National Review Report: “Senate Democrats Rail against Corporate Influence While Accepting Piles of Tainted Cash”
Washington, D.C. – Raphael Warnock, Mark Kelly, Maggie Hassan, and Catherine Cortez Masto have all levied attacks against the influence of corporations in politics, pledged not to be influenced by corporate donations, and endorsed H.R.1 – the Corrupt Politicians Act – to stop “corporate special interests from dictating our elections.”
But the lofty pledges from these vulnerable Senate Democrats are only words. In reality, Kelly, Hassan, Warnock, and Cortez Masto are bending their own rules in order to accept campaign donations from corporate executives, corporate lobbyists, and PACs funded by corporate donations. As the National Review reported, these senators have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from these groups despite their rhetoric pretending to oppose corporate money on the campaign trail.
- Raphael Warnock claims he has “never” taken a “dime of corporate PAC money, period.” Yet, his records show he’s accept more than $486,000 from corporate interests in 2021.
- Mark Kelly has made a “No Corporate PAC” pledge central to his campaign efforts. Of course, Kelly has lied to Arizonans because he has bent the rules of his pledge to accept more than $825,500 in corporate PAC, executive, and lobbyist money in 2021.
- Maggie Hassan attacked her 2016 opponent’s ties to “corporate special interests” and is a leading supporter of the Corrupt Politicians Act. Proving just how corrupt she is, Hassan accepted more than $933,000 from the same “corporate special interests” she once attacked.
- Catherine Cortez Masto regularly attacks the influence of “massive corporations,” but not when it comes to her campaign coffers. In 2021, Cortez Masto accepted roughly $800,000 from her supposed enemies.
Statement from NRSC Spokesman T.W. Arrighi: “Democrats like to set rules for themselves, but they would never dare actually follow those rules. Criticizing corporate money in politics is a prime example as vulnerable Democrat senators like Raphael Warnock roll around in piles of corporate cash. There is no limit to what these dishonest radicals will do to deceive voters.”
CLICK HERE or read excerpts from the National Review’s report about Senate Democrats’ corporate hypocrisy below.
National Review: Senate Democrats Rail against Corporate Influence While Accepting Piles of Tainted Cash
By Isaac Schorr
Campaign finance reform has been a core plank of many Democrats’ campaign rhetoric for years, and the incumbent senators up for reelection in the 2022 midterms are no exception.
Across the swing state seats that guarantee the Democrats’ slim majority, lofty promises have been made and scathing indictments have been leveled against opponents […]
Warnock has undoubtedly broken the spirit, if not the letter of his pledges. In 2021, Warnock accepted $317,900 from PACs that run on the engine of corporate contributions — but are organized and run by congressional leadership or other politically interested groups — including from pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Merck, tobacco grower Altria, Walmart, H&R Block, and Google, among many others
That formal PAC money came in addition to over $430,000 in accepted personal contributions from corporate executives — including $17,400 from George and Alexander Soros — and $6,000 directly from corporate lobbyists.
But the junior senator from Georgia is far from the worst offender in his party. Like Warnock, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan has frequently returned to denouncing the corrupting influence of money in politics as a campaign strategy. In 2016, Hassan attacked her opponent, incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte, asserting that Ayotte is “bought & paid for by corporate special interests.” Fast-forward five years and Hassan has not dropped the rhetoric — she’s a supporter of the “For the People” Act, which she claimed would stop “corporate special interests that dictate our elections — but she’s happy to continue to let them dictate hers for now.
In 2021, Hassan accepted $429,150 in contributions directly from Amazon, BlackRock, Intel, Deloitte, Barclays, Nike, and other corporate PACs, and an additional $264,000 through the same loophole Warnock took advantage of. Hassan was similarly at peace with hauling in $522,138 and $77,250 in corporate executives’ and corporate lobbyists’ money, respectively […]
Besides the Chinese money, Kelly has also made use of the same loophole as Warnock, using corporate money funneled through leadership and association PACs to the tune of $243,500 in 2021. The bulk of his corporate money — $880,042 — came from executives, however. Four thousand eight-hundred and fifty dollars was tacked on by lobbyists.
None of that quite tracks with Kelly’s campaign-trail assertion that “Folks want change, I think they want independence. They want people who are independent from corporate PACs and corporations and their political parties.” He also claimed on the trail that his candidacy was “fueled” by “grassroots donors like you.”
Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto is yet another Democratic senator whose rhetoric does not align with their political operations. Cortez Masto has professed to believe that “democracy belongs to the people — not massive corporations,” and decried those colleagues of hers who take “their marching orders from corporate special interests.”
And yet, Cortez Masto has welcomed $342,700 in contributions directly from corporate PACs and $353,500 smuggled through leadership and association PACs. Corporate executives donated a whopping $507,736 and $49,550 came from lobbyists, including for Altria, Duke Energy, BP, Goldman Sachs, and Facebook.
Under current campaign finance regulations, none of the above Democrats — all of whom are classified as running in “toss-up” or “lean Dem” races in 2022 — have done anything wrong in the technical legal sense. And yet, their willingness to dance around their stated opposition to corporate money to accept millions of combined dollars in the lead-up to the midterms alone — including from the United States’ chief geopolitical rival — may open them up to charges of hypocrisy, and worse.
###