donation

Jesse Einsenberg donates kidney to a stranger: ‘No-brainer’

“Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” star Jesse Eisenberg may soon one-up the film franchise’s Robin Hood-esque Four Horsemen in the giving-back department.

This December, the Academy Award nominee and longtime blood donor will give one of his kidneys to a complete stranger, he said Thursday on the “Today” show. He slipped the news into a conversation with host Craig Melvin about a recent show-sponsored blood drive.

As Melvin and his co-hosts reacted in disbelief, Eisenberg said, “I really am [donating].”

“I don’t know why. I got bitten by the blood donation bug,” he said, adding that he was “so excited” to make the nondirected (a.k.a. “altruistic”) donation, wherein a living donor is not related to or known by the recipient.

According to the National Kidney Registry, approximately 90,000 people in the U.S. are currently in need of a kidney transplant, while roughly 6,000 people donate kidneys each year. Less than 5% of those already slim donations are nondirected.

Eisenberg said he suspected that if people knew how safe the process was, those numbers would go up.

“It’s essentially risk-free and so needed,” Eisenberg said in a separate interview with Today.com. “I think people will realize that it’s a no-brainer, if you have the time and the inclination.”

“The Social Network” alum added that prospective donors need not worry about forking over a kidney and later facing a situation wherein a family member urgently needs one.

“The way it works now is you can put a list of whoever you would like to be the first [relative] to be at the top of the list,” he said, referring to the National Kidney Registry’s family voucher program. The program launched in 2019, preceded by an earlier “standard” iteration that required the voucher donor to name a voucher holder who had some form of kidney impairment. (The standard voucher option is still available to donors as well.)

“Not only does this remove an important disincentive to living kidney donation, but it is the right thing to do for the generous people who are donating a kidney to a stranger. Donors can now donate a kidney and still provide security for their loved ones should they need a kidney transplant in the future,” Dr. Jeff Veale, who helped pioneer the voucher system, said in a statement at the time of the program update.

Recovery is also a non-issue for most kidney donors, who on average return to daily activities within a few weeks of the surgery, per the Mayo Clinic.

“Now You See Me: Now You Don’t” hits theaters Nov. 14, nearly a decade after the previous installment in the franchise premiered. Eisenberg stars alongside returning cast members Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelson and Dave Franco and newcomers Justice Smith, Dominic Sessa, Ariana Greenblatt and Rosamund Pike.

Source link

$130M anonymous donation to pay military personnel

Sailors of the U.S. navy aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) salute in Kanagawa-Prefecture, Japan, in May 2024. An anonymous donor has provided $130 million for military pay, the Pentagon said Friday, but the amount is too little to fully pay that nation’s 1.3 million military members and might not be legal. File Photo by Keizo Mori/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 24 (UPI) — An anonymous ally of President Donald Trump has donated $130 million that will help to pay the U.S. military during the ongoing federal government shutdown.

The Defense Department confirmed the donation on Friday and said it is intended to fund the military.

“The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of service members’ salaries and benefits,” Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell told CNN.

Parnell said the funds were donated via the Pentagon’s general gift acceptance authority.

While the donation will help the military to pay service members, it is not enough to fully pay its 1.3 million personnel.

It also might be a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending more than Congress has appropriated for them, according to The New York Times.

The federal government can accept donations that go to its general fund, but Congress has to appropriate those funds to pay for the salaries of federal employees, including the military, Romina Boccia, the Cato Institute’s director of budget and entitlement policy, told Fox News.

“The department is welcome to acknowledge this donor’s intent, but that does not change the legal restrictions on Congress needing to appropriate funds to pay military salaries,” Boccia said.

Private donations to the military only can be used to support military schools, museums, libraries and similar institutions, she said.

They also can be used to support service members or civilian workers who are killed or wounded while carrying out their duties, Boccia added.

Trump earlier in October ordered the Pentagon to redirect money intended for research and development to pay the military, but House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said that option won’t last.

The Senate recently voted on a measure that would have funded the military, but Senate Democrats mostly voted against it, which caused it to fail.

Source link

Labor unions donate tens of millions to Newsom’s Proposition 50

With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
“There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

“There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

“Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

“This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

“These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

Money from California unions pours in

Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

“Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

“It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

“The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

“The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

“Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

Source link

Academy Museum Gala: Best looks from the red carpet

The Academy Museum of Motion Pictures held its fifth annual star-studded fundraising gala Saturday at its Wilshire Boulevard campus.

An unrecognizable Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez, Demi Moore and Elle and Dakota Fanning were among the celebrity guests at the event, which debuted in 2021 upon the film museum’s long-awaited opening. The gala raises funds for museum exhibitions, education initiatives and public programming.

The Academy Museum collected more than $11 million in donations at last year’s gala, which honored Quentin Tarantino, Paul Mescal and Rita Moreno.

This year’s gala honorees included actor Penélope Cruz, director Walter Salles, comedian Bowen Yang and musician Bruce Springsteen, who was presented with the inaugural Legacy Award and performed live at the ceremony. A biopic about the rock legend, starring “The Bear’s” Jeremy Allen White, hits theaters Oct. 24.

Springsteen and Cruz, the recipient of this year’s Icon Award, are both Academy Award winners, the former for his original song “Streets of Philadelphia” — which he wrote for Tom Hanks’ 1993 legal drama “Philadelphia” — and the latter for her role in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” (2008).

Salles, presented with the Luminary Award for innovative filmmaking, last year gave Brazil its first Academy Award for international film with his moving family drama “I’m Still Here.” Fernanda Torres was also nominated for her role as the Paiva family matriarch in the 2024 movie.

Yang received the Vantage Award, “honoring an artist or scholar who has helped to contextualize and challenge dominant narratives around cinema.” The “SNL” darling and “Las Culturistas” podcast host will return as Glinda’s sidekick Pfannee in “Wicked: For Good,” hitting theaters Nov. 21.

Gala attendees spared no expense with their donations or their ensembles, with Jenna Ortega wearing a futuristic Grace Ling halter top, Rachel Zegler channeling Old Hollywood in Tamara Ralph Couture, Olivia Rodrigo sporting vintage Giorgio Armani Privé and Eva Longoria rocking Elie Saab.

Here are the best looks, captured by Times photographer Eric Thayer.

Jeremy Allen White

Jeremy Allen White poses in a tuxedo.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jenna Ortega

Jenna Ortega wears a halter top and skirt.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Amanda Seyfried

Amanda Seyfried wears a black dress.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zoe Kravitz

Zoe Kravitz looks to the side.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kendall Jenner and Hailey Bieber

Kendall Jenner and Hailey Bieber pose together.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Penelope Cruz

Penelope Cruz wears a white gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

George Clooney

George Clooney poses in a tux.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kirsten Dunst

Kirsten Dunst wears a nude dress with floral appliques.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Eddie Redmayne

Eddie Redmayne poses in a suit.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Bruce Springsteen and Martin Scorsese

Bruce Springsteen and Martin Scorsese post together.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco

Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco pose on the red carpet.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Zoey Deutch

Zoey Deutch holds up her gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Demi Moore

Demi Moore wears a red gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Charli XCX

Charli XCX wears a black gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Michelle Monaghan

Michelle Monaghan wears a purple gown covered in florals.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Elle Fanning

Elle Fanning wears a gown with a red feathered skit.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Addison Rae

Addison Rae wears a silver gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Channing Tatum

Channing Tatum wears a brown suit.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jon Hamm and Anna Osceola

Jon Hamm and Anna Osceola pose together.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times )

Rachel Zegler

Rachel Zegler wears a fuchsia gown with matching gloves.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Cara Delevingne

Cara Delevingne wears a silver gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jeremy Strong

Jeremy Strong wears a red suit jacket and sunglasses.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Dakota Fanning

Dakota Fanning wears a gown white gown with black flowers.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Mikey Madison

Mikey Madison wears a sheer, sleeved gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Laura Dern

Laura Dern wears a white gown with feathers.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Sydney Sweeney

Sydney Sweeney wears a black gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Joey King

Joey King wears a black gown with thin cutouts.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Alison Brie and Dave Franco

Alison Brie and Dave Franco pose together.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Kate Hudson

Kate Hudson wears a strapless white gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Billy Crudup and Naomi Watts

Billy Crudup and Naomi Watts pose together.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Jennifer Hudson

Jennifer Hudson wears a corset dress.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Leslie Bibb

Leslie Bibb wears a red dress with side cutouts.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Eva Longoria

Eva Longoria wears a pale pink gown.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Source link

Taylor Swift makes huge $100k donation to help save young girl’s life as she battles rare brain cancer

SUPERSTAR Taylor Swift has quietly donated $100,000 to help save the life of little girl fighting cancer. 

The Sun can reveal the Look What You Made Me singer, 35, made the huge donation on Friday night after finding herself trawling the pages of GoFundMe

Taylor Swift has donated $100,000 to help a young girl battling cancerCredit: AP
Lilah is one of just 58 people in the world with her conditionCredit: standwithlilah

The singer’s money will go towards to helping a little girl named Lilah who suffered her first seizure aged 18 months before having surgery to remove a stage 4 tumour just weeks later.

She has since been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of brain cancer – with only 58 known cases in the world. 

A source said: “Taylor has always been keen to give back and help others but even by her standard this is staggering. 

“She often finds herself on GoFundMe reading about the plight of others and Lilah’s story really touched her.

READ MORE ON TAYLOR SWIFT

TAYL OF A SHOWGIRL

Taylor Swift stuns in a sexy sequined dress and matching heels

“Hopefully, her donation can help bring an end to her years of pain.”

Lilah’s mum previously took to social media to reveal how she turned to Taylor’s music to help get her through her darkest moments. 

She even almost named her daughter after Taylor’s 2020 single Willow. 

Posting on Instagram, she wrote: “Also Lilah’s name was originally going to be Willow. 

“We were set on that name my whole pregnancy but ultimately ended on Lilah. I listened to Taylor my whole pregnancy and then birthed a mini Swiftie.”

Lilah loves Taylor’s music and during her cancer treatment she always found joy in it. I hope Lilah gets through this diagnosis and gets to one day go to a Taylor Swift concert in person. I know she would love it.”

After two rounds of chemo Lilah and her family are now trying to figure out the next stage of treatment. 

Her family added via her GoFundMe page: “All the donations we receive will help us with travel expenses and paying bills as we are still out of work while Lilah is in treatment.”

Lilah was originally going to be named after Taylor Swift single WillowCredit: Getty

Source link

Former state Senate leader Toni Atkins drops out of 2026 California governor’s race

San Diego Democrat and former state Senate leader Toni Atkins dropped out of the 2026 California governor’s race Monday, part of a continued reshuffling and contraction of the wide field of candidates vying to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Atkins told supporters in a letter Monday afternoon that during a childhood in rural Virginia, she often felt “too country, too poor, too gay” to fit in. After building a life on the West Coast, where she found acceptance and opportunity, she worked for decades to build on “the promise of California” and extend it to future generations, she said.

“That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins wrote. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory.”

Atkins began her political career on the San Diego City Council after serving as a women’s clinic administrator. She became the first out LGBTQ+ person to serve as Senate president pro tem, the top position in the California Senate. She was also the speaker of the state Assembly, making her the first legislator since 1871 to hold both leadership posts.

In Sacramento, Atkins was a champion for affordable housing and reproductive rights, including writing the legislation that became Proposition 1 in 2022, codifying abortion rights in the California Constitution after national protections were undone by the U.S. Supreme Court.

With President Trump and his allies “gutting health care, cratering our economy, and stripping away fundamental rights and freedoms,” Atkins told supporters Monday, “we’ve got to make sure California has a Democratic governor leading the fight, and that means uniting as Democrats.”

Under California’s nonpartisan primary system, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election. Votes on the left could be fractured among a half-dozen Democratic candidates, creating a more viable path forward for one of the two high-profile Republicans in the race to make it to the November ballot.

Atkins picked up millions of dollars in donations after entering the governor’s race in January 2024, and reported having $4.3 million on hand — more than most candidates — at the end of the first half of the year. More recent reports from major donations suggest her fundraising had lagged behind former Orange County-based U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Atty. Gen. and Biden appointee Xavier Becerra.

Although well-known in political circles, Atkins is not a household name. Recent polls, including one conducted by UC Berkeley and co-sponsored by The Times, showed her support in the single digits.

Nine months before the primary, the field of candidates is still in flux, and many voters are undecided.

At the end of July, former Vice President Kamala Harris made the biggest news of the campaign when she said she would not run. Shortly afterward, her political ally Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis abandoned her gubernatorial bid and announced she would run for state treasurer.

Some polling has shown that Porter, who left Congress after losing a bid for a rare open seat in the U.S. Senate, is the candidate to beat.

Last week, lobbyist and former state legislative leader Ian Calderon, 39, launched his campaign for governor, calling it the advent of a “new generation of leadership.”

Calderon, 39, was the first millennial elected to the state Assembly and the youngest-ever majority leader of the state Assembly. He is part of a political dynasty from southeastern Los Angeles County that’s held power in Sacramento for decades.

His family’s name was clouded during his time in Sacramento when two of his uncles served prison time in connection with a bribery scheme, but Calderon was not accused of wrongdoing.

Source link

Puerto Rico ex-Gov. Wanda Vázquez pleads guilty to campaign violation

Former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez pleaded guilty Wednesday to a campaign finance violation in a federal case that authorities say also involved a former FBI agent and a Venezuelan banker.

Vázquez, an attorney, became the U.S. territory’s first former governor to plead guilty to a crime, specifically accepting a donation from a foreigner for her 2020 political campaign. She is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 15.

As she left the courthouse, Vázquez told reporters that she had confided “in people around her … who didn’t do their job” and accepted a donation pledge on behalf of the banker.

“They forgot to ask him for his green card,” she said, without identifying who exactly was responsible. “These are situations that happen.”

Vázquez noted that a pledge was made but no donation received. “There was no bribery here,” she said. “I didn’t take a single cent.”

She was arrested in August 2022 and initially accused of participating in a bribery scheme between December 2019 and June 2020 while governor.

The U. S. Department of Justice said Vázquez agreed to dismiss the head of Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions in exchange for financial support toward her 2020 campaign for governor. During that time, the office was investigating a bank owned by Venezuelan Julio Herrera Velutini after suspicious transactions, according to authorities.

Justice officials allege that Herrera Velutini and Mark Rossini, a former FBI agent who provided consulting services to him, paid more than $300,000 to political consultants to support Vázquez’s campaign after she demanded the commissioner’s resignation and appointed a former consultant from Herrera Velutini’s bank to that position.

In August 2020, Vázquez lost in the primary of the New Progressive Party to Pedro Pierluisi, who was later elected as governor.

Federal authorities initially charged Vázquez and the other two suspects with conspiracy, federal programs bribery and honest services wire fraud. If found guilty, they could have faced up to 20 years in prison.

The charges were reduced this year to a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which calls for up to a year in prison.

Herrera Velutini and Rossini also pleaded guilty Wednesday to the charge.

As she prepared to enter the federal courthouse in the Puerto Rican capital of San Juan, Vázquez told reporters that the last three years have been “terrible,” adding that the accusations against her were untrue.

She was accompanied by her attorney, Ignacio Fernández, who said Vázquez “feels vindicated” with the new charge.

The guilty plea entered Wednesday avoided a trial scheduled to start in late August.

Judge Silvia L. Carreño Coll previously criticized the deal, describing the new charge as a slap on the hand compared with the original charges.

Two other suspects have already pleaded guilty in the case.

Source link

Trump foes find themselves targeted by top housing regulator

When Bill Pulte was nominated as the country’s top housing regulator, he told senators that his “number one mission will be to strengthen and safeguard the housing finance system.”

But since he started the job, he’s distinguished himself by targeting President Trump ‘s political enemies. He’s using property records to make accusations of mortgage fraud and encourage criminal investigations, wielding an obscure position to serve as a presidential enforcer.

This week, Trump used allegations publicized by Pulte in an attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve board, as he tries to exert more control over the traditionally independent central bank.

Pulte claims that Cook designated two homes as her primary residence to get more favorable mortgage rates. Cook plans to fight her removal, laying the groundwork for a legal battle that could reshape a cornerstone institution in the American economy.

Trump said Tuesday that Cook “seems to have had an infraction, and you can’t have an infraction,” adding that he has “some very good people” in mind to replace her.

Pulte has cheered on the president’s campaign with a Trumpian flourish.

“Fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump’s housing market,” he wrote on social media. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Pulte targets Democrats but not Republicans

Pulte, 37, is a housing industry scion whose official job is director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He oversees mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed in conservatorship during the Great Recession almost two decades ago.

Like other political appointees, he routinely lavishes praise on his boss.

“President Trump is the greatest,” he posted over the weekend.

Pulte has made additional allegations of mortgage fraud against Sen. Adam Schiff, one of Trump’s top antagonists on Capitol Hill, and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed lawsuits against Trump. Those cases are being pursued by Ed Martin, a Justice Department official.

“In a world where housing is too expensive, we do not need to subsidize housing for fraudsters by letting them get better rates than they deserve,” Pulte wrote on social media.

Pulte has ignored a similar case involving Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general who is friendly with Trump and is running for Senate in his state’s Republican primary. Paxton took out mortgages on three properties that were all identified as his primary residence.

He also has mortgages on two other properties that explicitly prohibit him from renting the properties out, but both have been repeatedly listed for rent, according to real estate listings and posts on short-term rental sites.

Asked about Pulte’s investigations and Trump’s role in them, the White House said that anyone who violates the law should be held accountable.

“President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people,” said Davis Ingle, White House spokesman.

It’s unclear whether Pulte is using government resources to develop the allegations he has made. Mortgage documents are generally public records, but they are typically maintained at the county level across most of the U.S., making them difficult to comprehensively review. However, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are both government-sponsored entities, purchase large tranches of mortgages from lenders, which could centralize much of that information, real estate and legal experts say.

FHFA did not respond to a detailed list of questions from the AP, including whether Pulte or his aides used government resources to conduct his research.

It’s not just mortgages

Pulte’s broadsides go beyond mortgages. He’s been backing Trump’s criticism of Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, over expensive renovations at the central bank’s headquarters. Trump is pressuring Powell to cut interest rates in hopes of lowering borrowing costs, and his allies have highlighted cost overruns to suggest that Powell is untrustworthy or should be removed from his position.

“This guy is supposed to be the money manager for the world’s biggest economy, and it doesn’t even look like he can run a construction site,” Pulte said while wearing a neon safety vest outside the building. “So something doesn’t smell right here.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has reached deep into the government to advance his agenda. He’s overhauled the federal workforce with the Office of Personnel Management, pushed ideological changes at the Smithsonian network of museums and fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics when he didn’t like a recent report on job numbers.

With Pulte in charge, the Federal Housing Finance Agency is becoming another instrument of Trump’s mission to exert control and retaliate against enemies.

It’s a contrast to the Internal Revenue Service, where Trump has unsuccessfully discussed ways to use tax policies as a pressure point. For example, during battles over higher education, Trump threatened to take away Harvard’s long-standing tax-exempt status by saying, “It’s what they deserve.”

However, there are more restrictions there, dating back to the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon.

“It’s been hard for the administration to use the inroads it wants to use to pursue its enemies,” said Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

She said, “The law is very clear about taxpayer privacy and the criminal penalties at play are not small.”

Before going on the attack, Pulte played nice online

Pulte is heir to a home-building fortune amassed by his grandfather, also named William Pulte, who founded a construction company in Detroit in the 1950s that grew into the publicly traded national housing giant now known as the Pulte Group.

He spent four years on the company’s board, and he’s the owner of heating and air conditioning businesses across the U.S. He had never served in government before being nominated by Trump to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“While many children spent their weekends at sporting events, I spent mine on homebuilding jobsites with my father and grandfather,” Pulte said in written testimony for his nomination hearing. “From the ground up, I learned every aspect of housing — whether it was cleaning job sites, assisting in construction, or helping sell homes.”

He once tried to make a name for himself with good deeds, describing himself as the “Inventor of Twitter Philanthropy” and offering money to needy people online. He was working in private equity at the time, and he told the Detroit Free Press that he funded his donations with some “very good liquidity events” to power his donations.

Even six years ago, he appeared focused on getting attention from Trump.

“If @realDonaldTrump retweets this, my team and I will give Two Beautiful Cars to Two Beautiful Veterans on Twitter.”

Trump replied, “Thank you, Bill, say hello to our GREAT VETERANS!”

Pulte, whose most recent financial disclosure shows a net worth of at least $180 million, was also ramping up his political donations.

Over the past six years, he and his wife have donated over $1 million to the political efforts of Trump and his allies, including a $500,000 contribution to a super PAC affiliated with Trump that was the subject of a campaign finance complaint made with the Federal Election Commission.

The Pultes’ $500,000 contribution was made through a company they control named ML Organization LLC, records show. While such contributions are typically allowed from corporations, the same is not always true for some limited liability companies that have a limited business footprint and could be set up to obscure the donor.

The FEC ultimately exonerated the Pultes, but found in April that the Trump super PAC, Make America Great Again, Again! Inc., did not properly disclose that the Pultes were the source of the donation, said Saurav Ghosh, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of federal campaign finance reform.

Ghosh said the donation raises serious questions about Pulte’s appointment to lead FHFA.

“Why is Bill Pulte even in a government position?” he said. “Maybe he’s qualified, maybe he isn’t. But he did pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a pro-Trump super PAC. And I think it’s clear there are these types of rewards for big donors across the Trump administration.”

Megerian, Slodysko and Hussein write for the Associated Press.

Source link

After CBS and ABC’s Trump settlements, Democrats want to curb presidential library gifts

President Trump’s future presidential library has a growing list of corporate sponsors, and Democratic lawmakers are sounding alarms.

To settle Trump’s lawsuit over edits to a CBS “60 Minutes” broadcast, Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to help finance the future library and cover the president’s legal fees.

Walt Disney Co. earlier pledged $15 million to Trump’s library to resolve a defamation lawsuit over inaccurate statements about Trump by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. And this spring, the nation of Qatar donated a $400-million Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner for Trump’s use — a gift that ultimately will be registered to his library, whatever form it takes.

On Wednesday, a group of progressive lawmakers, led by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), introduced the Presidential Library Anti-Corruption Act, a proposed measure that would require transparency and impose restrictions on donations to presidential libraries.

“This new bill will close the loopholes that allow presidential libraries to be used as a tool for corruption and bribery,” Warren told reporters on a Zoom call. “Slamming the door shut on apparent corruption at the highest levels of government is an important step forward and something everyone should get behind.”

For now, the lawmakers — including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) — lack support from Republicans in Congress.

Still, the measure is needed, the lawmakers said, because there are no rules that specifically target solicitation of gifts or payments by individuals and companies to try to curry favor with the president.

The bill would create a cap on contributions, prohibit donations from lobbyists and foreign governments and delay fundraising until a president leaves office, with a carve-out for nonprofits.

Violators would risk criminal or civil penalties, which could equal as much as the value of the gift.

The measure also would prohibit the conversion of a donation to personal use, as some have feared will happen with the acceptance of the Qatar plane.

“What is Qatar getting in exchange? … Nobody knows,” Warren said. “All of this shady stuff is happening because there are essentially no rules for presidential library donations.”

Under the legislation, quarterly disclosures would be required.

“People have a right to know who is, in effect, gaining favor with a president in office through donations to a library,” Blumenthal said. “These kinds of requirements ought to apply to both Republican[s] and Democrat[s], because the donation can be problematic no matter which party the president may belong to.”

Critics blasted former President Clinton for pardoning late fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich after his wife donated $450,000 to Clinton’s library.

In addition to the CBS “60 Minutes” and ABC settlements, Facebook parent company Meta donated $22 million to Trump’s library. The payment was part of Meta’s $25-million settlement to a lawsuit brought after Facebook banned Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, donated $10 million.

Contributions to Trump’s inaugural celebrations this year that went beyond money spent are expected to be steered to the library as well as money raised from people who want to dine with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Warren’s office said.

Warren and others previously raised the notion that Paramount’s settlement with Trump, in particular, could constitute a bribe. It has been widely believed that resolving the legal dispute with Trump was a prerequisite for getting the company’s pending $8-billion merger with David Ellison’s Skydance Media cleared by the Federal Communications Commission.

Source link

Controversy Swirls Over Donation to Democrats

By outward appearances, Arief and Soraya Wiriadinata led a modest life. He was a landscape architect, she was a homemaker. They lived in a wood-shingle townhouse in a suburban Virginia working-class neighborhood favored by taxi drivers and government workers.

“I considered them a quiet, reserved couple,” said a former neighbor who could recall no signs of wealth or elite connections.

For the record:

12:00 a.m. Nov. 4, 1996 For the Record
Los Angeles Times Monday November 4, 1996 Home Edition Part A Page 3 Metro Desk 3 inches; 100 words Type of Material: Correction
LippoBank–An Oct. 14 article incorrectly identified a 1996 restructuring that occurred at PT Lippo Bank, an Indonesian bank, as occurring at LippoBank of California. The California bank is controlled by James Riady, while the Indonesian bank is part of the Lippo Group, in which the Riady family has controlling interest. LippoBank of California was the subject of a standard compliance examination by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 1994 in which there was no finding of money laundering. The FDIC did report evidence of “unsafe or unsound banking practices” and LippoBank agreed to comply with an FDIC order that included improved record keeping, particularly of cash transactions of more than $10,000.
For the Record
Los Angeles Times Monday November 4, 1996 Home Edition Part A Page 3 Metro Desk 3 inches; 100 words Type of Material: Correction
LippoBank–An Oct. 14 article incorrectly identified a 1996 restructuring that occurred at PT Lippo Bank, an Indonesian bank, as occurring at LippoBank of California. The California bank is controlled by James Riady, while the Indonesian bank is part of the Lippo Group, in which the Riady family has controlling interest. LippoBank of California was the subject of a standard compliance examination by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 1994 in which there was no finding of money laundering. The FDIC did report evidence of “unsafe or unsound banking practices” and LippoBank agreed to comply with an FDIC order that included improved record keeping, particularly of cash transactions of more than $10,000.

In particular, they had not been politically active and, according to government campaign-finance reports, had not contributed money to a political campaign until November. But in that month, the Wiriadinatas each wrote a $15,000 check to the Democratic National Committee. The next month they wrote six more checks, totaling $100,000.

Then they disappeared from the United States, returning to their homeland of Indonesia. But that didn’t stop their political largess. The checks kept coming to the DNC. By June they had contributed $425,000–a huge individual sum–more than movie-maker Steven Spielberg, more than AT&T;, more even than the Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America.

And they left behind a mystery that is now at the center of a mushrooming controversy that has spilled into the U.S. presidential race.

Are the Wiriadinatas, as the DNC maintains, an extraordinary embodiment of political philanthropy, motivated solely by President Clinton’s concern for an ailing relative and their desire to see the incumbent reelected?

Or, as the president’s critics suggest, might the couple be a deceptive front for wealthy foreigners–such as Soraya’s now-deceased father, Hashim Ning–who sought to buy influence in American politics but who were prohibited by law from contributing money to U.S. election campaigns?

DNC officials insist that the contributions from the Wiriadinatas, who were legal immigrants in the United States, were legal and proper.

Republicans are asking: Where did they get all that money?

Clinton Links

At this point the questions far outnumber the answers, with the Wiriadinatas silent and out of touch overseas and with the DNC fund-raiser who solicited their money declining all interviews, responding only through intermediaries with specific written answers to written questions.

But several intriguing elements are feeding the tempest, which swirls in the hyper-charged atmosphere of the nearing presidential election.

They include Clinton’s ties to Indonesian business people. Soraya Wiriadinata’s father was a partner of one of Indonesia’s wealthiest men, Mochtar Riady. Riady’s banking, real estate and insurance interests have stretched from Jakarta to Little Rock, Ark., and his family has enjoyed an unusually close relationship to Clinton.

Also, there is the fact that the DNC fund-raiser involved, John Huang, is the same one who brought in an illegal $250,000 contribution from a company in South Korea. When the foreign source of the donation was identified, the DNC returned the money.

And there is the hiring of Clinton confidant Webster L. Hubbell by one of Riady’s enterprises after Hubbell resigned as the No. 3 official in the Justice Department and before he went to jail for defrauding his Arkansas law firm.

Seeking to raise the political stakes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) called Sunday for congressional inquiries and maintained that a special counsel would have to be appointed to investigate the affair.

“This is a potential abuse of the American system on behalf of an Indonesia billionaire in a way that we have never seen in American history,” Gingrich said on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation.” “It’s almost unthinkable.”

Vice President Al Gore, asked to respond to these issues on NBC-TV’s “Meet the Press,” said: “There have been absolutely no violations of any law or regulations. . . . There is nothing that has been done that’s wrong.”

Influence-Buying?

Regardless of who is right, the Indonesian connection strikes a particularly sensitive nerve in the American body politic–the concern that foreigners will find ways to buy influence in domestic U.S. politics. The same fears were triggered two decades ago with the investigation of South Korean government influence-buying in Congress by flamboyant businessman Tongsun Park.

In recent years, Riady family members and the U.S. subsidiaries and executives of the family’s company, the Lippo Group, which includes Los Angeles-based Lippo Bank, have contributed lavishly to the Democratic Party. The Lippo Group’s clout is such that some Washington-based diplomats have questioned whether it has tried to use its connections to influence American policies toward Asia to benefit its financial interests.

Since Clinton embarked on his initial presidential bid in 1991, members of the Riady family and Lippo Group’s American subsidiaries and executives have contributed more than $475,000 to the Democratic Party and its candidates, according to a study of Federal Election Commission records done for The Times by the Campaign Study Group of Springfield, Va.

Mochtar Riady is barred by law from giving to U.S. campaigns because he is not a U.S. resident. But his son, James Riady, a longtime friend of Clinton, lived in the United States legally in 1991 and 1992, when he and his family gave $100,525 to the Democrats. James Riady has since returned to Indonesia.

At the nexus of the relationship between the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party, the Wiriadinatas and the Riadys is Huang, a former president of Lippo Group U.S.A.

Huang left Lippo Group in 1994 to serve as the Commerce Department’s deputy assistant secretary for international economic policy for 18 months. He then joined the DNC, where he is vice chairman of the national finance committee. Huang specializes in raising money from Asian American donors–and he handled the Wiriadinatas contributions.

He has raised several million dollars this election cycle, according to Democratic sources.

Huang also was responsible for a $250,000 contribution from the American subsidiary of a South Korean company–a contribution that proved to be illegal because the subsidiary had not done any business in the United States. The DNC returned the contribution after The Times raised questions about it.

Huang’s most stunning fund-raising success may have been the Wiriadinatas.

Origin of Donations

Huang, in his written responses to questions from The Times, said he met the Wiriadinatas when he visited Ning–who had suffered a heart attack during a visit here–at a Virginia hospital in June 1995. Huang had known Ning, founder of his own group of Indonesian companies, from their mutual association with Riady and Lippo.

Huang said the Wiriadinatas subsequently “expressed an interest in supporting the Democratic Party and the president, and I suggested that they contribute to the DNC.”

In November, the couple attended a dinner at which Gore spoke, and gave their $15,000 donations. In December, Arief Wiriadinata participated in a DNC breakfast at the White House with Clinton, apparently at Huang’s invitation, said DNC spokeswoman Amy Weiss Tobe.

In a Feb. 21 form letter on DNC stationery, Clinton thanked Wiriadinata for “recently meeting with me at the White House. I enjoyed having the chance to talk to you.”

Asked about the Wiriadinatas’ generosity, Huang wrote he had “absolutely no reason to question whether the money they were contributing belonged to them” because they resided in Virginia and were legal U.S. residents.

In addition, he said, Arief Wiriadinata had a master’s degree in engineering from an Ivy League university (the University of Pennsylvania) and worked as a landscape architect, and Soraya was the daughter of the founder of a major enterprise and “to my knowledge has very substantial resources of her own.”

Under federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to a U.S. election campaign unless they are legal residents here.

Gordon M. Bava, principal attorney for Lippo Bank of California, said Huang “certainly knew potential donors in the Asian community,” but that he would never violate campaign fund-raising laws.

“I never saw any evidence of that,” Bava said. “Based on my personal knowledge of him and his ethics, I would be very surprised if he was engaged in any such activity.”

Ning initially recuperated from his heart attack and returned to Indonesia, where he died in December. The Wiriadinatas returned home shortly after to be with their family, Huang said. A neighbor recalled that Arief Wiriadinata told him he was “going back home to work for his family.”

But they continued their contributions to the campaign in the United States. Following their departure, the Wiriadinatas made another 15 donations totaling $295,000, according to reports filed by the DNC with the FEC.

All told, the couple wrote 23 separate checks of $5,000 to $25,000 between Nov. 9, 1995, and June 7, 1996. Fifteen were signed by Arief Wiriadinata and eight by his wife.

Seen as Gratitude

DNC and White House officials described the donations as expressions of gratitude for get-well letters the White House sent to Ning when he was hospitalized.

Mark D. Fabiani, special associate White House counsel, said two form letters were sent on behalf of Clinton, both signed by an auto-pen rather than by the president personally. The first, a brief note on June 19, 1995, expressed regret about Ning’s health problems and wished him well. When Ning replied with encouraging news about his recovery, the White House sent a second letter on Clinton’s behalf to Jakarta on Nov. 8.

National DNC Chairman Don Fowler said in an interview last month that the Wiriadinatas were so touched that they made their six-figure contributions.

“It seemed to them a significant courtesy,” Fowler said. “That’s the only linkage we could find.”

Even though many of the contributions apparently came from Indonesia, all of the DNC contribution reports filed with the elections commission indicate the Wiriadinatas were residing in Virginia at the time–heightening suspicions about the money’s true origin.

Tobe said the addresses, however, were apparently taken from the couple’s checks and party donor card. Donors may send contributions from overseas if they maintain their legal-resident status.

The Riadys’ relationship with Clinton, meanwhile, goes back to the late 1970s, when patriarch Mochtar Riady’s son, James, did an internship with an investment bank in Little Rock. James later moved to Arkansas in the mid-1980s to help run an institution named Worthen Bank, which was then partly owned by his family.

White House Meetings

The Riadys and Clinton have maintained the relationship since the president’s move to Washington. Three months after Clinton’s inauguration, James Riady and two other associates, including Huang, met with Clinton briefly at the White House, according to Fabiani. And, in September 1995, Clinton met at the White House for about 20 minutes with James Riady, Huang and Little Rock attorney C. Joseph Giroir Jr., whose development company does joint ventures with Lippo. Just last month, James Riady met with Clinton and others at the White House. Fabiani described the three Oval Office sessions as “meet and greet” social visits.

In November 1994, during a Clinton trip to Jakarta for a summit meeting, the president visited for about 15 minutes with Mochtar and James Riady at a reception they were hosting, Fabiani said.

Meanwhile, the Lippo Group had a relationship with the administration. A business partner was included in a trade mission led by the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown; during the trip, the company’s Hong Kong affiliate and the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. signed a $1-billion business deal to build a power plant in China.

Fabiani said the Riadys “have been longtime supporters of the president.” He added that “we have no indication that the White House was lobbied” on banking, trade or any other matters by the Riadys or their representatives.

Lippo Bank, formerly known as the Bank of Trade, was acquired by the Riady family of Indonesia in 1984. The Los Angeles-based bank also has branches in San Jose, Westminster and San Francisco. In the early 1990s, Lippo Bank was primarily engaged in assisting the shipment of goods from Indonesia to the United States.

The bank is a unit of Lippo Group, one of the top five Indonesian conglomerates with interests in financial services, urban development, manufacturing and retail. It has estimated assets of $5 billion to $6 billion and businesses located in Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Australia and North America. The conglomerate employs more than 30,000 people.

The Lippo Bank came under investigation in 1994 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which completed a money-laundering examination by gaining the bank’s agreement to keep precise track of the origin and destination of cash deposits at the institution.

Bava, the Lippo Bank of California attorney, said he was prohibited by law from speaking about the FDIC action, but he criticized various reports that the bank had laundered money.

“Those allegations are totally, completely false,” he said. “The bank was never accused of or involved in any money-laundering activities. Nor were any of its officers, directors or employees. If there were that kind of allegation made, it would most likely have been based on deficiencies in record-keeping–that is, filing reports with the Treasury Department.”

Bava said the nature of Lippo Bank’s business could lead to lapses in record-keeping. He said the bank handled many small retail accounts that operate on a cash basis.

“They have a large number of deposits,” he said. “As the bank was expanding, it is certainly possible if there were any deficiencies, the large number of cash transactions perhaps got a little ahead of their [administrative] controls.”

In September, Lippo Group won shareholder approval for a controversial $364-million restructuring in which Lippo Life will buy 40% of Lippo Bank from the Riady family, which controls both companies. Investors initially protested that the purchase price for the Lippo Bank stake was excessive, saying they were being forced to buy out the Riadys at a premium to market prices. Analysts saw the transaction as an attempt by the Riadys to raise cash for their personal use from the listed companies they control.

Numerous players associated with the Lippo Group have been major donors to the Democrats and Democratic candidates since Jan. 1, 1991, according to the analysis for The Times.

In addition to James Riady and the Wiriadinatas, Huang and his wife, Jane, gave $162,494 and Lippo Securities President Charles Dequeljoe and his wife, Susan, $70,500. Other individuals and companies associated with Lippo contributed another $74,500. Giroir, who was instrumental in the Entergy deal, and his wife and company gave $83,250. And Entergy and its employees donated $283,463.

Times staff writers Sara Fritz, Jim Mann and Josh Greenberg in Washington and Duke Helfand and Sonia Nazario in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

* GINGRICH QUESTIONS FUNDS: House speaker criticizes donations to Democratic Party. A23

Source link

Trump wants an investigation of Democrats’ fundraising. His own campaign has issues

When President Trump directed his attorney general last month to investigate online fundraising, he cited concerns that foreigners and fraudsters were using elaborate “schemes“ and “dummy accounts” to funnel illegal contributions to politicians and causes.

Instead of calling for an expansive probe, however, the president identified just one potential target: ActBlue, the Democrats’ online fundraising juggernaut, which has acknowledged receiving over 200 potentially illicit contributions last year from foreign internet addresses.

Trump’s announcement contained a glaring omission — his political committees also received scores of potentially problematic contributions.

An Associated Press review of donations to Trump over the past five years found 1,600 contributions from donors who live abroad, have close ties to foreign interests or failed to disclose basic information, often making it difficult, if not impossible, to identify them and verify the legality of their donations Among those was $5,000 linked to a derelict building, and $5,000 from a Chinese businessman who listed a La Quinta Inn as his address. Another sizable donation — $1 million — was made by the wife of an African oil and mining magnate.

It’s against the law for U.S. candidates and political committees to accept contributions from foreign nationals. Laws also place strict limits on donation amounts and prohibit the laundering of contributions to get around legal caps. For the most part, such donations have been policed by campaigns and the Federal Election Commission, with only the most egregious examples being targeted by federal law enforcement.

But after reclaiming the White House, Trump embarked on a campaign of retribution against his perceived enemies, launching broadsides against universities, law firms and his own former officials. If the Justice Department were to investigate ActBlue, it could imperil a key fundraising tool for Trump’s political rivals before the 2026 midterm elections, when Republicans’ threadbare House majority — and the president’s ability to pass an agenda through Congress — will be on the line.

“This is him taking direct aim at the center of Democratic and progressive fundraising to hamstring his political opponents,” said Ezra Reese, an attorney who leads the political law division at the Elias Law Group, a leading Democratic firm that does not represent ActBlue. “I don’t think there’s any question that they picked their target first. He’s not even pretending.”

Trump’s committees collected scores of donations from people living overseas

The White House did not respond to questions about Trump’s fundraising, including what sort of fraud prevention measures his committees have in place. Instead, a senior administration official pointed to the findings of a recent House Republican investigation of ActBlue that the White House alleges “uncovered specific evidence of potentially unlawful conduct.”

“The memorandum directs the attorney general to investigate this matter broadly, and she will follow the evidence and take appropriate action as warranted,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter.

Neither the Justice Department nor Trump’s 2024 campaign co-manager Chris LaCivita responded to requests for comment.

U.S. citizens living abroad are free to donate to politicians back home. But it can be difficult even for campaigns to discern who is allowed to give and whether a person may be serving as a “straw” donor for someone else seeking to influence U.S. elections.

The AP identified only two Trump donors out of more than 200 living abroad whose U.S. citizenship was listed as “verified” in the president’s campaign finance reports. He received over 1,000 contributions from 150 donors who omitted key identifying details such as their city, state, address or country. Trump also received at least 90 contributions from people who did not give a full name, are listed as “anonymous” or whose donations include the notation “name not provided.”

Many of these Trump donors contributed through WinRed, the Republicans’ online fundraising platform that is the GOP’s answer to ActBlue. Only about three dozen of these contributions were rejected, most of which came from an unknown source and were paid in cryptocurrency, campaign finance disclosures show.

WinRed officials did not respond to a request for comment.

“Foreign money in our elections is a legitimate concern,” said Dan Weiner, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who is now director of the Brennan Center’s elections and government program. “What’s not legitimate is to single out one political opponent and pretend the problem is limited to them.”

Donating from a La Quinta Inn

Jiajun “Jack” Zhang, for example, is a jet-setting Chinese businessman whose Qingdao Scaffolding Co. boasts of being one of the “biggest manufacturers and suppliers in China” of scaffolding. In October, he used WinRed to donate $5,000 to Trump, campaign finance disclosures show.

Zhang lives in China’s Shandong province, according to his LinkedIn account, and is described in French business filings as a Chinese national. But his contribution to Trump lists a La Quinta Inn in Hawaiian Gardens, California, as his address, records show. The donation was made around the time that Zhang posted a photo on social media of his family visiting Disneyland, which is near the hotel.

Zhang did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Other potentially troublesome donations include four from unnamed donors listing an address of “999 Anonymous Dr.”

There is also a series of contributions made through WinRed that listed the donor’s address as a vacant building in Washington that was formerly a funeral home. The donor, identified only as “Alex, A” on Trump’s campaign finance report, gave nearly $5,000, spread across more than 40 separate transactions last year. Those types of donations tend to draw scrutiny from campaigns and regulators.

Regulators and watchdogs have also long been concerned about donations from individuals with ties to foreign interests. Trump has received many such contributions, including one in December from Nnenna Peters, the wife of Benedict Peters, a Nigerian billionaire who is the founder and CEO of oil and mining businesses.

Nnenna Peters, who goes by Ella, gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. A naturalized citizen, Nnenna Peters — who lives in Potomac, Maryland, a tony suburb of the capital — is allowed to make campaign donations.

Federal law, however, bars U.S. citizens from making contributions on behalf of a noncitizen spouse if the money is not a shared asset. For example, experts said, a husband could be prohibited from making a campaign donation using funds from a checking account solely in his wife’s name.

In practice, such a prohibition is hard to enforce because it is difficult to assess whether spouses are acting on their own accord or on behalf of significant others. Government watchdogs say donations like these raise the risk of an attempt to influence U.S. policy on behalf of a foreign interest.

That was precisely the kind of problem Trump cited in his executive order that singled out ActBlue.

Benedict Peters, as it turns out, has a lot to offer that could be of interest to Trump, who has made the extraction of natural resources a focus on his second administration. In particular, the Trump administration has sought to secure access to critical minerals that help power modern technology. Peters’ Aiteo Group markets itself as one of the largest energy conglomerates in Nigeria, while his company, Bravura Holdings, purports to hold the rights to vast critical mineral deposits across Africa.

His wife’s donation stands out in light of her past giving: She donated exclusively to Democrats, records show, including a $66,800 contribution to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

“This clearly could have come from her husband,” said Craig Holman, a registered lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based government watchdog group. “This is something the FEC should take a very, very close look at.”

Benedict and Ella Peters did not respond to requests for comment.

Indifference towards campaign finance rules

The questionable donations fit a pattern for Trump, who has in the past exhibited indifference toward campaign finance rules and used his presidential powers to assist those facing legal trouble in such matters.

In January, Trump’s Justice Department dropped its case against former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Nebraska Republican accused of accepting a $30,000 contribution from a Nigerian billionaire. During his first term, Trump pardoned conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Republican donor Michael Liberty, who were both convicted of using straw donors to evade contribution limits. He also pardoned former California Rep. Duncan Hunter, who was convicted in 2020 of stealing $250,000 from his campaign fund.

Trump’s political efforts have also drawn contributions from straw donors and foreigners who have been subjected to legal scrutiny.

Among them is Barry Zekelman, a Canadian steel industry billionaire, who was fined $975,000 in 2022 by the Federal Election Commission for funneling $1.75 million to America First Action, Trump’s official super PAC, in 2018. The contribution helped Zekelman secure a dinner with Trump at which steel tariffs were discussed.

Two Soviet-born U.S. citizens, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were convicted in a straw donor scheme that funneled $325,000 to the same super PAC in the runup to Trump’s losing 2020 reelection campaign.

Jesse Benton, a Republican political operative, was convicted in 2022 of serving as a straw donor for a Russian businessman who contributed $25,000 to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Democrats say Trump’s focus on ActBlue is a lot to stomach in light of Trump’s acceptance of questionable donations and his seeming lack of interest in enforcing campaign finance laws more generally. They noted that Trump in February fired a commissioner at the Federal Election Commission. The firing, followed by the resignation of a Republican commissioner, has denied the agency the quorum necessary to enforce campaign finance laws and regulations.

“It’s telling that while Trump and his allies attack grassroots-funded platforms like ours, their own campaigns have welcomed money from questionable sources,” ActBlue spokesperson Megan Hughes said.

Republicans counter that there is well-founded reason to investigate the Democratic platform, which eased some fraud detection protocols in 2024 before the presidential election.

Democrats are concerned about ActBlue’s future

There is, however, a political upside to investigating ActBlue. The platform has proved more successful than WinRed, the Republican platform designed to imitate it, which took in less than half of the $3.8 billion that ActBlue raised during the 2024 election cycle.

ActBlue representatives declined to say whether they have been contacted by the Justice Department.

ActBlue is expected to battle any investigation. It took a different approach when a Republican-led congressional committee launched an investigation in 2023. That committee’s findings turned out to be the basis for some of the allegations cited by Trump in his executive order.

Democrats, meanwhile, are preparing for the worst.

“There is a pervasive fear that ActBlue could cease to exist,” said Matt Hodges, a veteran Democratic operative who served as the director of engineering for Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign. “That’s the worst fear people have — that this will escalate or drain legal resources that hinder their ability to operate.”

He predicted that the Democrats could lose more than $10 million in the short term if ActBlue were forced to shut down. That has led some Democrats to begin thinking about alternatives, but they acknowledged it might be too late to create something as successful as ActBlue with the midterms around the corner.

Slodysko and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York.

Source link

Villaraigosa doubles down on fossil fuels in governor’s race

As California positions itself as a leader on climate change, former Los Angeles mayor and gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa is pivoting away from his own track record as an environmental champion to defend the state’s struggling oil industry.

Villaraigosa’s work to expand mass transit, plant trees and reduce carbon emissions made him a favorite of the environmental movement, but the former state Assembly speaker also accepted more than $1 million in campaign contributions and other financial support from oil companies and other donors tied to the industry over more than three decades in public life, according to city and state fundraising disclosures reviewed by The Times.

Since entering the race last year to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, Villaraigosa has accepted more than $176,000 from donors with ties to the oil industry, including from a company that operates oil fields in the San Joaquin Valley and in Los Angeles County, the disclosures show.

The clash between Villaraigosa’s environmentalist credentials and oil-industry ties surfaced in the governor’s race after Valero announced in late April that its Bay Area refinery would close next year, not long after Phillips 66 said its Wilmington refinery would close in 2025.

Villaraigosa is now warning that California drivers could see gas prices soar, blasting as “absurd” policies that he said could have led to the refinery closures.

“I’m not fighting for refineries,” Villaraigosa said in an interview. “I’m fighting for the people who pay for gas in this state.”

The refineries are a sore spot for Newsom and for California Democrats, pitting their environmental goals against concerns about the rising cost of living and two of the state’s most powerful interest groups — organized labor and environmentalists — against each other.

Villaraigosa said Democrats are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in their approach to fighting climate change.

He said he hoped no more refineries would close until the state hits more electrification milestones, including building more transmission lines, green-energy storage systems and charging stations for electric cars. The only way for the state to reach “net zero” emissions, he said, is an “all-of-the-above” approach that includes solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear power and oil and gas.

“The notion that we’re not going to do that is poppycock,” Villaraigosa said.

Villaraigosa’s vocal support for the oil industry has upset some environmental groups that saw him as a longtime ally.

“I’m honestly shocked at just how bad it is,” said RL Miller, the president of Climate Hawks Vote and the chair of the California Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, of the contributions Villaraigosa has accepted since entering the race in July.

Miller said Villaraigosa signed a pledge during his unsuccessful run for governor in 2018 not to accept campaign contributions from oil companies and “named executives” at fossil-fuel entities. She said he took the pledge shortly after accepting the maximum allowable contributions from several oil donors in 2017.

Miller said that more than $100,000 in donations that Villaraigosa has accepted in this gubernatorial cycle were clear violations of the pledge.

That included contributions from the state’s largest oil and gas producer, California Resources Corp. and its subsidiaries, as well as the founder of Rocky Mountain Resources, a leader of the oil company Berry Corp., and Excalibur Well Services.

“This is bear-hugging the oil industry,” she said.

Environmental activists view the pledge as binding for future campaigns. Villaraigosa said he has not signed it for this campaign.

The economy is dramatically different than it was in 2018, Villaraigosa said, and working-class Americans are being hammered, which he said was a major factor in recent Democratic losses.

“We’re losing working people, particularly working people who don’t have a college education,” he said. “Why are we losing them? The cost of living, the cost of gas, the cost of utilities, the cost of groceries.”

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said such statements are consistent with Villaraigosa’s messaging in recent years.

“Villaraigosa is squarely in the moderate lane in the governor’s race. That doomed him in 2018, when voters wanted to counterbalance President Trump and Villaraigosa was outflanked by Newsom,” Kousser said. “But today, even some Democrats may want to counterbalance the direction that they see Sacramento taking, especially when it comes to cost-of-living issues and the price of gas.”

He added that the fossil-fuel donations may not be the basis for Villaraigosa’s apparent embrace of oil and gas priorities.

“When a politician takes campaign contributions from an industry and also takes positions that favor it, that raises the possibility of corruption, of money influencing votes,” Kousser said. “But it is also possible that it was the politician’s own approach to an issue that attracted the contributions, that their votes attracted money but were not in any way corrupted by it. That may be the case here, where Villaraigosa has held fairly consistent positions on this issue and consistently attracted support from an industry because of those positions.”

Other Democrats in the 2026 governor’s race, including Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former state Controller Betty Yee and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, have signed the pledge not to accept contributions from oil industry interests, Miller said.

Former California Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and businessman Stephen Cloobeck have not. (Cloobeck has never run for office before and has not been asked to sign.)

Other gubernatorial candidates have also accepted fossil-fuel contributions, although in smaller numbers than Villaraigosa, state and federal filings show.

Becerra accepted contributions from Chevron and California Resources Corp., formerly Occidental Petroleum, while running for attorney general. Atkins took donations from Chevron, Occidental and a trade group for oil companies while running for state Assembly and state Senate. And while running for lieutenant governor, Kounalakis took contributions from executives at oil and mining companies.

Campaign representatives for the two main Republican candidates in the race, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, said they welcomed oil-industry donations.

Villaraigosa is a fierce defender of his environmental record dating back to his first years as an elected official in the California Assembly.

As mayor of Los Angeles from 2005 to 2013, Villaraigosa set new goals to reduce emissions at the Port of Los Angeles, end the use of coal-burning power plants and shift the city’s energy generation toward solar, wind and geothermal sources.

The child of a woman who relied on Metro buses, he also branded himself the “transportation mayor.” Villaraigosa was a vocal champion for the 2008 sales tax increase that provided the first funding for the extension of the Wilshire Boulevard subway to the Westside.

But, he said, Democrats in 2025 have to be realistic that the refinery closures and their goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could disproportionately affect low-income residents who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Villaraigosa’s comments underscore a broader divide among Democrats about how to fight climate change without making California even more expensive, or driving out more high-paying jobs that don’t require a college education.

Lorena Gonzalez, a former state lawmaker who became the leader of the California Labor Federation in 2022, said that while climate change is a real threat, so is shutting down refineries.

“That’s a threat to those workers’ jobs and lives, and it’s also a threat to the price of gas,” Gonzalez said.

California is not currently positioned to end its reliance on fossil fuels, she said. If the state reduces its refining capacity, she said, it will have to rely on exports from nations that have less environmental and labor safeguards.

“Anyone running for governor has to acknowledge that,” Gonzalez said.

Villaraigosa said that while the loss of union jobs at Valero’s Bay Area refinery worried him, his primary concern was over the cost of gasoline and household budgets.

His comments come as California prepares to square off yet again against the Trump administration over its environmental policies.

The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to revoke a federal waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle emission standards, including a rule that would have ultimately banned the sale of new gas-fueled cars in 2035. Villaraigosa denounced the vote, but said that efforts to fight climate change can’t come at the expense of working-class Americans.

President Trump has also declared a national energy emergency, calling for increased fossil-fuel production, eliminating environmental reviews and the fast-tracking of projects in potentially sensitive ecosystems and habitats. The Trump administration is also targeting California’s environmental standards.

Villaraigosa, an Eastside native, started his career as a labor organizer and rose to speaker of the state Assembly before becoming the mayor of Los Angeles. Now 72, Villaraigosa has not held elected office for more than a decade; he finished a distant third in the 2018 gubernatorial primary.

Over the years, donors affiliated with the fossil-fuel industry have contributed more than $1 million to Villaraigosa’s political campaigns and his nonprofit causes, including an after-school program, the city’s sports and entertainment commission and an effort to reduce violence by providing programming at city parks during summer nights, according to city and state disclosures.

More than half of the contributions and support for Villaraigosa’s pet causes, over $582,000, came during his years at Los Angeles City Hall as a council member and mayor.

In 2008, billionaire oil and gas magnate T. Boone Pickens donated $150,000 to a city proposition backed by Villaraigosa that levied a new tax on phone and internet use.

Pickens made the donation as his company was vying for business at the port of Los Angeles, which is overseen by mayoral appointees and was seeking to reduce emissions by replacing diesel-powered trucks with vehicles fueled by liquid natural gas.

The rest of the contributions and other financial support flowed to Villaraigosa’s campaign accounts and affiliated committees while he served in the Assembly and during his two gubernatorial runs. These figures do not include donations to independent expenditure committees, since candidates cannot legally be involved in those efforts.

Villaraigosa said that while such voters don’t subscribe to Republicans’ “drill, baby, drill” ethos, he slammed the Democratic Party’s focus on such matters and Trump instead of kitchen-table issues.

“The cost of everything we’re doing is on the backs of the people who work the hardest and who make the least, and that’s why so many of them — even when we were saying Trump is a threat to democracy — they were saying, yeah, but what about my gas prices, grocery prices, the cost of eggs?” he said.

Times staff writer Sandra McDonald in Sacramento contributed to this report.



Source link

Wisconsin judge accused of helping a man dodge immigration agents seeks donations for attorneys

A Wisconsin judge charged with helping a man illegally evade immigration agents is seeking donations to fund her court defense.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan announced Friday that she’s set up a fund to cover the costs of her defense. The fund issued a statement saying that the case against her is an “unprecedented attack on the independent judiciary by the federal government.”

Dugan has hired a group of high-powered lawyers led by former U.S. Atty. Steve Biskupic. She’s looking to tap into anger on the left over the case to help pay them. Dozens of people demonstrated outside Dugan’s arraignment Thursday at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, demanding she be set free and accusing the Trump administration of going too far.

Federal prosecutors allege Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s courtroom on April 18 for a hearing in a domestic violence case when Dugan learned immigration agents were in the courthouse looking to arrest him. According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally returned to the U.S. after he was deported in 2013.

Angry that agents were in the courthouse and calling the situation “absurd,” Dugan led Flores-Ruiz out a back door in her courtroom, according to an FBI affidavit. Agents eventually captured him following a foot chase outside the building.

FBI agents arrested Dugan at the county courthouse on April 25. A grand jury on Tuesday indicted her on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. The charges carry a total maximum sentence of six years in federal prison.

Dugan pleaded not guilty during her arraignment. Her attorneys have filed a motion seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that she was controlling movement in her courtroom in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune from prosecution.

The state Supreme Court suspended Dugan following her arrest. A reserve judge has taken over her cases.

The fund statement said that Dugan plans to resume her work as a judge and they won’t accept contributions that could compromise her judicial integrity. She will accept money only from U.S. citizens but won’t take donations from Milwaukee County residents; attorneys who practice in the county; lobbyists; judges; parties with pending matters before any Milwaukee County judge; and county employees.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Janine Geske will manage the fund.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

Source link