ALSO READ: Trump golf course isn’t making the grade

In the absence of federal restrictions, several states have enacted their own bans. Maine became the latest state to tackle the issue in November when voters there approved a state referendum prohibiting companies owned by foreign governments from spending money to influence ballot initiatives.

The move came after a U.S. subsidiary of Hydro-Québec — a utility company owned by the Canadian province — spent more than $22 million to fight a state referendum concerning the construction of a transmission line in 2020.

Congress is currently considering several bills addressing the FEC’s recommendations. Last month, the Committee on House Administration advanced bipartisan legislation sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Jared Golden (D-ME) to prohibit foreign nationals from spending on state and local ballot initiatives, referenda and recall elections.

In the Senate, the Select Intelligence Committee over the summer approved an intelligence appropriations bill introduced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) that includes similar provisions on foreign campaign contributions.

ALSO READ: Trolling, erotica, vulgarity: Trump, Biden Facebook pages are unmitigated trash heaps

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and former Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) have also sponsored sweeping campaign finance reforms that include measures to restrict foreign money in ballot initiatives and prevent someone from establishing a shell company to conceal election contributions by foreign nationals.

But even if Congress acts on the recommendations, preventing the flow of foreign money into U.S. elections could present a problem without additional funding.

A November report by the agency’s inspector general found that identifying and regulating unlawful foreign campaign contributions “continues to pose a significant challenge to the FEC.” The report blamed dwindling resources and a mounting workload.

The number of transactions subject to FEC regulations has increased dramatically over the previous two decades. During the 2000 election cycle, the FEC oversaw nearly 2 million receipts and expenditures. That number exceeded 590 million during the 2022 midterm elections.

At the same time, the FEC is struggling to maintain staff. From 2010 to 2023, its total workforce shrank by 12% and its budget, when adjusted for inflation, declined by 11%.

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.

FEC votes to extend campaign salaries to recent caregivers, unemployed candidates

The Federal Election Commission on Thursday voted 5-1 to approve new rules allowing more candidates to pay themselves a salary while running for office, including recent caregivers and workers suffering from an unexpected job loss.

Under existing regulations, only candidates who earned an income during the 12 months immediately before running for office qualified to receive compensation from campaign funds, putting stay-at-home parents, recent college graduates and workers with gaps in employment at a disadvantage.

In 2021, Nabilah Islam Parkes — a former federal candidate and now Democratic state senator in Georgia — filed a petition urging the commission to revise its regulations on campaign salaries, arguing that the restrictions favored the wealthy and left many working-class candidates “out in the cold.”

ALSO READ: 11 ways Donald Trump doesn't become president again

Changes to the existing regulations could lower financial barriers to running for office, especially for women and people of color, who remain underrepresented on Capitol Hill. Although Congress is currently more diverse than it has ever been, women and people of color still make up less than one-third of lawmakers, according to the Pew Research Center. A majority of lawmakers are also millionaires.

“We need to remove these barriers that prevent the average American from being able to run for office in the first place,” Islam Parkes told OpenSecrets, adding that Congress does not accurately reflect the U.S. “We need folks in Congress that share the lived experiences of everyday Americans, working-class Americans.”

The new rules will permit non-incumbent candidates to receive a day rate equal to 50% of the minimum annual salary of a U.S. House Representative — which currently sits at $174,000 — or the candidate’s average annual income over the previous five years, whichever is lowest. Any outside income earned while campaigning will count against the maximum compensation that can be drawn from campaign coffers.

The commission also agreed to extend the period when candidates can receive compensation, starting with the official launch of their campaign and ending 20 days after an election, regardless of the outcome.

Previous regulations required candidates to wait until their state’s primary election filing deadline before they could draw a salary, forcing those who weren’t independently wealthy to either go months without a living wage or work grueling hours to hold down a job while running for office.

Commissioner Trey Trainor, nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2019, was the sole member to vote against the rule change, arguing that the federal election law prohibiting the personal use of campaign funds does not carve out an exception for campaign salaries.

The Federal Election Campaign Act forbids a candidate from using campaign funds to cover expenses that would exist irrespective of their campaign. Trainor argued that campaign salaries indirectly cover such personal expenses.

In 2002, the FEC concluded that it was appropriate for candidates to compensate themselves for income lost due to their campaign.

On Thursday, Commissioner Allen Dickerson, a fellow Republican, noted that the new rules will not allow candidates to supplement their earnings but rather replace income forfeited to run for office. The 5-year window used to calculate the maximum compensation covers candidates who did not previously qualify for campaign salaries.

Once reviewed by Congress, the new rules will come into effect on March 1, 2024.

Islam Parkes, who lost health insurance coverage when running for Congress in 2021, also urged the FEC to allow candidates to use campaign funds to cover medical premiums and caregiving expenses, arguing that these benefits are inextricably linked to employment and could prevent some candidates from running for office.

The commission opted to continue addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis.

FEC advisory opinions have allowed candidates to use campaign funds to cover childcare expenses when election activities prevent them from caring for their children.

Although the commission has not issued a formal opinion on the question of health insurance premiums, it previously found that Jim Mowrer, a 2014 congressional candidate in Iowa, improperly reimbursed himself for insurance premiums using campaign funds because those charges would have existed irrespective of his campaign.

While Islam Parkes said she was disappointed that the FEC sidestepped the issue of healthcare coverage, she was grateful that the commission did not outright reject the idea of using campaign funds to cover medical premiums.

Joe Manchin vows to block 'radical climate agenda,' rakes in oil and gas industry contributions

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

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a new proposal Thursday to cut greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of power plants burning coal or natural gas, two of the top sources of electricity across the United States. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), criticizing the “radical” proposal, issued his own scorched earth ultimatum on Wednesday ahead of the announcement.

Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy Committee and the top recipient of contributions from the oil and gas industry during the 2022 election cycle, vowed Wednesday to oppose every one of President Joe Biden’s nominees for the EPA “until they halt their government overreach.”

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability,” Manchin wrote in a statement released Wednesday.

The EPA proposal would require most fossil fuel-fired power plants to slash their greenhouse emissions by 90% between 2023 and 2040. The EPA projects the emissions reduction would deliver up to $85 billion in climate and health benefits over the next two decades by heading off premature deaths, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, school absences and lost workdays.

Credit: OpenSecrets

“Alongside historic investment taking place across America in clean energy manufacturing and deployment, these proposals will help deliver tremendous benefits to the American people — cutting climate pollution and other harmful pollutants, protecting people’s health, and driving American innovation,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement issued Thursday.

By 2035, the Biden administration aims to shift all electricity in the U.S. to zero-emission sources including wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower, Roll Call reported. In a written statement, Manchin warned the administration’s “commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security.”

Manchin is up for reelection during the 2024 election cycle, but he has not yet announced whether he will run.

Last month, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) announced his campaign for Manchin’s seat. The Democrat-turned-Republican is among the most popular governors in the country and leads a state former President Donald Trump won by nearly 40 percentage points in 2020.

Manchin has hammered the Biden administration in recent weeks for its implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the president’s signature climate change bill that the Democratic senator was instrumental in shaping.

“Neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the IRA gave new authority to regulate power plant emission standards. However, I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” Manchin said in his Wednesday statement.

What Manchin did not disclose in his statement, however, is that the EPA proposal would jeopardize one West Virginia coal facility that’s particularly lucrative for Manchin’s family business, Enersystems Inc., POLITICO reported. Enersystems delivers waste coal to the Grant Town power plant, which was reportedly already struggling financially, troubles that are expected to deepen with the strict new climate proposal.

Manchin personally received $537,000 from Enersystems last year, according to POLITICO’s analysis of personal financial disclosures filed with the U.S. Senate, and he has been paid more than $5 million by the company since he was first elected in 2010. His son, Joe Manchin IV, now runs Enersystems. The Senator’s campaign has also benefited from political contributions from Enersystems, OpenSecrets reported last year.

“This is going to make it harder for them to stay around. You won’t find written anywhere in the rule that this is supposed to be putting coal plants out of business, but just do the math,” Brian Murray, director of the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability at Duke University, told POLITICO.

In 2020, Manchin’s home state of West Virginia generated about 90% of its power from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, less than 20% of the energy generated nationally comes from coal. Many states, including neighboring Virginia, are phasing out coal by replacing it with natural gas.

While the U.S. may show signs of moving away from coal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told the Senate Energy Committee earlier this month that the country was not prepared to abandon coal and maintain a reliable energy system.

“Coal is more dependable than gas and yes, we need to keep coal generation available for the foreseeable future,” said Commissioner Mark Christie.

Manchin took another swipe at the EPA on Thursday during an energy committee hearing on permitting reform, when he accused the agency of preventing the development of carbon capture technology by denying companies the permits they need to trap captured carbon underground.

“Don’t tell me that you’re going to invest in carbon capture sequestration when we can’t get a permit to basically sequester the carbon captured,” Manchin said. “This is the game that’s being played. I know it, they know I know it, and we’re not gonna let them get away with it.”

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.