Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Asserting small-donor surge, Trump expands presidential money pool

There's a newly bipartisan dimension to the vast pool of presidential campaign cash, the ever-expanding ocean of money that's cited more often than anything as a root cause of our democracy's travails.

What's different this year, however, is how small-dollar gifts are dominating the deposits in so many of the top-tier candidates' bank accounts – and vying for attention with the donations from millionaires and corporate interests engendering sustained worries about the pay-to-play aspects of American government.

President Trump's reelection campaign is the latest to boast of a huge trove of small donations. Today it reported a haul of $30 million in the first quarter of this year, 99 percent of it in gifts of $200 or less. The average gift has been $34 and money came between January and March from more than 100,000 people who'd never given to Trump before.


Most of the money so far has been raised by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a digital fundraising operation focused on small-money donors, often recurring donations that's known in Trump's political world as "T-Magic." The committee has singlehandedly reversed what has been a Democratic advantage in the world of online fundraising ever since it was invented in the early years of this century.

But that sort of giving cannot possibly bring the campaign to its $1 billion fundraising target for 2020, and so this summer a second entity, Trump Victory, will launch a traditional "bundling" program, in which generous donors are recruited to find similarly magnanimous givers among their friends and business associates.

Trump – who gave or loaned $66 million to his 2016 campaign, but has yet to spend any of his own money on 2020 – "is in a vastly stronger position at this point than any previous incumbent president running for reelection," campaign manager Brad Parscale boasted.

In part, that's because he's got the Republican donor base essentially to himself, while more than a dozen Democratic presidential aspirants were raising money in the first quarter. Trump, for example, raised as much as the top two of his potential general election rivals, combined.

Altogether, Democrats have so far reported to the Federal Election Commission a combined $66 million in first-quarter fundraising from more than 1 million different people. Several of the candidates have not filed their reports, which are due at the end of the day: Here are the totals reported so far:

  • Bernie Sanders: $18.2 million
  • Kamala Harris: $12 million
  • Beto O'Rourke: $9.4 million
  • Pete Buttigieg: $7 million
  • Elizabeth Warren: $6 million
  • Amy Klobuchar: $5.2 million
  • Cory Booker: $5 million
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: $3 million
  • John Delaney: $12.1 million (but only $400,000 from donors other than the candidate)
  • Andrew Yang: $1.7 million

Read More

Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

Three law books beside opened notebook

Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

This year marks the 250th anniversary of our founders’ Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. But the constitutional democracy it enabled - designed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - is now threatened, not by a foreign adversary, but from within.

Persistent constitutional and statutory transgressions, coupled with the continued erosion of democratic norms that once safeguarded our institutions, have undermined the foundations of our democratic order. They have also shaken Americans’ confidence in its durability.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

Latino voters

AI generated photo

Latino Voters Stand to Lose the Most if Supreme Court Greenlights Trump’s Mail‑Voting Power Play

Weeks before Americans cast their midterm ballots, President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an executive order that would sharply restrict mail‑in voting. Courts have already blocked the order, calling it an overreach that would inject federal control into state‑run election systems. But the administration is pressing ahead anyway, and the consequences — especially for Latino voters — could be profound.

Mail‑in voting is not a luxury. It is how working parents, seniors, rural voters, people with disabilities, and millions of naturalized citizens participate in democracy. It is how communities that have historically faced barriers to the ballot box finally gained reliable access. And it is how Latino voters — the fastest‑growing segment of the electorate — have expanded their political power. When a president asks the Supreme Court to take that access away, we should be clear about what is happening: this is not about election integrity. It is about power.

Keep ReadingShow less