Who’s Funding Your Candidates Speaks Volumes

By Deb Boelkes

Do you ever make the effort to investigate who is contributing to the candidates on your ballot before you decide how to vote? I do, and it’s often quite stunning.

I once saw this meme posted on social media: "Politicians should wear sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers, then we know who owns them", commonly attributed to Robin Williams. The idea would be hilarious if it wasn’t so appropriate.

A few years back, when our Congressional district boundary lines changed because the 2020 census dictated reapportionment of an additional district in our state, our county was left without an incumbent Congressman. As a result, a surprising number of people stepped forward to throw their hats into the ring.  Ultimately, three contenders qualified as candidates—by paying the $10K+ filing fee or by submitting an in-lieu-of-filing petition containing verified signatures of 1% of the registered voters in our geography—including:

1. Our State Senator who was term-limited from running again for that position. He was endorsed by one of our US Senators, our State Attorney General, and our state CFO.
2. A retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer who after obtaining a Doctorate degree in Management became a college professor and stock trader. He was endorsed by a former US Secretary of the Interior, a veterans’ organization, and a disabled veterans Political Action Committee (PAC).
3.  A health insurance benefits contract administrator who openly admitted he was not a politician—but had a servant’s heart—and was not endorsed by anyone of note.  

Uncovering who funded these candidates was a time-consuming endeavor, especially when it came to the former State Senator. While numerous residents of our district contributed to him, two Political Action Committees (PACs) provided the bulk of his funding:

• One PAC, a firm based in Arlington, VA, paid nearly $900K for media placement and direct mailing services on his behalf. It was virtually impossible to determine the donors who funded this PAC. 
• The second PAC, which was chaired and solely funded by the CEO of the now known-to-be- fraudulent and bankrupt FTX Digital Markets crypto exchange firm, paid almost half a million dollars for advertising, media placement and TV production costs for this wannabe Congressman. The CEO also made a significant cash contribution on his own. Obviously, the intent was to buy influence to ensure the newly elected Congressperson would pass legislation favorable to the then-burgeoning cryptocurrency industry.

Contributions to the retired Chief Petty Officer / stock trader’s campaign totaled well over $1M, although over $450K of that was his own seed money. When asked how he came up with $450K+ on his own, he responded with a dubious, “I made a lot of money in the stock market. What’s better to spend it on than saving America?”

The local press uncovered that he had also netted significant contributions though his nefarious use of his WINRED account (luring in donations by using pseudonyms such as Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis). Once this came to light, WINRED shut down his account. Although he said he was a fighter and would not back down after being outed by WINRED, he made but a mediocre run for office. He produced no TV commercials nor newspaper ads—standard investments by most Congressional candidates.  According to the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) website, his campaign ended with over $730K cash-on-hand. One had to wonder if he was paid off to NOT campaign, or if he was simply running for the money.

In contrast, the health insurance contract administrator raised a paltry $16.7K in campaign contributions, $10K of which came from a local couple known for backing non-establishment candidates. When his meager campaign ended, he still had nearly $10K cash-on-hand.

While the overall race seemed somewhat suspect, the former State Senator handily won the election. After his contributions were scrutinized by the press, he returned the cash donation made by the CEO of FTX Digital Markets.

Now amid our local 2024 primary season, all eyes are on our School Board and County Commissioner races. Mind you, our county is small and predominantly rural, yet our local elections are a very big deal to many of us.

Since our last election there have been numerous posts by citizens about a vacant 9-acre property, adjacent to an elementary school, which was purchased two years ago by the Superintendent of Schools—without a formal School Board review. The Superintendent told the community the purchase would benefit the families whose kids attended the school. By dedicating additional land to the school, safer and easier access points could be created for student drop-offs and pick-ups. Moreover, a buffer space could be dedicated between the school and the nearby neighborhood to mitigate school traffic on the existing dirt road that led to the neighborhood.

While nearby residents supported the intention of the land purchase, county taxpayers complained that the negotiated purchase price of $3.75M seemed unreasonably inflated. Yet, the purchase proceeded. Two years later, this overly expensive property still sits untouched.

Meanwhile, one of the residents living adjacent to the newly acquired property sold off a large portion of their own multi-acre property to a land developer from another county. The other nearby neighbors were informed recently that the School Superintendent was also now in negotiations to sell the acquired “buffer space” property to this same land developer—who intended to build a high-density housing project right next to the school. Some are now questioning whether the School Superintendent has been in cahoots with the land developer's efforts.

Our County Commission will vote on whether to approve this proposed land development project in the month after our upcoming primary election. Of our five County Commissioners, the two who are up for re-election have each received $6,500 in campaign contributions (so far) from this same out-of-county land developer and its affiliated business partners. What could be the motivation behind these contributions?

Who’s funding your candidates speaks volumes. If you haven’t investigated who is funding the campaigns of the candidates on your ballot, I encourage you to do so. Then, ask yourself, are these candidates truly the heartfelt leaders they portray themselves to be?

Granted, candidates aren’t in control of who contributes to their campaigns, but they are in control of whether they retain or refund contributions that could be perceived as shady dealings. What a candidate elects to do in such a case speaks volumes….and is a true demonstration of their moral character.