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

Trump will hit several deep-red states in October campaign blitz

Published

3 hours ago

September 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is hitting the campaign trail — and a series of his stops are in deep-red states he comfortably won in 2024.

Trump will campaign in Iowa, Florida, Texas and Alaska ahead of Election Day, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, who were granted anonymity to discuss not-yet-public plans. That’s on top of his scheduled stop in Oklahoma next week, as the RNC announced, and his visit to Alabama, which POLITICO first reported.

While the president has indicated a desire to stump for Ken Paxton in Texas and Dan Sullivan in Alaska, the addition of Iowa and Florida to his campaign schedule signals an expanded focus on red states as Republicans grow increasingly nervous heading into the final stretch of the midterms.

The president is also preparing to hold campaign rallies in more traditional battleground states starting Oct. 3, according to one of the people.

His travel schedule is a clear signal that the GOP is seeking to shore up their own territory — as rising voter anger over sky-high costs and mass deportations creates new openings for Democrats. The six confirmed states have highly watched Senate, House and gubernatorial contests this November, but they are also ones Trump won by double digits two years ago.

“While Democrats squabble over the last two cents their party has to spare, the president is barnstorming the country, energizing our base, and supercharging Republican candidates in key races and beyond,” said Natalie Baldassarre, an RNC spokesperson.

“We have the resources to spend, and Republicans are full steam ahead to protect and expand our majorities,” Baldassarre added.

The White House referred Blue Light News to the RNC.

Vice President JD Vance will also ramp up his campaign travel ahead of Election Day. He and Trump are expected to make stops in Ohio to boost GOP Sen. Jon Husted, as POLITICO has reported. Husted is trailing former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in internal GOP polling by top Senate Republicans, according to two other people with direct knowledge of the matter, granted anonymity to share private details.

Trump’s latest midterms travel swing will first start with Oklahoma and Alabama — two deep-red states where Democrats haven’t made the same inroads in statewide elections as they have in other traditionally conservative states like Texas, Alaska and Kansas.

But his Alabama event could help drive turnout and shore up support for GOP state Rep. Rhett Marques, who is in a competitive race with Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures in the state’s 2nd District, despite Republicans’ effort to redraw the seat in their favor.

Republicans in Iowa, Texas and Alaska are growing increasingly alarmed about how close their Senate races are amid fallout from the Iran war and other policy moves by Trump. Florida Republicans have become uneasy about their own firewall, with some polling showing statewide races inside the margin of error.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, the GOP Senate nominee in Iowa, recently publicly broke with Trump over the Iran war, as did several other Iowa House Republicans.

“The bigger question on everything continues to be, whatever you do, will there be enough time. I just don’t know,” said one person close to the White House. “We’re teetering on the edge of it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Alec Hernández contributed to this report.

Politics

Poll: A crack is emerging in Trump’s coalition over deportations

Published

10 hours ago

September 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign is running into resistance within his own voter coalition, as more and more Republican candidates publicly break with him ahead of the November election.

New results from The POLITICO Poll help explain why: Non-MAGA Trump voters are more than twice as likely as self-identified MAGA Trump voters to say his mass deportation campaign is too aggressive, 31% to 14%. While roughly similar shares of both groups believe Trump’s campaign is about right, the MAGA base wants him to go even further: 36% of MAGA Trump voters say his campaign is not aggressive enough, compared with 23% of non-MAGA Trump voters.

Meanwhile, support across Trump’s entire voter coalition falls when it comes to deporting people beyond the most violent offenders, such as those with minor criminal offenses or who have been living in the U.S. for years without legal status.

The new survey, conducted by London-based Public First, reveals how Trump’s immigration agenda — which has long been one of his signature political issues and a reliable GOP rallying point — has divided the very coalition that helped power his two presidential wins. The president’s MAGA loyalists are still more inclined than other Trump voters to support a tougher immigration posture, but there are clear limits to how far voters want the administration to go.

Those intraparty tensions burst into public view this month, when Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) released a campaign ad pushing back against Trump’s deportation agenda, saying some of his efforts “have gone too far” and that Hispanic voters who supported him in 2024 “feel betrayed.” It was a remarkable break from a sitting GOP lawmaker over one of the president’s defining policies, as Democrats have locked in on Florida’s 27th District as a prime target in their bid to flip the House.

Salazar’s public rift with Trump exemplifies the fears Republicans had been privately warning about for months: that the president’s immigration enforcement — marked last year by high-profile, flashy raids that rippled through communities — was alienating moderate Republicans, independents, young voters and Latinos who support border security and immigration enforcement in theory but dislike how it is being carried out.

And as the party stares down a difficult midterm landscape, including in districts and states Trump won in 2024, other GOP candidates followed Salazar’s lead, increasingly putting distance between themselves and the administration on key issues like immigration — despite having voted last year to approve billions of dollars for border security and immigration enforcement. On Wednesday, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), whose race has tightened against Democrat Adam Hamilton, also softened his stance on Immigration and Customs Enforcement as raids in southwest Kansas prompt temporary business closures and schools.

“When ICE operates in Kansas, it needs to coordinate with our local law enforcement. Our sheriffs and police know these communities better than anyone, and working together keeps officers and residents safe,” he wrote on social media, adding that he’s been in direct contact with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

The Blue Light News Poll finds most Americans — including majorities of both MAGA and non-MAGA Trump voters — believe people convicted of serious violent or sexual offenses should be prioritized for deportation, underscoring broad agreement on a more targeted approach to enforcement.

The survey also finds that few people — including among both MAGA and non-MAGA Trump voters — prioritized targeting other groups for deportations. Less than a quarter of each group say people convicted of minor criminal offenses should be prioritized. Support falls further when voters are asked about prioritizing people who have lived in the U.S. for several years without legal status or people with dependent children in the U.S.

“A lot of it has to do with how you talk about it. They don’t want amnesty for people who have broken the law. They want everybody to do it the right way,” said a person close to the White House granted anonymity to discuss how Republicans are viewing the issue. “They understand that some people might be law-abiding, hard working.”

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said Blue Light News is “skewing data to paint a false narrative.”

“The American people sent President Trump back to the White House to stop the invasion of our country and deport the millions of illegal aliens Biden and Democrats allowed into the country. The president is delivering on his promises,” she said.

Days after releasing the ad, Salazar said she had a “fantastic conversation” with Trump and urged him to protect the political “fortune” he had brought to the Republican Party on immigration. She also told CBS last weekend that Trump and the average American understand “the between the narco and the nanny and the gangster and the gardener.”

She said the administration should distinguish between criminals and unauthorized immigrants working in crucial industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and health care.

That distinction is also reflected in The Blue Light News Poll. Both MAGA and non-MAGA Trump voters are open to maintaining or increasing the number of people coming into the U.S. to work in sectors facing labor shortages, such as health care or agriculture. Sixty-five percent of MAGA Trump voters and 69% non-MAGA Trump voters say they want to see about the same number — or more — people coming to the U.S. to work in those sectors facing labor shortages.

“Trump 2.0 that took over in January 2025 completely misread what voters were telling him and Joe Biden during 2024, which was that they wanted to see more order and security over the U.S.-Mexico border,” said Matt Barreto, who conducted polling for former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign. “Instead, what Trump told Americans was, ‘Now I’m going to go hunt down immigrants who are just working and contributing to America.’ And there was extremely limited support for that.”

Past POLITICO polling on immigration has shown that the Trump administration has been unable to reverse the damage with voters on the issue. Last fall, battleground Republicans were already expressing concern about the administration’s immigration tactics. Those concerns intensified in the months that followed, while negative voter sentiment hardened by April after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

The Trump administration, in the wake of bipartisan outrage, softened its rhetoric and abandoned flashy raids that often devolved into clashes with protesters. The president also installed Mullin, who moved quickly to repair relationships on Capitol Hill and keep the Department of Homeland Security out of the headlines.

But Mullin is also facing pressure from MAGA critics and immigration hardliners who think he’s not committed to the president’s vow to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants. In an effort to shore up his support with that contingent, top administration accounts, including Mullin’s, have ramped up posts about ICE, arrests statistics and tough talk about the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.