Politics

Secretive super PAC funding is skyrocketing in primaries

Published

3 months ago

June 14, 2026

A record number of groups are exploiting a gap in campaign finance law to flood this year’s primary elections with money — without disclosing their donors until long after the race is over.

More than $48 million has already been spent on House and Senate primaries this year by super PACs that did not have to reveal their donors before elections took place, according to a Blue Light News analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. That is more than double the total at this time in the 2024 cycle, and 10 times higher than in 2018.

The groups are taking advantage of the campaign finance calendar. A super PAC formed after the last pre-election FEC deadline can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in the crucial final days of an election without disclosing its donors until afterward. The practice has been used for years, but never to the degree of this year’s midterms.

Roughly 1 in 10 dollars in outside spending that has flowed into primaries so far this year has been through these secretive groups.

In some cases, the pop-up super PAC spending has the characteristics of one political party meddling in another’s primary to help boost a candidate seen as more beatable in November, which is what happened in competitive races in Texas’ 35th District, Maine’s 2nd District and most recently New York’s 17th District. In other cases, groups sought to hide their connection to controversial sources, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“It’s certainly a very strategic effort to avoid providing transparency for voters,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “So even if they’re acting within the letter of the law, they are ultimately undermining in spirit. Because disclosure requirements exist so that voters — when they’re deciding who to cast their ballot for — have the information about who has spent money backing these candidates.”

The path for secretive spending on primaries is relatively straightforward. New groups launch after a monthly or quarterly FEC deadline. They spend millions of dollars to support their preferred candidates, bombarding voters in the final days when they are most engaged with an election. And by the time they have to report their money, weeks after the end of the month or quarter, the election they were aiming to influence is already over.

The tactic is more common in primaries than general elections because outside groups have to file pre-general reports in mid-October, leaving only a relatively small window before the November election where they would be able to launch and spend without disclosing financial information.

The efforts to hide sources of funding have happened across the country this cycle and to support and oppose candidates of widely varying ideologies. More money has been spent in Democratic primaries than Republican ones so far.

Since the beginning of May, two super PACs widely suspected of being tied to Republicans — Lead Left and Real Change — have spent $4.3 million across Democratic primaries in five competitive House districts to boost progressive candidates that are seen as weaker in the general election. Neither group will have to reveal their donors until mid-July.

In Kentucky’s 4th District, where GOP Rep. Thomas Massie was seeking reelection after President Donald Trump endorsed his challenger Ed Gallrein, a newly created super PAC spent a whopping $6.7 million to attack Gallrein. The PAC shut itself down shortly after the primary, revealing only then that most of its funds came from a Texas-based firm. (The PAC is now facing an FEC complaint alleging it was a straw donor scheme.)

In Illinois’ March primaries, three newly created groups tied to AIPAC spent $16 million on House races. While news reports linked AIPAC to the groups throughout the primaries, it wasn’t revealed until afterward that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, was the leading funder. That allowed AIPAC — which has become politically controversial in Democratic primaries — to attempt to influence the elections without officially declaring its involvement as ballots were being cast.

In the special primary election to replace the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) last year, a newly launched super PAC called Fight for Virginia’s Future backed Connolly’s former chief of staff, James Walkinshaw. After the election, which Walkinshaw won, it was revealed that the group’s funding was transferred from Connolly’s campaign account.

Not every newly launched super PAC is inherently secretive. In some cases, new groups are clear about their affiliations even if they don’t immediately report their donors to the FEC.

And there are other ways for super PACs to hide their sources of funding beyond taking advantage of the FEC’s timing. Many get transfers from 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which face far fewer disclosure requirements.

As the practice of pop-up super PACs has become more common, it’s also become more sophisticated.

In past cycles, new super PACs that hid their sources of funding were sometimes linked to existing interests through the little information they do have to share when they are formed or spend money: their vendors, address and treasurer name and contact info. But many groups have developed workarounds and now use unknown treasurers or new vendors that also popped up around the same time as the PACs themselves.

In a handful of Democratic primaries in competitive districts this year, pop-up super PACs that have been linked to Republicans through PO boxes and website metadata have run ads that closely mimic the logos and official materials of Democratic campaigns in the race.

In one case last month, the Republican-linked Lead Left PAC spent nearly $1 million backing Democrat Maureen Galindo over Johnny Garcia in Texas’ 35th District. Galindo had been widely condemned by her own party for calls to turn a local ICE detention center into a “prison for American Zionists.”

The spending on her behalf led to the moderate Blue Dog PAC leading a rescue mission for Garcia: It spent more than $1 million to boost the former Bexar County sheriff’s deputy.

Neither Real Change or Lead Left responded to requests for comment sent to the emails listed on FEC filings. Other groups, including Fight for Virginia’s Future, Kentucky 4th PAC and UDP also didn’t respond to requests for comment. Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to House GOP leadership that is widely speculated to be behind some of the pop-up PACs, did not respond to a request for comment.

Phil Gardner, a senior adviser to the Blue Dog PAC, said the Lead Left ads were “literally trying to impersonate other campaigns.”

Garcia — who ultimately won his race by more than 20 points — said in an interview that news reports linking Lead Left to Republicans helped show voters the importance of the race.

“It showed just how scared they were of our campaign, that they were willing to invest in a candidate that was clearly antisemitic that they knew they would defeat very easily in the general election,” Garcia said.

A similar pop-up PAC also spent heavily for progressive Matt Dunlap over state Sen. Joe Baldacci in Maine’s battleground 2nd District, which Trump won in 2024 and is open this cycle because moderate Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) opted not to seek reelection.

Ian Russell, a national Democratic strategist who is working on Baldacci’s race, said the GOP-linked ads could trick voters who don’t realize they aren’t coming from Dunlap’s campaign.

“They’re literally running a positive ad for Matt Dunlap,” Russell said. “They’re using his campaign logo. They’re using B-roll off of his YouTube page.”

That race is still uncalled as it goes to a ranked-choice count this week.

In recent years, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for tightening campaign finance law, saying sources of funding should be more readily disclosed. But there have not been meaningful advances in campaign finance legislation.

Just last week, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) introduced a bill that would require super PACs to disclose every large donation they receive in the final 20 days of an election — which would make it harder for pop-up PACs to hide their sources of funding.

“All this dark spending money is just skyrocketing,” Crow said in an interview. “Super PACs, corporate donations, pop-up PACs. It’s out of control and it’s getting worse every cycle.”

Politics

Stephen A. Smith on Trump, Democrats and the politics of chaos

Published

2 hours ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Stephen A. Smith on Trump, Democrats and the politics of chaos

lead image

Politics

Elon Musk unleashes first wave of spending on key races in the midterms

Published

4 hours ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Elon Musk’s super PAC disclosed its first independent expenditures of the 2026 general election in a filing released late Wednesday, detailing roughly $800,000 across key House and Senate races.

Musk’s America PAC targeted several key Senate contests, including races in Texas, Maine, Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, Michigan and Alaska.

The largest amount went to Texas — over $247,000 — where Republicans are expected to deploy a wave of party resources to bolster Attorney General Ken Paxton against Democrat James Talarico.

Musk’s super PAC also put nearly $90,000 into eight House races:

Rep. Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin; Rep. Mike Lawler in New York; Rep. Jen Kiggans in Virginia; Rep. Tom Kean Jr. in New Jersey; Rep. Scott Perry in Pennsylvania; Rep. Rob Bresnahan in Pennsylvania; Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania; and Scott Singer in Florida.

The independent expenditures — Musk’s first of the general election — were disclosed days after he met with Speaker Mike Johnson in Texas last week.

Republicans already hold a significant fundraising advantage over Democrats, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s roughly $400 million in his MAGA Inc. super PAC. Trump is under growing pressure from Republicans to tap into that money as the midterms near. A major investment from Musk would further widen the GOP’s financial edge heading into November.

Musk has reportedly considered spending at least $100 million for the GOP through America PAC to help Republicans in this year’s midterms, but the full scope of that effort remains unclear.

A spokesperson for America PAC declined to comment.

Musk spent roughly $290 million to support Trump and the GOP during the 2024 cycle, predominantly through his super PAC, making him the largest individual donor to any political committee that cycle, before he took on a major role in the White House’s DOGE effort.

Politics

These mayors live along Lake America’s shores. But they won’t be calling it that.

Published

8 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Robert Corradino has never lived anywhere but Oswego, New York. As the only commercial port city on the southeastern shore of Lake Ontario, everything bears the lake’s name — the streets, the convention center, the historic fort.

And in his first term as mayor, Corradino — a Republican who said he previously voted for President Donald Trump — said he worries that a distant political feud is threatening to erase part of his city’s history.

In the days following Trump’s executive order renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America, Corradino and other mayors in upstate New York said Trump’s decision is “regrettable” and could upset voters in the region — and even further impact an economy so closely tied to the U.S.’s relationship with Canada.

“The water is part of our identity,” Corradino said. “Not only our identity, but the economy and the history of the lake is tied to the city.”

Oswego, a city of 17,000, is split between Democrats and Republicans, Corradino said. However, the larger Oswego County is one of the reddest in the state and 61 percent of its voters went for Trump in the 2024 election.

Yet on Monday, several Oswego County legislators from both parties approved a resolution rejecting the new name, out of concern for the cost of the rebrand on taxpayers and businesses. The resolution said it does not intend to diminish the authority of the federal government, rather it aims to “recognize the longstanding historical and regional significance of the name Lake Ontario.”

Last Thursday night, at Oswego’s weekly summer concert series, Corradino said everyone he interacted with said they didn’t support the name change and they weren’t sure why it was happening. The general sentiment, he said, was frustration.

Asked about the issues Oswego residents actually care about, Corradino said his constituents are concerned about less immigration enforcement and the war with Iran.

“In general the consensus I see is it just seems like the country is heading in a direction that we’re not all happy about,” Corradino said.

The pushback is not isolated to Oswego. Hours after Trump signed the executive order, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who runs the only state that borders Lake Ontario, said in a post to social media, “New York won’t be calling it that.”

And there’s been mixed adaptation nationally — similar to when Trump dictated that the Gulf of Mexico now go by Gulf of America.

Signs mark the entrance to the Lake Ontario State Parkway on Aug. 25, 2026, in Rochester, N.Y.

On Saturday, Google Maps, which uses the U.S. Geographic Names Information System that comes from official government sources, officially changed the name. Map users on the American side will see “Lake America” while users in Canada will see “Lake Ontario.” For users outside of both the U.S. and Canada, they will see both names. Apple Maps followed suit, using the same naming approach as Google.

But MapQuest — the once-dominant mapping service of the 1990s and early 2000s — rocketed up app stores after refusing to use Lake America.

Long before the lake was renamed, Alex Morgia — a Democrat and mayor of Sackets Harbor, N.Y. — said his community has been grappling with the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Canada.

Sackets Harbor, located along the eastern shores of Lake Ontario, is home to a number of Canadian residents. A village of 1,400 people, it was a major military outpost and naval command center during the War of 1812, when the U.S. clashed with British and Canadian forces.

Since 1971, the village has hosted the Can-Am festival to commemorate the village’s Canadian-American heritage.

The festival “reminds everyone that it’s not very nice to be at odds with your neighbor,” Morgia said. “Having good relationships with your international neighbors is important, particularly for people that live along the border on either side.”

Last year’s festival was the first time residents began making floats of maple leaves and Canadian flags to protest the Trump administration’s calls to make Canada the “51st state” and to remind Sackets Harbor residents that there were Canadian citizens among them, Morgia said.

This year, as Trump has continued to roll out tariffs against Canadian products, and relations with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney continued to worsen, Morgia joked that the theme for this year’s parade should’ve been “we’re sorry.”

The overall atmosphere at this year’s parade in July was “somber,” Morgia said.

“I kind of hoped that the Canadian issue had gone by the wayside, but you know [Trump] seems to bring it up when he needs to,” Morgia said.

Sackets Harbor is split between Democrats and Republicans, Morgia said. Jefferson County, which encompasses Sackets Harbor, overwhelmingly supported Trump in the 2024 election with 61 percent of its vote.

“It’s a three-hour drive to Montreal, a two-hour drive to Toronto and a six-hour drive to New York City,” Morgia said. “The biggest metropolitan cities near us are Canadian, and a lot of North Country businesses and people rely on the southern part of Canada. … I’m hopeful that voters will think about that at the polls in November and in 2028.”

In the village of Sodus Point, N.Y. — which is located along the southern border of the Great Lake — Republican Mayor Pat Nolan said he’s disappointed by the name-change as “Ontario” is rooted in the Indigenous history of the region.

The name Ontario, is largely believed to come from Iroquoian roots, meaning “beautiful lake” or “sparkling water,” according to the Canadian government. The Canadian province of Ontario, is named after the lake.

A village of 1,000 people, Sodus Point is located in Wayne County, where Trump received 61 percent of the vote in 2024. Nolan was elected in a write-in campaign last year.

“My hope is that, rather than allowing this decision to become another wedge that further divides people,” Nolan wrote in an email, “it can encourage a broader discussion about the history of this great body of water, the Indigenous people who first gave it its name and the generations of communities that have grown along its shores.”