money

WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

American sanctions on the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) have been relieved, generating a flurry of speculations over what is next for the financial sector and the broader economy. After the big news, Delcy Rodríguez announced the resignation of BCV President Laura Guerra on Thursday night. Guerra is the sister of Nicolás Maduro’s first wife, and the aunt of Nicolasito Maduro Guerra.

At least for now, the central bank will be led by Guerra’s former deputy, Luis Pérez-González, a name that is as underwhelming as any of his predecessors. Pérez has been a member of the BCV board since April 2025. Before that, his experience in monetary policy was nil. He was in charge of Carbones del Zulia and of “Monitoring and Control of Eco-mining Development” in Maduro’s Ministry of Mining. You can find him playing Frank Sinatra songs in his spare time.

It doesn’t look like this will be Delcy’s permanent pick.

Before diving into the immediate and medium term effect that recent developments could have, it is worth highlighting what the BCV’s actual purpose is and the spectacular failure that has driven the institution to near irrelevance. 

Ironically, Venezuelan law mandates the BCV to ensure price stability and preserve the value of the currency. We don’t have to go far back to remember the multiple zeros stripped from the bolívar after one of the longest hyperinflationary episodes in modern history, directly contradicting its constitutional mandate. After all, this is a central bank that went years without publishing any data, and when it resumed, it released incomplete figures, forcing economists to reconstruct years of missing information. It is the same BCV that despite its constitutional mandate did not make any counterbalance to the completely irresponsible fiscal policy of the Chávez and Maduro era, shattering any sort of credibility it may have had. 

Nevertheless, reviving the BCV is crucial to the reintegration of the financial sector into the wider Venezuelan economy. In the near term, the effects of sanctions relief will likely be most visible in exchange rate auctions. Greater transparency and reliability in these operations will help reduce the gap between the official and the black market rates. This would directly affect daily life, reducing price distortions and helping stabilize inflation expectations for ordinary Venezuelans. It would also reopen the door to multilateral institutions and international markets, particularly renewed engagement with the International Monetary Fund, which is a necessary step toward debt restructuring and access to credit.

However, there is no on and off switch in terms of trustworthiness, and the BCV is supposed to be in the credibility business.The effectiveness of any central bank relies on its independence from political pressures and ability to communicate a coherent monetary policy, not just on the technical capacity of who runs it. Undermining that independence is what ultimately kills the effectiveness of any policy it may attempt to implement. 

Delcy needs to set up an independent central bank to satisfy the economic discourse, attract investment, and control inflationary pressures. Doing so will require establishing the first institution capable of challenging the administration from within.

This is true everywhere, as hard fought-battles are being waged around the economic world on this matter. From Trump’s challenges to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which unsettled financial markets, to standout regional cases like Peru, where the central bank has been single-handedly supporting the economy despite near-permanente political turmoil. These examples highlight just how crucial central bank independence is to real economic stability.

Restoring trust in the BCV goes beyond who runs it, but the naming of the new president is one of the most crucial decisions that the interim administration of Delcy Rodríguez will have to make. Whoever is chosen will be scrutinized by both ordinary Venezuelans and international investors to gauge the commitment of Rodríguez to carry out the necessary economic reforms. Someone that falls short of being able to implement true independence and restore confidence in the system will just undermine all the political speech of the economy first that is currently being put on display. 

The paradox is that Delcy needs to set up an independent central bank to satisfy the economic discourse, attract investment, and control inflationary pressures. But doing so will require establishing the first institution capable of challenging the administration from within. This is where the political and economic reality clash.

The decision comes with a level of urgency, as patience is starting to run out in an internal political climate that is heating up. Trade unions and pensioners have recently taken to the streets to demand higher wages and benefits. Appointing someone close to the previous administration will increase frustration and complicate the weak equilibrium that Rodríguez has built around the promise to rebuild the economy.  

The interim government is attempting to make itself useful to the American overlords by convincing them that they have the ability and willingness to commit to economic reform. Failure to follow through with an independent BCV board could strain the relationship further and make it even harder to justify. Now that sanctions have been lifted and oil money is flowing through US-backed accounts, it is time for the interim authority to live up to their side of the bargain, as Delcy risks losing the little goodwill her administration has left.  

Attention is now focused on who will be appointed to lead the BCV, and whether that choice signals a genuine shift toward institutional autonomy or a continuation of past policy constraints.

Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.

OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.

Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.

By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.

But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.

If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.

By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.

Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?

Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.

Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.

In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.

(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)

It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.

A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.

When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.

But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.

Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.

To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.

But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.

They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.

For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

A member of Alabama’s 2009 national championship team has been accused of impersonating NFL players as part of a scheme to fraudulently obtain nearly $20 million in loans to purchase real estate, vehicles and jewelry.

Luther Davis, a Crimson Tide defensive lineman from 2007-10, faces felony counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, according to court documents filed last month by the U.S. attorney in the the Northern District of Georgia. An alleged co-conspirator, CJ Evins, also faces the same counts.

The documents mention the initials of three players — X.M, D.N. and M.P. — that were impersonated during the alleged scheme. The Guardian is reporting that those players are Green Bay Packers safety Xavier McKinney, Cleveland Browns tight end David Njoku and Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Penix Jr.

Prosecutors in the court filings said the NFL players were not involved in the alleged scheme.

The documents describe an elaborate hoax in which the defendants allegedly created fake companies and fraudulent email accounts and driver’s licenses to help fool lenders into loaning them huge sums of money.

Davis attended virtual loan-closing meetings wearing wigs, makeup and/or a head covering to disguise himself as players seeking loans, according to court documents.

Both men entered pleas of not guilty at their arraignments but have indicated to the court they will enter guilty pleas at hearings set for April 27, according to court records.

In 45 games over four seasons with Alabama, Davis registered 21 solo tackles, 26 assists and eight tackles for loss. A 2013 Yahoo report alleged that Davis broke NCAA rules by paying five prospective draft picks from the Southeastern Conference as an intermediary for sports agents and financial advisers.

KeyCorp plans to repurchase at least $1.3 billion in shares in 2026, raised from prior guidance of $1.2 billion, and indicated that Basel III revisions could add over 100 basis points to CET1, potentially enabling even more buybacks if market conditions allow.

The Tesla (TSLA) Cybertruck has seen a boost from Elon Musk’s other companies, according to tracking by S&P Global Mobility. Notably, without sales to Elon Musk-led companies, Cybertruck registrations in Q4 would have fallen 51%.

SpaceX (SPACE) accounted for

The benchmark US equity indices surged to new territory entering price discovery, reflecting a market that appears to be looking past immediate geopolitical risks in favour of potential de-escalation and corporate strength.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wednesday the S&P 500 closed 0.8% higher at 7,022 points, up on the day and surpassing its previous peak from January of this year.

The S&P 500 is now 11% higher since it bottomed on 30 March and after it first dropped 9% during last month.

The Nasdaq Composite also posted a record, rising 1.6% to over 24,000 points while the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged 0.15% lower and continues significantly below its all-time high.

The advance comes despite persistent headwinds.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the global oil supply, has been severely disrupted since late February following Iranian actions and a subsequent US naval blockade.

Traffic has dropped sharply, with Iran declaring the strait closed to vessels linked to the US, Israel and their allies.

The US Central Command also confirmed its blockade of Iranian ports took full effect earlier this week, stating that “ten vessels have now been turned around and ZERO ships have broken through since the start of the US blockade on Monday”.

Oil prices, while easing in the last two weeks, remain elevated.

At the time of writing, Brent crude stands at around $96.5 per barrel and WTI at $92.5, still well above pre-war levels and contributing to inflationary concerns.

The International Monetary Fund has responded by lowering its global growth outlook. In its latest World Economic Outlook, released on Monday, the IMF cut the 2026 forecast to 3.1% from 3.3% previously projected, citing energy price spikes and supply disruptions.

Headline inflation is now seen at 4.4% for the year, under a reference scenario assuming a short-lived conflict, with risks of even weaker growth and higher prices if tensions escalate and prolong.

The modest decline in energy prices followed reports that the two-week ceasefire is holding and that fresh talks between the US and Iran could resume soon.

US President Donald Trump also indicated that negotiations for lasting peace might restart by the end of the week.

Investors appear to be pricing in an eventual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a contained negative impact of the war in general.

Speaking to Euronews, Alan McIntosh, chief investment officer of Quilter Cheviot Europe, explained that “although the first round of talks led to no agreement, a likely extension of the ceasefire gives optimism that an early resolution can be reached”.

“Assuming a fairly swift end to hostilities and a resumption of oil shipments, the economic damage to global inflation and growth should be fairly limited,” he added.

Why US indices defy the odds

Analysts point to several factors behind the market resilience.

Hopes of a swift end to hostilities have encouraged risk-taking, while corporate America is showing strength. Bank executives highlighted a strong US consumer and a healthy pipeline for deals and initial public offerings.

Earnings expectations for the first quarter have been revised higher, with S&P 500 companies now forecast to report combined profits of over $605 billion (€513bn), up from earlier estimates.

Tech shares, particularly those linked to AI, provided additional support. The Nasdaq’s outsized gain reflected renewed enthusiasm for growth-oriented stocks even as broader economic projections softened.

McIntosh told Euronews that “the capital spending boost relating to AI shows no sign of slowing down so this continues to support US economic growth. We have just started the US quarterly results season and so far there is limited evidence of a negative impact from the current Middle East conflict”.

The indices also include defence companies that have all performed well with the war in the backdrop pushing governments, in particular the US, to increase military budgets.

History also offers context for the current rebound. In past US-involved wars, equity markets have frequently experienced short-term volatility followed by recovery and gains.

During the 2003 Iraq War, for example, the S&P 500 rose over 25% in the first full year after the invasion began.

The Gulf War of 1990-1991 saw an initial 11% decline in the index, but a strong relief rally followed the swift coalition victory, delivering positive returns in the subsequent year.

Similar patterns emerged in the Korean War and Vietnam War eras, where stocks posted solid long-term advances despite prolonged uncertainty.

Data compiled by the Royal Bank of Canada and other sources indicate that, across multiple conflicts, equities rose in the first year of hostilities around 60% of the time.

Markets have tended to focus on eventual outcomes rather than immediate shocks, rewarding resolution and economic adaptability. The latest record for the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq underscore this enduring pattern.

While risks remain if the Iran conflict worsens, investors are currently betting that diplomacy and corporate fundamentals will prevail.

The votes are in, and it’s bad news for John McCain. Barack Obama has a big lead in the sale of campaign buttons and other election paraphernalia, outselling McCain 3 to 1 on one memorabilia website.

An Obama victory could make some of those pieces more valuable, experts say, given the historic nature of his candidacy. A button from the launch of Obama’s presidential campaign sold for $150 in August at the American Political Items Collectors National Convention.

If you think there’s no redeeming value to the interminable exercise known as the American presidential campaign, you are not a collector. The stock market may have tanked, but the longest presidential season in U.S. history has stimulated a different kind of investment opportunity.

“This year more than any other, people are collecting political memorabilia,” says Adam Gottlieb, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission and a presidential-item junkie whose extensive Teddy Roosevelt collection is on exhibit through the end of the year at the California Historical Society in San Francisco. “People are yearning for nostalgia, something meaningful in their lives.”

On Monday, the PBS series “Antiques Roadshow” gets into the act with “Politically Collect,” a program that pulls back the appraisal curtain on presidential artifacts worth considerably more than the paper or tin on which they’re printed — up to $75,000, for instance, for a photograph of Lyndon B. Johnson taking the oath of office after President Kennedy was shot in 1963.

“Political items have really gone up in price,” says Jeffery Daar, an attorney and Democratic Party activist whose Northridge home overflows with buttons and other memorabilia from the last 40 years of electioneering.

Presidential paraphernalia has long been the domain of hard-core political fans such as Daar, who live to unearth an obscure invitation or rare tchotchke. But in the last decade, the field has also become a place to make a tidy profit. A 1920 button of Democratic presidential candidate James Cox and his running mate, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, can sell for as much as $30,000. Last month, a signed photo of John F. Kennedy was going for $4,200 on Politics-Now.com. EBay and political memorabilia auction sites have made it possible for anyone to click their way into the game.

The collecting impulse is driven by something the afflicted say you can’t get from stamps or Cabbage Patch stockpiles.

“It’s not just a button, but an item in a political campaign. It’s a piece of living history,” says Daar, former head of the Democratic Party in the San Fernando Valley and a longtime delegate to his party’s conventions, where he scoops up all the mementos he can.

“Every collector of political memorabilia is also a frustrated historian,” says Steve Ferber, who sells mementos of presidents and hopefuls with his wife, Lori, through LoriFerber.com.

Tom Morton, a Los Angeles accountant specializing in pre-1930s items, recently landed clay smoking pipes puffed by Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce.

“It’s one thing to read about it in a history book,” he says. “It’s quite another to hold it in your hands.”

But not all candidates inspire collectors to reach out and acquire. Tom French, a leading dealer and owner of Politicalheritage.com in Santa Cruz, says it’s hard to give away a Nixon button. It’s also tough unloading Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole and George W. Bush fare.

Not surprisingly, the most in-demand figures tend to be the most charismatic and popular presidents — Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, Ronald Reagan. Harry Truman also vaults into the ranks of the most valuable because scant artifacts were produced for the candidate who was a long shot to win in 1948.

Scarcity, popularity and age are major factors in the pricing of political memorabilia. An abundance of items were produced for 1940 Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie, including some fabulous Wilkie nylons ($40) and buttons that said, “No Man Is Good Three Times,” all to no avail against the popular FDR. So many Wilkie items are in circulation, they’re cheap — not like the Cox-FDR button, valued at $30,000 because only a few dozen are known to exist. Some scarce Truman items can run about $10,000.

For collectors, a crucial consideration is whether the material was produced by the campaign. Daar says 95% of the buttons and T-shirts available for sale in the current cycle were made by outside vendors and won’t be worth much. Look for official items created by the Obama and McCain campaigns and materials with specific dates and events attached to them, such as an Obama button from the rural caucus, something Daar likes for future value.

Collectors recommend buying things you like — favorite candidates or graphics that catch your eye. And if you want to buy for investment, do the research to make sure the item is authentic. You can get help by joining American Political Items Collectors ($28 a year, www.apic.us), a national organization founded in 1945 that sponsors dozens of button meets every year and authenticates artifacts.

Avid collectors, however, are drawn to the outsized characters who seek the highest office in the land and the creative wiles used to get them there.

“There’s got to be something behind the item — the personality, the election, the historical context, or you might as well be collecting nails,” says Neal Machander, an Orange County collector and past president of American Political Items Collectors.

The exploits of rough-riding, big-game-hunting Teddy Roosevelt have captivated Gottlieb since he was in grade school. “It’s like he lived six lives,” Gottlieb says.

His collection contains mementos of Roosevelt’s whistle stop in Los Angeles on his trip through California in 1903. When it comes to straight talk, it’s hard to top this line from a Roosevelt button in 1912: “If You’re Against Me, You’re a Crook.”

The sedate catch phrases of modern elections are as exciting as a phone book next to the raucous sloganeering of the early 20th century. Take, for instance, the 1928 rallying cry on an anti-prohibition button: “Vote for Al Smith and Make All Your Wet Dreams Come True.” Last year, it sold at auction for $9,560.

“Collectors really eat up the hoopla,” says French, who adds that he’d kill on “Jeopardy” in the VP category. “It’s an important representation of what democracy and politics are all about. We’re just in awe of the office.”

—

home@latimes.com