Sen. Kyrsten Sinema received the legal maximum of donations from several known GOP donors, new FEC

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

filings show

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, received the maximum donation allowed by law by several longtime GOP donors, according to a campaign fundraising report filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission.

According to the FEC data, first reported by Mother Jones, Sinema raised $1.1 million between July and September this year, about the same amount she raised in previous fundraising cycles, according to the report, despite growing frustration among Arizona Democrats.

Included in the FEC disclosure are several GOP donors who have previously supported efforts to elect former President Donald Trump and to help Republicans get the majority in the Senate. The maximum individual contribution limit is $2,900 per election, with a maximum of $5,800 in a two-year period, according to FEC guidelines.

Among those who made the maximum donation was Minnesota billionaire Stan Hubbard, who regularly donates to the RNC and supported Scott Walker and eventually Trump's campaign for president through donations to a super PAC, Mother Jones reported.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democratic-sen-kyrsten-sinema-received-the-legal-maximum-of-donations-from-several-known-gop-donors-new-fec-filings-show/ar-AAPBDuH

[JohnSJ]

1. The same thing happened with Ralph Nader, and he gladly accepted republican donations

[NurseJackie]

14. Not only Ralph Nader. I can think of at least two other anti-Dem candidates...

... who have benefited from donations/help from the GOP and Russia.

[JohnSJ]

15. Yes

[Raven123]

2. They knew exactly who they could pick off from the Dems.

The real question is why didn’t Shumer know about it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

3. This is my shocked face n/t

[Celerity]

4. ...

Jimmy Haslam, the owner of the Pilot truck stop chain and the NFL’s Cleveland Brown’s, and his wife Susan gave Sinema’s campaign $2,900 a piece on Septemeber 30. Haslam is a reliable GOP donor who has given at least $425,000 to the Senate Leadership Fund—a super-PAC set up by allies of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to help the GOP take control of the Senate—as well as regular maximum donations to the GOP’s House and Senate party committees.

Another recent Sinema donor who also has previously supported the McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund, is Marc Rowan, the billionaire CEO of private-equity giant Apollo. Rowan and his wife, Carolyn, both each wrote two $2,900 checks to Sinema’s campaign on September 29. Previously, Rowan has written $250,000 checks to the Senate Leadership Fund and to a secretive super-PAC that backed Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Rowan was also a major donor to Trump’s reelection efforts and personally lobbied the White House to loosen restrictions on certain COVID-19 programs to allow them to benefit Apollo.

Anthony De Nicola, a private equity executive who previously wrote a six-figure check to the Senate Leadership Fund and made regular maximum donations to the GOP’s Senate party committee, donated $2,900 on September 30.

Sinema received strong support throughout the entire fundraising quarter from executives and lobbyists with close ties to the pharmaceutical and finance industry. On Friday, Politico reported that 90 percent of the money Sinema raised this summer came from donors who are not her constituents.

Sinema rakes in Pharma and finance cash amid reconciliation negotiations

The senator raised more than $1.1 million in the third quarter. About 90 percent of it came from outside her home state.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/15/sinema-campaign-money-pharma-finance-516110

[Drum]

5. Gross

[TallMike]

6. the upside

of voting down ballot?
carefull what we wish for...
Happy Halloween!

[Walleye]

7. I would think she could've raise lots of money among Democratic donors if she'd done the right thing

[SergeStorms]

8. And all she has to do....

is keep being a "maverick".

Manchin has the fossil fuel industry feathering his nest.

Being a U.S. Senator is a very lucrative position, once you get it. It's easy to see why 99% of them would give their right arms to retain that position. The money just keeps rolling in from every direction.

[marble falls]

9. It's very hard to say anything civil about this.

[Deuxcents]

10. Me, too

I don’t get it..obstructing progress being rewarded.

[marble falls]

12. Slays me. Just makes me grim. That seat may go GOP, but it seems the GOP feels ...

comfortable either way.

I hope Ruben Gallego is ready to fight hard for Democrats, I think he can do it.

[moondust]

11. Citizens United

virtually guaranteed corruption gone wild with many in government serving themselves at the expense of The People.

Interestingly, the British MP who died of stab wounds yesterday was a "conservative." All his constituents I've seen interviewed on BBC and Sky News have praised him for doing so much for his constituents, for being a man of the people, "never partisan," etc. Didn't sound anything at all like "conservatives" in the U.S. playing the big money game.

[malaise]

13. John Roberts is responsible for this and for gutting the

Voting Rights' Act.
Let the Court's tools now bawl about being non-partisan.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

16. These morally criminal proceeds are a deal with the devil.

Her political career will permanently end in 2025, although if she seeks election for the position of dogcatcher in a deep red county, and runs unopposed, the race may be close.

[bluestarone]

17. Money buys POWER (control)

She's an IDIOT TRAITOR.

[Bucky]

18. We should brace ourselves for the possibility that she's gonna flip sides

Not that they'd love her in the red aisle, but losing control of committee chairs would be devastating.

[DFW]

19. One thing is curiously out of sync here

When these people can donate all they want, secretly, and without their names prominently displayed and connected with Senator "Cinema," why make the (for them) relatively puny donations of the legal individual limit where everybody can see them? If they can donate $100,000 to some super-PAC that will spend it all on "Cinema" without anyone able to see immediately from whom the money came, why do this? They know full well that it can only damage her credibility--to the extent that she has any left--as a Democrat.

But by itself, it's not enough money to make her think that her future is with the Republicans. That kind of cash would have to come from the Super-PACs. One hand-delivered note to her, and she'll know, without anyone else knowing, who her secret benefactors are. This legal limit activity is conspicuous stuff, but small potatoes. The question I have is--what kind of a statement are they trying to make that isn't common knowledge already?

[betsuni]

20. Thank you.

Legal limits aren't bribes, but someone has been telling people for years that Democrats are corrupt "corporate Dems/establishment/elites" beholden to campaign contributors (some sort of "donor class" ) and people get it into their heads that it's true and endlessly repeat it.

Journalist Ryan Grim said the other day that the impulse is to think Sinema is doing the bidding of her corporate donors, but no, other politicians also receive lots of money from people working for corporations and "they aren't behaving this way. You need more."

I don't even know how this supposed "corruption" would work. Someone donates the legal limit -- does a politician's staff call them and ask what they demand for a few thousand dollars? The politician has to do it? It doesn't make any sense.

[UCmeNdc]

21. K&R

Sad