Politics

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

Published

2 years ago

December 7, 2024

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.”

Politics

Gavin Newsom’s first 2028 test: This fall, in Nevada

Published

16 hours ago

September 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LAS VEGAS — If California Gov. Gavin Newsom runs for president in 2028, next-door Nevada will be a crucial test. This fall’s governor’s race is offering a preview.

As GOP Gov. Joe Lombardo runs for reelection, he’s trying to pin high Nevada fuel prices — a majority of which is imported from California — on “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies.” He lambasts California as too expensive and too regulated. And he’s hammering his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Aaron Ford, for accepting Newsom’s endorsement, betting that it will turn off Nevada swing voters.

“The contrast is simple: I’m fighting Gavin Newsom’s agenda and Aaron Ford is trying to import it into Nevada,” Lombardo said in a statement to Blue Light News.

This could be a test run for 2028, when Newsom may call upon Nevadans — one-fifth of whom were born in California — to deliver him a primary victory in the early-voting state, and possibly a presidential victory.

“They understand California costs more,” Donna West, chair of the Nevada Democratic Party’s senior caucus, said of Nevada’s California expats. “They also understand that California is the fourth-largest economy in the entire world, and that Gavin Newsom ran that as effectively as he possibly can.”

Newsom’s office declined to comment. A person close to the governor, granted anonymity to discuss the sentiment in his orbit, said they are “thrilled” Republicans are spending money to “plaster Newsom’s name across a key early state.”

“Republicans seem awfully concerned about an endorsement from someone who leads the 2028 Democratic field in Nevada by nearly 2-to-1,” the person said, pointing to a November 2025 Emerson poll of a hypothetical 2028 Democratic primary field.

Ford, for his part, shrugs off the attacks.

“Lombardo tries to cast blame elsewhere, but everyone knows that when the war started in February, that we saw our gas prices increase almost immediately,” Ford told Blue Light News after a recent town hall in Las Vegas. “People believe their own eyes, and they remember their experiences.”

The demonization of California is nothing new in Nevada politics: For years, Republicans have blasted their western neighbor as too expensive and too woke.

But the stakes are higher, and the connection more palpable, this year, as Newsom explores a presidential bid. He would likely need to perform very well in Nevada, now second on the Democratic calendar, to build early momentum toward the party nomination. And come November 2028, he’d need to fare well in Nevada again, this time among the state’s general electorate, a plurality of which are independents.

Newsom has stumped for Democrats across the country this cycle, and he blitzed through the South this week, including a swing through South Carolina, whose Democrats will vote first, right before Nevada, in 2028.

But Republicans are looking to weaponize Newsom’s Silver State swing in July, where Ford introduced him at a new Las Vegas field office as “the governor of the great state of California.”

“Our next president!” an audience member shouted, eliciting cheers.

The Lombardo-aligned Better Nevada PAC shared polling with Blue Light News in July showing Newsom’s favorability 20 points underwater in Nevada and losing a hypothetical 2028 head-to-head with Vice President JD Vance. Shortly thereafter, the PAC began an ad blitz tying Ford to the California governor.

Billboards touting Newsom’s endorsement of Ford, paid for by the PAC, now line highways across Nevada, and digital and streaming ads have run consistently since the visit. “Newsom and Ford: Shared vision. Shared values,” one ad says.

A person familiar with the PAC’s internal polling, granted anonymity to discuss private data, said it shows Newsom’s endorsement is now the second-most-known datapoint about the attorney general.

“Gavin Newsom is the singular most unpopular elected official in Nevada,” said Jeremy Hughes, a longtime Nevada GOP strategist running the Lombardo-aligned PAC. “Aaron Ford brought him into the state. … There’s no better way to help him out than to put up these signs and run ads, letting people know that he’s excited about being endorsed by Gavin Newsom.”

Republicans in the state have long blamed Californian expats for housing shortages and rising prices and connect their opponents to California liberals. A surge of ex-Californians leaving the state during the Covid-19 pandemic, some fleeing high taxes and cost of living, accelerated the trend.

Sam Brown, the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in 2022, blasted the “energy policies of Gavin Newsom”; in 2018, GOP governor nominee Adam Laxalt lamented the “Californization” of Nevada, even as Californians bankrolled his campaign. During Lombardo’s first run for governor in 2022, he slammed incumbent Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak for taking his cues from Newsom: “Don’t let Steve Sisolak turn Nevada into California,” one post said. Republicans tied their opponents to Nancy Pelosi for decades.

Lombardo’s argument this time around is more focused. He notes that the vast majority of Nevada’s gasoline comes from California, and argues that California’s efforts to cut carbon emissions have caused fuel prices to soar. A gallon of gas in Nevada costs nearly $5, according to AAA, one of the highest prices in the nation.

“The policies coming from Gavin Newsom and California Democrats … don’t stop at their state line,” Lombardo said in a statement. “Nevada and other states import a significant portion of our fuel from California, so when Governor Newsom shuts down refineries and imposes regulations that reduce supply and increase costs, Nevada families feel the consequences at the pump.”

It’s a strategy that allows Lombardo — running in a difficult national environment for incumbent Republicans — to acknowledge voters’ economic pain without blaming President Donald Trump or his own party. Indeed, Lombardo shared an April column in the Nevada Independent that placed blame at the feet of both Newsom and Trump. (Lombardo, in his post, blamed only Newsom.)

Democrats don’t think voters will buy it. ‘“As far as gas prices, it’s so obviously increased since the war,” Rep. Dina Titus said. “People in Nevada aren’t stupid.”

Ford has his own millstone to saddle Lombardo with: the president. At a recent town hall in Las Vegas, he repeatedly blasted the “Lombardo-Trump economy” that is “making everything too expensive.”

“Voters absolutely tie the handling of the economy to Trump,” said Mike Noble, an independent Phoenix-based pollster who works in Nevada regularly. “Instead of blaming Trump, why not tie it to the boogeyman next door and blame California?”

Politics

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

2 days ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

3 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”