Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Silence on big-money bundlers bedevils watchdog groups

Money bag

Reform groups have sent a third letter to all presidential candidates asking them to "regularly and meaningfully" share information about their bundlers.

erhui1979/DigitalVision Vectors

Sixteen of the nation's most prominent political reform groups have been pressing the presidential candidates for six months to be transparent about who's helping them stuff their campaign coffers. They're getting hardly anywhere.

The group put out another plea this week, urging all 19 Democrats remaining in the race, plus President Donald Trump and his three Republican challengers, to "implement a system to regularly and meaningfully disclose information" about their so-called bundlers.

These are the affluent, well-connected people who gather donations from others and deliver those funds in a "bundle" to their favorite candidate — and, if that person ends up in the White House, are very likely to be near the heads of the line for plum positions including ambassadorships and membership on policymaking boards.

The letter urged all the candidates to come clean and take the path of greater transparency when they file their campaign finance reports for the third quarter at the Federal Election Commissionnext week. But similar letters sent in April and June have produced next to no results.


"Implementing a robust bundler disclosure system that publicly displays information about all individuals who raise $50,000 or more for your campaign would help demonstrate your commitment to transparency as you seek your party's presidential nomination," the letter has said each time.

Since the first one was sent, only one candidate has come close to meeting the coalition's demands: Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. He released a list of his two dozen bundlers in April, but it did not include how much money each had hauled in on his behalf. His list also hasn't been updated since the initial announcement.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio have all said they would disclose their bundlers but so far have nor released any information.

The letter-writers have not heard from the Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden, who made extensive use of the bundling system when he was twice campaigning successfully for vice president.

His closest rivals in the polls, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, say they do not rely on bundlers to collect cash for their campaigns, which mostly rely on small-dollar donors giving online.

Businessmen Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang have also said they do not apply this technique to their fundraising, but both vowed to disclose the information if they did.

The previous two presidents, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both disclosed the names of their bundlers for each of their winning campaigns. So did Hillary Clinton when she was the Democratic nominee in 2016 and John McCain when he was the Republican standard bearer in 2008. Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee of 2012, did not.

Trump broke with tradition and did not name his bundlers after winning the White House three years ago and he has not yet replied to this year's series of letters asking that he do so. None of the three Republicans hoping to deny him renomination has done so, either, although their campaigns only got off the ground in recent months.

The letter asks the candidates to:

  • Disclose bundler information in reports that coincide with regular FEC 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 16 advocacy groups that co-signed the letter include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Public Citizen, RepresentUs and Issue One. (The Fulcrum is being incubated by Issue One but remains journalistically independent.)


Read More

People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less