fundraising

MINNEAPOLIS — Ken Martin is in the fight of his life.

The low-profile political operative from Minnesota, just six months on the job as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is charged with leading his party’s formal resistance to President Trump and fixing the Democratic brand.

“I think the greatest divide right now in our party, frankly, is not ideological,” Martin told The Associated Press. “The greatest divide is those people who are standing up and fighting and those who are sitting on the sidelines.”

“We’re using every single lever of power we have to take the fight to Donald Trump,” he said of the DNC.

And yet, as hundreds of Democratic officials gather in Martin’s Minneapolis hometown on Monday for the first official DNC meeting since he became chair, there is evidence that Martin’s fight may extend well beyond the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Big Democratic donors are unhappy with the direction of their own party and not writing checks. Political factions are fragmented over issues such as the Israel-Hamas war. The party’s message is murky. Key segments of the Democratic base — working-class voters and young people, among them — have drifted away.

And there is deep frustration that the Democratic Party under Martin’s leadership is not doing enough to stop the Republican president — no matter how tough his rhetoric may be.

“There are no magic fixes,” said Jeanna Repass, the chair of the Kansas Democratic Party, who praised Martin’s performance so far. “He is trying to lead at a time where everyone wants it to be fixed right now. And it’s just not going to happen.”

At this week’s three-day summer meeting, DNC officials hope to make real progress in reversing the sense of pessimism and frustration that has consumed Democrats since Republicans seized the White House and control of Congress last fall.

It may not be so easy.

Confidence questions and money trouble

At least a couple of DNC members privately considered bringing a vote of no confidence against Martin this week in part because of the committee’s underwhelming fundraising, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation who was granted anonymity to share internal discussions. Ultimately, the no confidence vote will not move forward because Martin’s critics couldn’t get sufficient support from the party’s broader membership, which includes more than 400 elected officials from every state and several territories.

Still, the committee’s financial situation is weak compared with the opposition’s.

The most recent federal filings reveal that the DNC has $14 million in the bank at the end of July compared with the Republican National Committee’s $84 million. The Democrats’ figure represents its lowest level of cash on hand in at least the last five years.

Martin and his allies, including his predecessor Jaime Harrison, insist it’s not fair to compare the party’s current financial health with recent years, when Democratic President Joe Biden was in the White House.

Harrison pointed to 2017 as a more accurate comparison. That year, the committee struggled to raise money in the months after losing to Trump the first time. And in the 2018 midterm elections that followed, Harrison noted, Democrats overcame their fundraising problems and won the House majority and several Senate seats.

“These are just the normal pains of being a Democrat when we don’t have the White House,” Harrison said. “Ken is finding his footing.”

Martin acknowledged that big donors are burnt out after the last election, which has forced the committee to turn to smaller-dollar donors, who have responded well.

“Money will not be the ultimate determinant in this (midterm) election,” Martin said. “We’ve been making investments, record investments, in our state parties. … We have the money to operate. We’re not in a bad position.”

Gaza debate could get ugly

While Martin is broadly popular among the DNC’s rank and file, internal divisions may flare publicly this week when the committee considers competing resolutions about the Israel-Hamas war.

One proposed resolution would have the DNC encourage Democratic members of Congress to suspend military aid to Israel, establish an arms embargo and recognize Palestine as a country, according to draft language reviewed by the AP. The measure also states that the crisis in Gaza has resulted in the loss of over 60,000 lives and the displacement of 1.7 million Palestinians “at the hands of the Israeli government.”

The DNC leadership, led by Martin, introduced a competing resolution that adds more context about Israel’s challenges.

One line, for example, refers to “the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis” and notes the number of Israelis killed in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Martin’s version calls for a two-state solution, but there is no reference to the number of Palestinians killed or displaced, nor is there a call for an end to military aid or an arms embargo.

Meanwhile, another proposed resolution would reaffirm the DNC’s commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Many Democrats, businesses and educational institutions have distanced themselves from DEI programs after Trump and other Republicans attacked them as Democrats’ “woke” policies.

Ultimately, Martin said the party needs to focus its message on the economy.

“There’s no doubt we have to get back to a message that resonates with voters,” he said. “And focusing on an economic agenda is the thing that brings all parts of our coalition and Americans into the conversation.”

“We have work to do for sure,” he added.

Presidential prospects on the agenda

The DNC is years away from deciding which states vote first on the 2028 presidential primary calendar, but that discussion will begin in earnest at the Minneapolis gathering, where at least three presidential prospects will be featured speakers: Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Martin said the DNC is open to changes from the 2024 calendar, which kicked off in South Carolina, while pushing back traditional openers Iowa and New Hampshire. In recent days, Iowa Democrats have publicly threatened to go rogue and ignore the wishes of the DNC if they are skipped over again in 2028.

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws committee this week is expected to outline what the next calendar selection process would look like, although the calendar itself likely won’t be completed until 2027.

“We’re going to make sure that the process is open, that any state that wants to make a bid to be in the early window can do so,” Martin said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

For months, candidates in the race to become California’s next governor had waited for a pivotal question to be settled: Will former Vice President Kamala Harris run or not?

With Harris’ announcement this week that she’s out, a new question arose: Who’s the front-runner now?

Because of Harris’ star power, the answer is far from simple. For months, other candidates saw their campaign planning and fundraising undercut by the possibility she would run, meaning the race got a big reset seconds after Harris made her announcement Wednesday.

Some political observers give the nod to former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, who appears to have a small leg up over her opponents.

Porter was the only Democrat to receive double-digit support in multiple polls when Harris was not included in the field.

A prodigious fundraiser while she was in Congress representing an Orange County district, Porter reported a strong infusion of cash in the months after launching her campaign in March, and said she raised $250,000 in the 36 hours after Harris’ announcement.

Katie Porter, a lawyer who served as a U.S. representative from California from 2019 to 2025, speaks at the Women’s Caucus at the California Democratic Party Convention at the Anaheim Hilton and Convention Center in May.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“The enthusiasm we’re seeing from donors at every level shows that Californians know how critical this race is,” Porter said in an email blast.

Other candidates — including Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration and a former California attorney general — have also tried to assert that, with Harris out, they are moving up.

“BECERRA CAMPAIGN BUILDING MOMENTUM IN ‘WIDE OPEN’ RACE,” read the subject line of an email sent Friday by the Becerra campaign, saying he is “well-positioned to unite a broad swath of voters around his plans to make health care and housing less expensive and more accessible.”

Xavier Becerra, attorney and former United States secretary of Health and Human Services, speaks at the labor caucus at the California Democratic Party Convention at the Anaheim Hilton and Convention Center in May.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Outside observers, however, said that none of the candidates really stand out from the pack at the moment.

“That these remaining candidates are jockeying for bragging rights about who may be the front-runner — it’s to be expected, but it’s ludicrous,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist who has worked on a number of past gubernatorial campaigns, including for former Gov. Gray Davis.

“With Harris opting out, there will likely be no obvious front-runner among the remainder of the current field for quite some time,” South said. “None of these candidates start out with statewide name recognition.”

With such a wide-open field, factors such as endorsements and communication strategies will be important to watch, experts said. So will the candidates’ ability to raise money and use it to broaden their appeal.

“I would start spending money on social media, on television advertising, on every single platform I could find to build up my name ID,” South said, but “none of them have enough money to do that at the moment.”

Experience and endorsements

With Harris out, will she back someone else?

“Obviously if she did endorse, that would be a big plus” for whichever candidate she rallied behind, said John Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Harris has long relationships with several of the candidates in the race. A source familiar with her thinking told The Times after Harris bowed out that she was still considering whether and how to approach the governor’s race.

Other endorsements could affect the race as well. Hours after Harris announced her decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the influential former House Speaker, appeared on CNN to endorse Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, whom she has known for years.

“We have many great candidates, one in particular Eleni Tsakopoulos, whom I support,” Pelosi said, referring to Kounalakis by her maiden name.

Eleni Kounalakis, lieutenant governor of California, speaks at the Women’s Caucus at the California Democratic Party Convention at the Anaheim Hilton and Convention Center in May.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Kounalakis’ father, the wealthy developer Angelo Tsakopoulos, helped bankroll an independent expenditure committee supporting his daughter’s 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor. Political observers are watching to see if he dumps money into a similar effort backing her gubernatorial campaign.

Pitney said Pelosi’s opinion “would carry a lot more weight” if she were still speaker. He said it “isn’t necessarily going to sway a large chunk of the electorate,” but could be important if it sways Bay Area donors.

A former GOP legislative aide and national party staffer who renounced his membership in the Republican Party the night Trump was elected in 2016, Pitney said that endorsements are far from a determining factor in today’s political landscape.

“I hesitate to rule anybody out, because very often candidates seem to come out of nowhere — like Mamdani in New York City,” he said, referring to the sudden rise and stunning upset primary win of 33-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York mayoral race.

Pitney added that experience in government and administrative leadership also matters, but could also cut against candidates at a time when many voters are frustrated and want something new.

Antonio Villaraigosa speaks to the Latino Caucus at the Calififornia Democratic Convention at the Anaheim Convention Center in May..

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

For example, Antonio Villaraigosa, the former state Assembly speaker and L.A. mayor who is in his 70s, “obviously has a long history, but that long history is both an advantage and a disadvantage,” Pitney said.

Villaraigosa has said his campaign is “about the future.” But voters “may not regard him as a fresh face,” Pitney said.

Name recognition and money

None of the current candidates for governor have the same profile as Harris. In fact, they are broadly unknown to huge swaths of the electorate.

That means they have their work cut out for them, Pitney and South said — namely in terms of fundraising.

South said that there “is no question that the Democratic donor base has basically been sitting on their haunches waiting to see what Harris is going to do.”

But, he said, he hasn’t seen any sign yet that donors have picked a favorite candidate now that she’s out, either — which is a problem for candidates with little or no name recognition.

“None of these candidates in the remaining field with Harris out have enough money in the bank to run a statewide campaign for governor,” he said.

South said that could change if Kounalakis gets another major infusion of cash from her father and once again taps her personal wealth.

At the same time, there could also be a “huge blowback” from that sort of splashy family spending, South said, especially if Kounalakis’ opponents pounced on it as distasteful.

“We have not tended in this state to elect moneyed people who try to buy the governor’s race,” he said.

South said he is watching to see if big Bay Area donors decide to back Porter “because of her profile as a progressive.”

Los Angeles developer and 2022 mayoral candidate Rick Caruso “could be a force” if he were to enter the race, Pitney said, because “he has prominence in Southern California and also has a lot of money.”

Fundraising reports

The most recent fundraising reports, which were due Thursday night, shine a light on candidates’ coffers — but only through the end of June, well before Harris dropped out.

The Democrats who do not have the potential to self-fund their campaigns reported having millions of dollars in cash on hand as of June 30, including some who transferred money from prior campaign committees to their gubernatorial accounts.

Former legislative leader Toni Atkins reported having $4.3 million in the campaign, while raising $648,000 and spending $549,000 in the first six months of this year.

Gubernatorial candidate Toni Atkins speaks to supporters at the California Democratic Convention at the Anaheim Convention Center in May.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

Villaraigosa raised $1.1 million and spent $550,000 this year, but reported $3.3 million cash on hand based on fundraising he did last year.

Becerra had $2.1 million in the bank after raising $2.5 million and spending $449,000 in the first six months of the year.

Porter reported raising $2.5 million and spending $449,000 since launching her campaign in March. She said she has $2.1 million in the bank.

Unlike the other candidates, Porter’s campaign revealed her fundraising because her filing on the state disclosure website didn’t show any dollar figures.

Spokesman Nathan Click said her number of small-dollar donors crashed the state’s system, and that they had been working with state officials to get the documents displayed on the secretary of state’s website all day Friday. He said most of Porter’s 34,000 donors contributed less than $200 each.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco reported raising $1.6 million and spending $609,000 this year, leaving him with $1 million in the bank.

A few candidates reported mediocre fundraising numbers, but have personal wealth they can draw on.

Kounalakis raised just over $100,000 and spent nearly three times as much during the first half of this year. She has more than $4.6 million on hand and millions more in her lieutenant governor campaign account, although some of that money can’t be transferred because of campaign finance rules.

Businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, a Los Angeles Democrat, raised about $160,000 and spent $1.5 million — including more than $1 million on consultants. He had about $729,000 on hand at the end of the period. He also said he made a $10-million contribution Friday that he said “turbocharged” his campaign.

Philanthropist and businessman Stephen Cloobeck, right, takes a photo with a supporter after speaking about his candidacy for California governor during the labor caucus at the California Democratic Party Convention at the Anaheim Hilton and Convention Center in May.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“One of my many advantages is that I’m not a politician and I am not compromised,” Cloobeck said.

Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate, raised about $1.5 million, of which $200,000 was a personal loan. Hilton spent about $1 million and has a little less than $800,000 in the bank.

At the lowest end of the fundraising were former state controller Betty Yee, who raised almost $238,000 and spent $255,000, with $637,000 on hand; and state schools superintendent Tony Thurmond, who raised about $70,000, spent about $180,000 and had almost $560,000 on hand.

Both Yee and Thurmond told The Times last month that fundraising had slowed while Democratic donors waited on Harris to make a decision.

In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.

By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.

Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.

At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements and exhibit construction.

The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.

The elephant exhibit is empty after the last two Asian elephants, Billy and Tina, were transferred to the Tulsa Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.

The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.

U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.

A sign designating a closed exhibit is posted in an animal enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.

“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.

GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.

The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.

Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.

Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.

Devin Donahue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”

A flamingo basks in water at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.

Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.

“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”

The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.

“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”

Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.

GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.

“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.

In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.

By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.

GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.

A giraffe watches as people pass by its enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.

Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.

“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.

GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.

Los Angeles Zoo Director Denise Verret stands in front of an area of the zoo slated for redevelopment. The 20-acre expansion would include a new hilltop Yosemite lodge-style California Visitor Center with sweeping views of a 25,000- square-foot vineyard.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.

The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.

Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.

In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.

“With the new structure and … new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.

As for fundraising, she was less clear.

“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.

On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.

Donahue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.

As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.

“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”

Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.

The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.

About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.

Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.

“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”

Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.

The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.

But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.

“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.

“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats in Virginia have built up a hefty fundraising advantage for their effort to reclaim the governor’s mansion in a November election that is seen as a bellwether for the party in power in Washington ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA case manager turned congresswoman, has a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage over her GOP opponent for governor, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who has struggled to draw support from her fellow Republicans. Both were unopposed for their party’s nominations and were able to focus on the fall general election without having to overcome a challenge in this week’s primaries. The match-up means Virginia is all but certain to elect the state’s first female governor.

Spanberger has amassed $6.5 million toward her campaign for governor over the last two months after raising $6.7 million between January and March, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Combined with the money Spanberger raised in 2024, she has gathered $22.8 million and still has $14.3 million in her coffers.

Earle-Sears, meanwhile, spent more than she earned between April and June, bringing in $3.5 million and spending $4.6 million. Between January and March, she also raised a little over $3.1 million. In total, she has raked in nearly $9.2 million since launching her campaign last September. Now, she has a little under $3 million in the bank, according to Virginia Public Access Project data.

In a statement, Earle-Sears’ campaign said the candidate is putting forward a message for Virginians that money can’t buy.

“Clearly the Spanberger campaign needs a lot of help attempting to erase Abigail’s bad voting record on issues that actually matter to Virginians,” press secretary Peyton Vogel said in an email. “This race isn’t being bought — it’s being built on a message that matters.”

Virginia is one of two states, along with New Jersey, that host statewide elections this year. The contests will be closely watched as a measure of whether voters in the shadow of Washington will embrace President Trump’s aggressive effort to overhaul the federal government, or be repelled by it.

Democrats’ outsized fundraising lead ahead of the primaries may reflect local Democratic enthusiasm and the party’s ability to push people to the polls in light of Trump being in office. Mark J. Rozell, dean of George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government, also referenced the noticeable frostiness among leading state Republicans. The party’s statewide nominees have yet to campaign together, despite securing their nominations at the end of April.

“Enthusiasm drives fundraising and in Virginia right now the Democrats’ voting base has much greater enthusiasm“ than Republicans, Rozell said. ”It is reminiscent of Trump’s first term in office when Democratic fundraising and ultimately voting overwhelmed the Republicans in Virginia.”

Money does not guarantee success, however. In the last Virginia governor’s race, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe outspent Republican Glenn Youngkin, who had invested $20 million of his own money in the race. Youngkin still clinched the election by nearly two points.

Youngkin, who is term-limited from seeking reelection, has offered more than $21,000 in support to Earle-Sears through his political action committee.

When asked whether he would donate more, his PAC responded, “Governor Youngkin is working to elect the entire GOP ticket and is urging all Virginians to support the commonsense team this November to keep Virginia winning.”

The Democrats’ fundraising advantage isn’t confined to the governor’s race.

State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, who eked out a primary win in a close three-way contest for lieutenant governor, raised nearly $1.8 million in her primary race and has $462,000 remaining.

The Republican nominee, conservative talk-radio host John Reid, raised nearly $312,000 since launching his campaign and has $116,000 remaining.

The only statewide GOP candidate with a fundraising lead, incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares, has $2.3 million in the bank after raising a total of $4.6 million. His Democratic opponent, Jay Jones, has raised $2.7 million. He had about $493,000 left at the beginning of June, reports show.

This year, all three Democratic statewide candidates are backed by Clean Virginia, a political group that pushes for clean energy and often takes on legislative challenges against Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility.

The two groups are some of the most influential entities lobbying on state politics and policy. With energy demand likely to be a key issue in November, their influence could be significant.

According to the nonpartisan public-access group, Spanberger has taken in $465,000 from the environmental organization. On Tuesday, Clean Virginia endorsed Hashmi’s candidacy for lieutenant governor, following its previous donations to her state Senate campaign committee.

During his campaign, Jones also received $1.5 million from Clean Virginia, while his primary opponent, Democrat Shannon Taylor, accepted $800,000 from Dominion Energy between 2024 and 2025. Clean Virginia released attack ads targeting Taylor for accepting Dominion money.

The energy utility has become entangled in other statewide battles. On the Republican ticket, Earle-Sears accepted $50,000 from Dominion in March. Miyares also gained $450,000 from the utility so far this year.

Clean Virginia has donated to both Democrats and Republicans, including to candidates running for the House of Delegates, where all 100 members are up for reelection in November.

Democrats who control the legislature are hoping to keep or expand their thin majority and amend the state’s Constitution to protect rights to voting, marriage equality and abortion.

Democratic candidates have raised about $16.9 million in those races, with $3.2 million stemming from House Speaker Don Scott.

Meanwhile, Republicans have raised $8.8 million, with former Minority Leader Todd Gilbert earning over $643,000, and newly tapped Minority Leader Terry Kilgore raising nearly $470,000.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — 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.