Everyone has a price.

Manage newsletters

View in browser

With Roger Sollenberger, Political Reporter

Pay Dirt is a weekly foray into the pigpen of political funding. Subscribehere to get it in your inbox every Thursday.

 

The Big Dig this week… George Santos’ New Campaign Finance Report Somehow Prompts Even More New Questions

The top line seems simple enough: more than $28,000 raised, about $43,000 spent, and $28,000 or so cash on hand. But an autopsy of George Santos’ latest campaign finance filing reveals what experts are calling “a colossal mess” and a “chaotic state of affairs.”

 

Read on for the slice-and-dice—or scroll down to Roger’s Notebook to see a bumper crop of information and bizarre findings I’ve pulled from year-end reports across all candidates and committees.

“A colossal mess”

 

Mysterious FedEx overnights from Nashville, Tennessee. Lavish meals in Palm Beach and Washington, D.C. Contributions from people tied to his corporate clients (one of them far above the legal limit). A curiously pricey hotel stay in Memphis. And more than $100,000 in debt, now vanished. All provided in a filing from a spanking new treasurer with apparently no federal experience, and who still hasn’t registered with the Federal Election Commission.

 

The campaign’s year-end report, which was submitted on Tuesday, also bridges a period of cataclysmic change for Santos—from November 29 to December 31, when he fell from triumphant young conservative outsider to a disgraced liar, late-night comedy punching bag, and subject of multiple criminal investigations.

 

Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, called the filing “a colossal mess,” and Brendan Fischer, campaign finance law expert and deputy executive director of watchdog group Documented, described it as “weird” and “another baffling set of reporting oddities from the Santos campaign.”

 

Who’s the new guy?

 

It starts with the mysterious new treasurer name, “Andrew Olson,” who replaced Santos’ old campaign accountant, professional treasurer Nancy Marks, after a week of what passes for high drama in the typically mundane world of campaign finance.

 

Where Marks has handled the books for dozens of committees, including former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), Olson appears to be a newbie. His name does not appear tied to any other committees in the FEC database, and campaign filings have still not officially named him treasurer.

 

Notably, Olson’s name wasn’t on any of the year-end reports filed by Santos’ many other political committees that same day. Those were still signed by Marks, even though she had already resigned.

 

Lawyering up

 

A person with direct knowledge of the situation told The Daily Beast that Marks has lawyered up. Her attorney has not replied to requests for comment.

 

“The treasurer situation is still in flux,” Ghosh noted. “We have this guy Andrew Olson—whoever that is—signing the report as treasurer, but he apparently hasn’t yet filed a Form 1, a statement that lists him as a treasurer. For the time being, we can assume that’s forthcoming.”

 

I’m not just the president—I’m also a client

 

Ghosh, whose organization targeted a number of serious apparent violations in an FEC complaint against Santos last month, observed many signs of inexperience.

 

“Obviously, one sign of a very inexperienced treasurer is the $10,000 contribution from Michael Hastava,” Ghosh said, pointing out that the treasurer should have quickly recognized the amount as being thousands of dollars over the legal max and taken steps to reallocate or explain the contribution.

 

Hastava, who apparently made the contribution the day after Santos first publicly admitted to some of his lies, lists his employer as the Hastava-Whitmore Group, a New York-area insurance broker. That group recently merged with Acrisure, the national insurance behemoth which Santos previously told The Daily Beast that despite his inability to spell the conglomerate’s name, was nonetheless a client of his enigmatic “capital introduction” company, the Devolder Organization. That Daily Beast report also identified another big Santos donor, the Whitmore Group’s James Metzger, as tied to Acrisure.

 

“The fact that it’s linked to one of his clients makes it a little more interesting, doesn’t it? Though there’s nothing explicitly wrong or improper with a client donating to support a business partner’s candidacy,” Ghosh said.

 

In fact, three of the six individual donors listed on the filing are tied to clients.

 

Another Acrisure partner, Mineola-based insurer Robert Mangi—a major Santos booster—contributed $2,900 on Dec. 18. Still another Santos client, Mayra Ruiz of Miami, Florida, donated $2,900 that day, though the filing didn’t list her employer or occupation despite the campaign’s “best efforts.” But the campaign canceled out most of that donation with a staggering $1,700 meal expense that same day, at Palm Beach Italian restaurant Bice, described online as an “Upscale mini-chain Italian eatery in an elegant ladies-who-lunch setting with a courtyard.”

 

Last meal

 

If Santos enjoyed the meal, it would be one of his last before the clouds descended—at least publicly. The next day, The New York Times dropped the bombshell report that revealed he fabricated key facts about his life, in the process raising serious questions about the source of millions of dollars he claimed to have earned through the Devolder Organization.

 

The campaign filing also reveals a gift from a reluctant political ally, who after that report has once again distanced themselves from the embattled congressman. That would be a $5,000 contribution from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a hybrid PAC aligned with House GOP officials.

 

Last month, CNN reported that CLF’s president, Dan Conston, was reportedly one of a handful of Republicans who had expressed concerns to donors about Santos ahead of the revelations. The CLF, which hadn’t previously given Santos any money, earmarked the gift, from Nov. 29, “for debt retirement.”

 

A CLF spokesperson didn’t reply to a request for comment.

 

About that debt…

 

It appears that more than $100,000 in debt has vanished from the campaign’s ledgers, perhaps in error. In a prior report filed late last year, the Santos campaign disclosed owing about $113,000 to a handful of people and entities, mostly in the form of bonuses to consultants and campaign staff.

 

Notably, the Santos campaign currently reports only $28,115.92 in the bank—nowhere near enough money to cover its debts.

 

But when Nany Marks filed an amended version of that report last week, those debts vanished. The report did not include language about forgiveness or any matching payments that would have canceled the debts, and neither does the new filing.

 

Perhaps a bottle of rosé instead

 

However, the new filing does include an $8,000 payment to Santos’ favorite Italian restaurant, Il Bacco, as “payment towards outstanding debt.” But the filing does not itemize the debt it is partially paying down. (The campaign had previously said it owed Il Bacco $18,773.54 for an “election night event.”)

 

“Again, that’s just terrible accounting and reporting, to simply lose track of debt like that,” Ghosh said. “If it’s a payment for outstanding debt, that makes sense, but it’s for Il Bacco and Santos is cozy with the owners there. That’s more of an optics thing, but the unreported debt is a problem. That’s further indication that this person really doesn’t know what they’re doing and unfortunately in some ways is making the terrible reporting done by Marks much worse.”

 

Whistlin’ Dixie

 

The filing shows that over the last month of the year, the Santos operation dropped large sums of donor money on airfare, steakhouse dining, Ubers, and hotels. The spending included about $5,000 for two stays at the Intercontinental Hotel in southwest D.C., and a $645 payment on Dec. 10 to the Hilton Memphis, far from Santos’ Long Island realm.

 

About a week before racking up the Hilton expense, someone used the campaign account over the course of two days to blast out a flurry of “overnight envelopes” from a FedEx station in Nashville, about 200 miles to the east. The numerous expenses were consistent, in amounts of $33.85 and $45.30.

 

Fischer, of Documented, told The Daily Beast that the Tennessee expenses, while not improper on their face, merited scrutiny.

 

“From a legal perspective, campaign funds may only be used to support a candidate’s run for office or official duties. It would be illegal to pay for a personal trip with campaign funds,” Fischer said.

 

Fischer acknowledged that candidates and staffers often travel to raise money, but he said that wouldn’t seem a neat fit in this case. Santos raised little money in the final months of 2022, and none of it came from Tennessee, whose residents contributed less than $10,000 combined to the Santos campaign.

 

“My understanding is that the period after a new officeholder is elected is a bit of a whirlwind,” Fischer said, pointing to new member orientations, networking in Washington, and “the daunting task of hiring staff and building out your offices both in D.C. and your own district.”

 

“While all of this is going on, it seems exceptionally weird to take an extended trip hundreds of miles outside of your district,” he said. “It is hard to see how that travel pertains to your campaign or officeholder duties,” he added, noting that the personal use ban also applies to improper staffer expenses.

 

Gag order

 

Personal use violations are among the allegations in the CLC’s complaint to the FEC. But last week, The Washington Post reported that the DOJ has asked the FEC to stand down, which The Daily Beast can now confirm.

 

“Under normal circumstances, these kinds of reporting issues would trigger a notice from FEC analysts,” Fischer said. “But these may not be normal circumstances. If the DOJ is investigating, then the FEC might not send one.”

 

—Sam Brodey contributed to this report.

 

Advertisement

 

From Roger’s Notebook...

2024 by the numbers. Here’s where the party committees stand heading into the 2024 cycle.

 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: $3.1 million in, $13 million out, $18 million debt, $16.2 million cash on hand

National Republican Congressional Committee: $2.2 million in, $7.3 million out, $15 million debt, $16.4 million cash on hand

 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: $9.8 million in, $14.9 million out, $20 million debt, $8.5 million cash on hand 

National Republican Senatorial Committee: $3.3 million in, $5.7 million out, $20 million in debt, $8.1 million cash on hand 

 

Democratic National Committee: $8.9 million in, $13.2 million out, $419,000 debt, $30.5 million cash on hand

Republican National Committee: $7.3 million in, $10.3 million out, no debt, $14.3 million cash on hand

 

Senate battle map. Prolific fundraiser Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) raised about $808,000, heading into 2023 with about $8.2 million in the bank. That’s quite a chunk of change, allowing her to easily afford more than $100,000 in payments related to a “campaign vehicle for security detail.”

 

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) raised only about $30,000 in the final quarter of the year, leaving him with $1 million cash on hand—not a lot of money, but certainly the kind of numbers to fuel speculation that he may retire instead of seeking re-election. Same applies to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA.), who only pulled in $558.

 

Topping the Senate charts for the GOP was Rick Scott (R-FL), who hauled $3.4 million that quarter, with Jacky Rosen (D-NV) leading the Dems with $1.5 million. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took in a cool $1.2 million, though it’s still unclear exactly where he plans to aim his 2024 ambitions. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has the biggest wallet overall, at $9.7 million. (These numbers were first brought to you by Politico.)

 

Going up. Those cash stacks might see a significant boost as the 2024 election approaches, fueled in part by the FEC’s decision on Thursday to adjust contribution limits upward for inflation. Individual donors can now give candidates an additional $400 per election—$3,300 per person per candidate per election (previously $2,900), coming out to a total $6,600 limit for the general and primary combined.

 

As Issue One’s Michael Beckel pointed out, the new math also means that an individual wanting to “max out” to the party of their choice can now give nearly $2 million for 2024—$991,200 a year.

 

Boebert oversight. When Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) was dinged for improperly using campaign funds to pay for personal rent and utilities via the online payment app Venmo, her treasurer had said those payments were made “in error.” Well, it happened again. Boebert’s latest campaign finance report shows two “banking error” items credited back to Venmo on Dec. 12, in the amounts of $111.84 and $267.69, cited as “deduction from wrong account.” About a month after that apparent oversight, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy seated Boebert on the Oversight Committee.

 

MoneyGraham. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) racked up a whopping $270,000 in legal fees last quarter, in connection with his subpoena and testimony in the Fulton County special grand jury inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. But Graham’s GOP Senate colleagues covered at least $60,000 of it, in contributions to his legal fund: $10,000 donations from leadership PACs belonging to Johns Booozman (AR), Hoeven (ND), and Barrasso (WY); $5,000 each from North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer and Iowa’s Chuck Grassley; and two more $10,000 gifts from the Potato State’s Mike Crapo and former Sen. Richard Shelby of Arkansas.

 

On the House side, Republican Scott Perry shelled out about $73,000 in legal costs. In October, Perry, who has been at the center of Jan. 6-related inquiries, dropped without explanation his lawsuit that sought to block the FBI from cell phone. He now has unanimous backing in the matter from the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

 

First thing we do… The RNC previously said they would stop footing Trump’s personal legal fees if he declared his candidacy for 2024, and their year-end report suggests that they have kept their word. Trump’s Save America leadership PAC, meanwhile, spent $16 million on the year in legal costs, with its latest report showing a standout $900,000 payment to McGuireWoods.


Strapped. Trump’s 2024 campaign appears “strapped for cash.” His campaign and joint fundraising vehicle collected only about $9.5 million combined during the last six weeks of the year NBC News first reported. We saw this coming from the jump.

 

More From The Beast’s Politics Desk

Walker, Warnock

After the FBI found classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the chairmen of Congress’s Intelligence Committees wanted a national security damage assessment. The assessment never happened. Jose Paglieri and Sam Brodey found out that party politics is to blame.

 

I spoke with tax experts who told me that Trump’s returns reveal he left office with far less liquidity than he presented—and that could explain a lot of his behavior. Check out the exclusive report here.

 

Mike Lindell—or as Chris Hayes calls him, “Mike Pillow”—swore he’d be elected the next RNC chair. As Jake Lahut and Zachary Petrizzo report, he got destroyed.

 

We'll be back next week with more Pay Dirt. Have a tip? Send us a note and subscribe here.

 
Daily Beast
FacebookTwitterInstagram

© 2023 The Daily Beast Company LLC I 555 W. 18th Street, New York NY, 10011

 

Privacy Policy

 

If you are on a mobile device or cannot view the images in this message, click here to view this email in your browser. To ensure delivery of these emails, please add emails@thedailybeast.com to your address book. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, or think you have received this message in error, you can safely unsubscribe.

https://elink.thedailybeast.com/oc/5581f8dc927219fa268b5594i4d4k.kn8/73a05900