Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Advocacy groups call on presidential candidates to disclose bundlers

Sixteen advocacy groups, including some of the most influential players in the political reform movement, co-signed a letter Thursday urging 2020 presidential candidates to voluntarily disclose their top individual fundraisers, or "bundlers," during their campaign bids.

The letter asked the candidates to create a system to "regularly and meaningfully" disclose details about the campaign's bundlers — individuals who solicit and collect donations from others and then deliver those funds in a "bundle" to aid a candidate's campaign.


Bundlers who successfully pool large amounts of money from a network of well-heeled donors are often rewarded with desirable post-election appointments, such as ambassadorships.

Former presidents and presidential candidates from both parties, such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have voluntarily disclosed bundler details, Politico noted. During the 2016 election cycle, however, presidential candidates had "a mixed record of releasing bundler information."

"Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush released lists of their top fundraisers, though Clinton released less information about the people raising money for her campaign than Obama had. But others, including President Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, did not identify their bundlers," the article noted.

The letter asked the candidates to:

  • Disclose bundler information in reports that coincide with regular Federal Election Commission reporting requirements.
  • Provide the name, city, state and ZIP code of every bundler along with their employer and occupation — information that candidates must already provide for large donors.
  • Update regularly the aggregate amount each bundler has raised for their campaign.
  • Publish this information on their official website in a format that can be searched, sorted and downloaded.

The groups also requested that the eventual nominees include in subsequent reports how much bundlers raise for their party, as well as state and national party committees and joint fundraising committees that benefit the winning candidate.

The 16 advocacy groups that co-signed the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Public Citizen, Represent.Us and Issue One. (The Firewall is being incubated by Issue One but remains journalistically independent.)


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC.
a group of people standing in front of a building
Photo by Stephen Talas on Unsplash

Supreme Court Restores Flawed Federal Voter‑Check System

On September 22nd, a Supreme Court majority declined to halt the Trump-Vance administration from reinstating a controversial citizenship-verification program that repeatedly misidentified eligible voters as non-citizens.

The ruling, issued on the Court’s shadow docket, lifts a lower-court order that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from using its SAVE database to flag voters for removal. SAVE checks state-submitted information—such as name, date of birth, and sometimes Social Security number—against federal immigration records to determine whether someone is a U.S. citizen. If the information doesn't match exactly or the records are outdated, eligible voters can be incorrectly flagged as non-citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less