.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
Mysterious Super PACs tied to the GOP have been spending big to elevate certain leftists in congressional races, candidates many on both sides see as too weak or extreme to actually win in November. Of course, several Democrats are crying foul, claiming the GOP is using these groups to persuade voters to choose candidates whom Republicans might have a better chance of defeating. This type of meddling might seem conniving, and maybe it is, but one party interfering in the other side’s primaries isn’t a new strategy. In fact, it’s a playbook Democrats know well. Such deception, however, comes with many risks, and the cost could outweigh the reward.
Secretive PACs
Despite the numerous disclosures required to run advertisements in US elections, not much is known about these groups. One is called Lead Left PAC, whose website includes a link to a Republican fundraising clearinghouse named WinRed. Another group, Real Change PAC, was incorporated in April, and its address is listed as a Staples store in Florida. Real Change has spent nearly $600,000 in a Democratic primary in New Jersey; Lead Left has spent more than $3 million across three races.
The treasurers of these PACs apparently have no online footprint. “This means someone created shell companies to hide their identities,” explained Punchbowl News. “These groups will have to disclose their donors eventually, but they can hide those donors by transferring money from a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. This is next-level obfuscation.”
Both groups have been busy, but let’s just focus on the bigger of the two, Lead Left, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to boost former sex therapist Maureen Galindo in Texas’ 35th Congressional District. She was one of the more controversial beneficiaries because of her prolific, inflammatory rhetoric. She once said on Instagram that she wanted to turn ICE detention centers into “a prison for American Zionists” and “a castration processing center for pedophiles.” She lost her race to Johnny Garcia this past Tuesday – money can only do so much, it seems.
Lead Left PAC also spent $435,000 on ads in Nebraska’s 2nd District to tie state Sen. John Cavanaugh to President Donald Trump, hoping to tank Cavanaugh with Democratic voters. He lost to Denise Powell, a small business owner. In Pennsylvania’s 7th District, Lead Left spent $1.7 million in the Democratic primary on mailers and ads boosting Lamont McClure, a former county executive, who lost to Gov. Josh Shapiro’s handpicked candidate, Bob Brooks.
The chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) told The New York Times that Republicans are “resorting to underhanded, dirty tricks to meddle and mislead.” Mike Smith, who leads the main House Democratic super PAC, told the newspaper that the GOP-tied PACs are “trying to lie, cheat and steal their way to a majority.” Yet Democrats have deployed these same tactics in the past.
Paving the Way
In the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats and their allies spent millions of dollars to boost Republicans whom they saw as extreme. In Maryland, for instance, Democrats tried to lift Dan Cox, a GOP gubernatorial candidate. About $1.7 million was spent drawing attention to some of Cox’s previous online rhetoric. Maryland’s Senate Democratic Caucus even issued a fundraising appeal requesting money to defeat Cox, saying, “We have our work cut out for us if we want to protect Marylanders from the right-wing extremism we see infiltrating neighboring states.”
The strategy then was similar to the mysterious PACs today: Run ads attacking candidates seen as tougher to defeat in general elections, hoping to erode their support in the primaries. They also used TV ads suggesting that certain GOP candidates were too conservative for a state or district while drawing attention to the person’s views on abortion, guns, or President Donald Trump, who was not in office at the time.
Total Democratic spending reportedly reached about $53 million, much of which was spent in Illinois, where the Democratic Governors Association and Gov. JB Pritzker’s campaign spent a combined $34.5 million successfully elevating a GOP candidate. In New Hampshire’s Republican Senate primary, a group aligned with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spent $3.2 million on ads that enhanced the candidacy of retired Gen. Don Bolduc, a Trump supporter who won his primary but then lost to incumbent Senator Maggie Hassan. Altogether, Democrats interfered in at least 13 primaries during the 2022 cycle, including six gubernatorial races.
Not all Democrats approved of these tactics back then. However, some believed they were just getting a head start on attacking Republican candidates for the general election, while others publicly acknowledged they sought weaker competition in the fall. “Given the serious damage Republicans would do with a majority in either chamber of Congress or with the power of a governorship,” a Democratic pollster told The Washington Post, “no one needs to apologize for doing what they think will give Democratic candidates their best chance of winning.”
This might not be where these crafty tactics began, but the Democrats’ interference in 2022 ostensibly threw the door wide open. Now that the tables have turned, they’re pushing back, with a little meddling of their own.
From Offense to Defense
Over the last few weeks, the DCCC has been helping candidates it sees as the strongest in key battleground districts, launching joint ad buys to squeeze out their Democratic primary opponents and counteract the involvement of the GOP-aligned PACs. The DCCC was already poking around in their own primaries over the last month or so.
In early May, the DCCC announced eight new endorsements as part of its “Red to Blue” program, a special designation for top recruits in key House races that provides resources and fundraising support to the designees, mostly establishment favorites. A lot of backlash followed, especially because several chosen candidates still had credible primary opponents. Several insiders accused the committee of putting its thumb on the scale for candidates most likely to bend to party leadership.
Meanwhile, the DCCC reportedly spent more than $100,000 on an ad buy boosting Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania’s 7th District. It also put more than $45,000 into supporting Jasmeet Bains, a moderate Democratic assemblywoman in a California race. Most recently, the DCCC spent $35,000 on ads attacking Galindo in Texas and labeling her “MAGA Maureen.” These are all races that Democrats accused Republicans of meddling in.
Both parties are using the same playbook, treating primaries as battlegrounds to shape elections. But what many seem to forget is how easily this interference can backfire. In trying to outmaneuver each other, both parties are gambling on outcomes they cannot fully control. The greater consequences, however, may fall on voters. These shadowy campaigns could manipulate them into voting for candidates they otherwise might not have chosen. At a time when trust in both parties is steadily eroding, tactics like these could risk diminishing confidence in the system altogether, turning what should be voter-driven contests into carefully engineered outcomes.
