Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wait, what? Democrats are also funding election deniers?

Doug Mastriano

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for governor ran ads supporting Doug Mastriano in the Republican primary in hopes of facing a damaged opponent.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Effingham is the director of strategic partnerships for RepresentUs.

During the 2022 election season, an alarming trend is emerging. Dozens of candidates spouting the lie that the 2020 election was stolen are running for office in Republican primaries. And not only are many of these candidates winning, Democrats – the party on the front lines of fighting the Big Lie – are shockingly helping some of these election deniers win.

In fact, more than 100 candidates who deny that President Biden won the 2020 election have won their primaries as of mid-June. That list includes eight running for the U.S. Senate, 86 for the U.S. House, five for governor, four for state attorney general and one for secretary of state.

This trend is also a major issue at the state level. In the four battleground states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas, 157 legislators who attempted to block the 2020 results have advanced to the general election this November. With many more primaries to come this year, these numbers are sure to rise.



Big Lie candidates receive funding from unexpected sources

Here at RepresentUs, we’ve previously documented that corporate America is continuing to fund politicians who voted to overturn the election results on Jan. 6, 2021. And while these election liars are only running in Republican primaries, they’re receiving funding from an unexpected source: the Democratic Party.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Wait, what?

As NBC News reports, Democratic groups are running political advertisements to help the most extreme GOP candidates win in primaries around the country. This isn’t a new strategy. These groups think that by helping put such fringe candidates on the general election ballot, their party will have an easier time winning.

This strategy comes with serious risks to democracy. For example, in the Pennsylvania governor’s race, Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro ran ads that aimed to boost Republican Doug Mastriano’s chances in the primary. One of the ads even went so far as to state that “if Mastriano wins, it's a win for what Donald Trump stands for." A current state senator, Mastriano is an election-denier who attended the Jan. 6 riots and was questioned by the FBI about it. Mastriano went on to win the Republican primary, and if he wins this November, he will become the governor of a major election battleground.

This tactic has increased the chances that an anti-democratic extremist will have enormous power. These commercials are ultimately a risky gamble that directly contradict the Democratic Party’s stated goal of protecting American democracy.

Democratic groups have also launched similar ads for the most extreme candidates in the Colorado Senate race and California’s 22nd District race.

Supporting democracy, not tricking voters

Supporting a weaker candidate in the primary to improve your chances in the general election may seem like a clever strategy. But as we’ve seen in the past, these campaigns are playing with fire. Famously, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff privately hoped to face Donald Trump. Obviously, their assumptions about that race were wrong.

Boosting radical anti-democratic candidates may not only be ineffective, it’s also completely irresponsible. By engaging in this cynical strategy, these campaigns are in fact pushing extremists closer to power – something that should concern American voters on both the right and the left. With the Jan. 6 hearings showing how vulnerable our democracy is, Democrats are risking handing power to dangerous anti-democratic extremists for the short-term gain of facing a “weaker” opponent.

At a time when the American people already distrust the two-party system and politics generally, these kinds of partisan shenanigans only make it worse.

Americans who support democracy should instead focus their efforts on building large, cross-party coalitions to defeat these extremist candidates at the ballot box. The majority of Americans view Jan. 6 as an attack on American democracy, proving that underhanded campaign tactics are unnecessary to win elections.

One way to stop this strategy of holding up extreme candidates in the hopes of an easier general election is by changing our primary election system. Nonpartisan open primaries, where every candidate is on the ballot and every registered voter gets to participate, is one answer. And it’s already being used in places like Alaska.

RepresentUs will continue to work with partners and allies across the political spectrum to pass nonpartisan primaries, ranked-choice voting and other pro-democracy reforms that will help put an end to partisan games and give everyday voters a voice.

RepresentUs Political Analyst Adam DuBard and Research Analyst Ally Marcella contributed to this report.

Read More

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”

The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

Small business owner attaching permanent close sign on the shop door.

Getty Images, Kannika Paison

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term. In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.

The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book “Democracy in Black”: Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance—not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Balance – The Golden Mean

Old empty scales in brass colour against grey background.

Getty Images, OsakaWayne Studios

Balance – The Golden Mean

“Next to love, balance is the most important thing.” ~ John Wooden

Would John Wooden, UCLA’s winningest basketball coach, who took his team to ten national championships in 12 years and was named the “Coach of the Century” by ESPN, speak so of “love” and “balance” if they were not absolutely critical to a winning formula?

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Judge gavel and book on the laptop

Getty Images/Stock

Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

Background

In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:

FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less