reSee.it Video Transcript AI Summary
Our undercover reporter explored how funding for congressmen is secured.
David Oaks, a prominent pro-Israel advocate, invited Tony to a fundraising event, then called him to discuss details. The group is described as a leading and wealthy donor network in DC; Oaks emails a list of the people the group supports and notes that “this is the biggest ad on the global group and the that’s the wealthiest in DC.”
The fundraiser took place in a wealthy Washington suburb. “The feedback group, it makes a difference. It really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal. Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them,” a participant says.
Speaker 2 explains the current contribution limit: “From any person to a candidate is $2,700.” They outline how to increase influence by coordinating many donors: “if you really want to add punch to that type of buying of favors, you get 50 or 100 people together at an event like this, all chipping in $2,700 and then you bundle it all together and hand over the total amount to the lawmaker.” This can total “anywhere up to a quarter million dollars,” enabling a group with aligned demands to effectively buy access.
The fundraiser was for Anthony Brown, who ran for Congress in November 2016. One speaker claims, “This is direct spending. Brown's gonna use that.” Another adds, “He's actually saying, we're buying this, these office holders. And that's the point. We're chipping in all this money so we can hand over 100,000 or 200,000 to the office holders so we can buy them.”
Oaks recalls a similar New York event with Wall Street donors. A participant comments, “In New York, we're just Taliban. We don't ask a goddamn thing about the Palestinians. You know why? Because it's a tiny issue. That's why.” The process involves backroom meetings with congressmen, where donors’ goals are stated, and donors like Jeff and Calvin—worth about $250,000,000—are highlighted. One attendee describes handing the lawmaker an envelope with 20 credit cards, each usable for a thousand dollars.
There is a disclosure law intended to reveal potential money laundering in events like this: funds earmarked must disclose who showed up and how much each contributed to the lawmaker. The group putting on the event has no name and is described as an ad hoc political group; it pools money for legal reasons.
The group avoids earmarking law by not taking money into its own account and then handing it to the candidate; instead, it collects credit card information and turns it over directly to the candidate. Campaign finance reports would only show individual donors, with no record that they acted together as a bundling group or that they attended the event. What would be visible is that person A gave $2,700, person B gave $2,700, and so on.
In New York, the arrangement is described as a $10 over two cycles minimum commitment; some donors give more. If one donor gives $5,000 and another contributes $100, totaling $5,100, they acknowledge that would be illegal due to laundering of campaign contributions; the limit applies to the individual, and laundering through others is not permitted.