1 week Ago
DES MOINES — A state panel’s ruling to remove three Libertarian candidates for Congress from Iowa’s ballots in the Nov. 5 election was upheld Saturday by a judge. In a ruling issued Saturday morning, Polk County District Court Judge Michael Huppert said the State Objections Panel operated within its authority and applied the proper legal analysis when it voted Aug.
28 to uphold objections to the Libertarians’ candidacies. The Libertarians are likely to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court. The state party did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday, and had not yet issued a statement in reaction to the judge’s ruling.
The Libertarian candidates in danger of losing access to Iowa’s ballots are Nicholas Gluba in Eastern Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, Marco Battaglia in Central Iowa’s 3rd District and Charles Aldrich in Western Iowa’s 4th District. After no Libertarian Party candidates in Iowa ran for U.S.
House in the state’s primary election in June, party officials held a special nominating convention to nominate candidates in three of the state’s four U.S. House elections.
Objections filed in mid-August with the State Objections Panel claimed the Libertarian congressional candidates are ineligible for the ballot because their state party failed to follow proper nominating procedures as outlined in state law. The objection panel — consisting of Republican Secretary of State Paul Pate, Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird and Democratic Auditor Rob Sand — met Aug. 28 and voted 2-1 to uphold the objections and remove the Libertarians from the ballot.
Pate and Bird cast the majority votes, with Sand opposed. The Libertarians challenged the panel’s ruling in District Court, and Huppert granted their request for an injunction to stop the secretary of state from certifying ballots until the issue is resolved in the courts. Huppert heard oral arguments in the case Thursday and issued his ruling Saturday.
In that ruling, Huppert directly addressed the main arguments that were made by lawyers for the Libertarian candidates. He said the Iowans who initiated the process with their objections were qualified to go before the panel; the State Objections Panel did have the authority to hear and resolve those objections; the panel used the proper legal standard to reach its decision; and the objection process did not infringe upon the rights of the Libertarian Party of Iowa or Iowa voters. Huppert affirmed the state panel’s ruling and dissolved his injunction.
From left, Iowa Libertarian Party candidates for Congress Charles Aldrich, Nicholas Gluba and Marco Battaglia speak to reporters after the State Objection Panel upheld objections to their candidacies, effectively knocking them off the ballot for the November election at the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2024. Erin Murphy, The Gazette With the injunction lifted, the Iowa Secretary of State is free to certify ballots for the Nov.
5 election, and local elections officials can begin the process of printing those ballots. But the Libertarian Party may be able to request another legal action — this time from the Iowa Supreme Court — to once again pause the printing of ballots until their legal challenge runs its full course. The legal dispute has created a time crunch for local elections officials who must print ballots.
By state law, ballots cannot be printed until after they are certified by the Iowa Secretary of State. Federal law, however, requires ballots to overseas military personnel be mailed no later than 45 days before Election Day. That deadline is roughly two weeks away, on Sept.
21. Iowa’s 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts, currently represented by Republicans U.S.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and U.S.
Rep. Zach Nunn, respectively, are projected to be closely contested. In the 1st District, which includes Johnson County, Democrat Christina Bohannan is challenging Miller-Meeks, and in the 3rd District, Democrat Lanon Baccam is challenging Nunn.
National elections forecasters rate the two elections as leaning Republican or a tossup. It takes a lot of money to win elections. The 2022 election cycle was the priciest nonpresidential election cycle in history, with spending reaching nearly $9 billion , according to an OpenSecrets analysis.
Effective outreach and messaging requires ads, stickers, campaign staff, pens, and more—even for last-minute high-profile switch-ups such as the one the United States is currently facing. With Biden's decision to step aside, Kamala Harris' campaign has received record-breaking contributions. Her team has raised more than $81 million in the 24 hours since Biden's announcement, according to reporting from The Associated Press.
As of August 29, 2024, the Harris and Trump presidential campaigns have netted over $750 million in donations, according to Federal Election Commission data . But the presidential race is only part of the picture. The real races to watch are the congressional campaigns battling for control of both chambers in November, separated only by a few votes on either side.
With margins razor thin, House Democrats only need to net five seats to regain control, while Senate Republicans require just two. What kind of influence does all that money have? Some members of Congress have higher rates of small donors, those giving $200 or less, but PACs and wealthy donors constitute the greatest percentage of fundraising dollars. High-net-worth individuals accounted for 87% of total donors, and 90% of donations in House and Senate races, according to FEC data analyzed by Windfall.
Windfall took a look at the numbers to show which congressional campaigns are drawing the most donations from wealthy donors during this election cycle. Shown are donations from individuals worth at least $1 million and where they gave to House and Senate candidates, their affiliated committees, or unauthorized committees during the 2024 election cycle. According to the Survey of Consumer Finances , the median net worth of American households is $192,700, meaning the wealthy donors in this analysis are over five-times wealthier than the typical U.
S. family. Data is as of the first quarter of 2024, ending March 31.
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI // Getty Images Fundraising is critical for candidates to reach their voters. Without the money from these efforts, campaign hopefuls can say goodbye to television ads, staff, and all the trappings that go with elections—and election wins. Most of the funds go toward media advertising to help spread a candidate's message while also countering information from a candidate's competitors.
But there are also expenses just to keep grassroots efforts moving, such as payments for pollsters and printing yard signs and posters. These disbursements all add up to millions. In Nevada, David Duffield, the billionaire entrepreneur behind enterprise software firms PeopleSoft and Workday, donated $2 million to help elect GOP Senate contender Sam Brown.
Though not an established donor, FEC records show Duffield and his wife also donated more than $1 million to Trump's campaign in 2020. At more than $70 million this election cycle, Jeff Yass, an investor in ByteDance, is the second-highest donor to conservative causes and PACs, beating many on the top donors list by more than $11 million. ByteDance, which owns TikTok, has come under fire in the Biden administration because of security concerns.
New York Magazine has speculated that Yass' support for the Republicans may have influenced Trump's sudden flip-flop on the TikTok ban . At the top of the OpenSecrets list as of July 22 is Timothy Mellon, who made one of the largest political donations in history ($50 million) the day after Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges in Manhattan. This follows his donations to Make America Great Again Inc.
and the American Values super PAC, which supported Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s now-suspended campaign.
High-net-worth individuals like these might be driven to donate to shape policies that will help their finances, to impact social policies they care about, or simply because they enjoy the power and challenge. "Candidates start agreeing with you," Robert Shapiro told U.S.
News . A senior fellow at McDonough School of Business in Georgetown, Shapiro served as undersecretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. "It's psychic satisfaction for megalomaniacs.
" Wealthy individuals account for at least a third of total donations in every state, but in some, the share climbs to half. Donations by wealthy individuals accounted for 52% of total donations in Maryland and North Carolina, 51% in Hawaii, and 50% in Virginia. Historically, winning candidates also spend the most .
Exceptions include Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's 2020 win against Jaime Harrison in South Carolina, despite huge Democratic fundraising. In his campaign, Graham positioned the race as a choice between "capitalism versus socialism" and "law and order versus chaos.
" Though Harrison had raised close to $109 million to Graham's $75 million, it was the latter that ultimately won the votes. As the Graham and Harrison bout shows, correlation isn't causation. Studies show that partisan districting and national trends, rather than money alone, have the most influence on election outcomes.
Instead of buying elections, donors give to candidates already favored to win. Windfall Money may not guarantee a win, but it can help add fuel to critical races. Among the seven congressional elections with the highest percentage of contributions from high-net-worth donors, affluent individuals accounted for at least half of all donations.
Funds poured in from high-net-worth donors fueled downstream elections in Mid-Atlantic states, North Carolina, and Virginia, as well as in Florida, Tennessee, and New Jersey. While distinctive dynamics and demographic shifts define each of these well-funded elections, two possible horse races are worth highlighting. In North Carolina's 13th district, Republican Brad Knott won the primary in a landslide victory and will face off against Democrat Frank Pierce.
Redistricting in 2022 set the stage for a contentious election in the district, which has transformed since the last election cycle. In 2020, President Joe Biden was favored by voters by 1%, whereas today the district shows 17% support for Trump. The area has gone from a balanced and bipartisan district to a "MAGA fiefdom ," according to the Raleigh News & Observer.
In Florida's 23rd district, where wealthy individuals made just over half of all contributions, incumbent Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz will face off against Republican Joseph Kaufman in November. Despite redistricting in the Sunshine State that created mostly secure seats among incumbents, the House seat in the 13th district was ranked as "vulnerable" by the Tampa Bay Times. In a state that has gone from blue to purple over the last decade, affluent Democrats led the fundraising with 29% of all donations, as compared to 25% among Republicans.
It's worth noting that the district, which covers Boward and parts of Palm Beach County, has long been home to wealthy donors on both sides of the aisle. With Moskowitz winning his seat by just 5 points in 2022, it's likely that wealthy donors will try to ensure the scales once again tip in his favor. Story editing by Carren Jao.
Additional editing by Alizah Salario and Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Tim Bruns. This story originally appeared on Windfall and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
Windfall.
