George Santos, the freshman Republican congressman from New York who lied about his biography, has deeper ties than previously known to a businessman who cultivated close links with a onetime Trump confidant and who is the cousin of a sanctioned Russian oligarch, according to video footage and court documents.
Andrew Intrater and his wife each gave the maximum $5,800 to Santos’ main campaign committee and tens of thousands more since 2020 to committees linked to him, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Intrater’s cousin is Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, who has been sanctioned by the U.S. government for his role in the Russian energy industry.
The relationship between Santos and Intrater goes beyond campaign contributions, according to a statement made privately by Santos in 2020 and a court filing the following year in a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against a Florida-based investment firm, Harbor City Capital, where Santos worked for more than a year.
Taken together, the evidence suggests Santos may have had a business relationship with Intrater as Santos was first entering politics in 2020. It also shows, according to the SEC filing, that Intrater put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Santos’ onetime employer, Harbor City, which was accused by regulators of running a Ponzi scheme. Neither Santos nor Intrater responded to requests for comment. Attorneys who have represented Intrater also did not respond.
This blog continues the discussion we began with Epic Journey: The 2008 Elections and American Politics (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009).The next book in this series is The Comeback: the 2024 Elections and American Politics (Bloomsbury, 2025).
Search This Blog
Monday, January 16, 2023
The Santos Story Keeps Getting Worse
Sunday, January 15, 2023
The Big Rip-Off
Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses campaign finance.
From Appendix 3 of the January 6 report:
The Select Committee’s investigation demonstrates that President Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud—the Big Lie—served a dual purpose, forming the foundation of his attempts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election and launching a fundraising effort to fund the former President’s other endeavors and to enrich his associates—the Big Rip-off.
The false election fraud narrative embedded in fundraising emails and text messages amplified the Big Lie by perpetuating a belief that the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump and effectuated the Big Rip-off by misleading donors into thinking their donations could alter the election results.
At the same time, the Big Lie helped President Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) raise more than $250 million after the election, much of it from small-dollar donors who were promised their money would “Stop the Steal.”
Despite what they told their supporters, however, most of their money was not used to stop any purported steal—it was diverted to accomplish the Big Rip-off. Millions of dollars that were raised ostensibly for “election defense” and “fighting voter fraud” were not spent that way at all.
Moreover, the Select Committee’s investigation shows that the RNC knew that President Trump’s claims about winning the election were baseless and that post-election donations would not help him secure an additional term in office. Yet, both the Trump Campaign and the RNC decided to continue fundraising after the election, a decision that would have come from President Trump himself.
In short, President Trump and his Campaign ripped off supporters by raising more than $250 million by claiming they wanted to fight fraud they knew did not exist and to challenge an election they knew he lost
...
RNC leadership knew that President Trump was lying to the American people. Yet, they did nothing to publicly distance themselves from his efforts to overturn the election. The RNC’s response was merely to tinker around the edges of the fundraising copy but never to fundamentally challenge the one message that remained present in TMAGAC’s post-electionfundraising copy—President Trump’s Big Lie.
In the end, multiple senior RNC staffers approved fundraising emails raising questions about the election results even though they did not know of any evidence about fraud impacting the winner of the 2020 Presidential election. For example, Cassie Docksey stated that she was not aware of any fraud that impacted the results of the Presidential election.118 Ahrens conceded that “there was not evidence that we [the RNC] had seen that he [President Trump] won the election, that Biden had not won the election.”119
Similarly, Justin Clark was “not aware of [fraudulent activity . . . to likedefraud voters] by an individual or an entity that would have [changed theoutcome of an election].”120 Alex Cannon “did not find or see, in [his] limited ability as one individual. . . evidence that would be sufficient within thetime period to change any sort of election results in any of the States.”121
Nonetheless, the RNC and the Trump Campaign continued to send out hundreds of emails, spreading the Big Lie to and fundraising off of millionsof supporters. Even though the RNC had closely held reservations about repeating the most extreme and unsupportable claims of fraud, the RNC stayed the course with a coordinated, single fundraising plan with the Trump Campaign. The RNC privately and quietly softened the most blatantly egregious claims written by its own copywriters but publicly stoodshoulder to shoulder with President Trump and his Big Lie.
Saturday, January 14, 2023
Santos;: Vulnerability Study and Much More
Nicholas Fandos at NYT:
In late 2021, as he prepared to make a second run for a suburban New York City House seat, George Santos gave permission for his campaign to commission a routine background study on him.
Campaigns frequently rely on this kind of research, known as vulnerability studies, to identify anything problematic that an opponent might seize on. But when the report came back on Mr. Santos, the findings by a Washington research firm were far more startling, suggesting a pattern of deception that cut to the heart of the image he had cultivated as a wealthy financier.
Some of Mr. Santos’s own vendors were so alarmed after seeing the study in late November 2021 that they urged him to drop out of the race, and warned that he could risk public humiliation by continuing. When Mr. Santos disputed key findings and vowed to continue running, members of the campaign team quit, according to three of the four people The New York Times spoke to with knowledge of the study.
Embattled Rep. George Santos persuaded at least one person to make a six-figure investment in a Florida-based company that the SEC later said was a Ponzi scheme https://t.co/v72n0IVeeZ
— Ben Pershing (@benpershing) January 14, 2023
CNN found a 2020 exchange in which George Santos—going by George Devolder—was confronted by a potential customer who looked into his Ponzi scheme and was told by Deutsche Bank that it was "a complete fraud" (Which, it turns out, was true)https://t.co/7sl3gy2Nln pic.twitter.com/9FHsR1rQfU
— Robert Maguire (@RobertMaguire_) January 13, 2023
In 2019, George Santos introduced himself as Anthony Devolder, the founder of “United for Trump,” during a Q & A session at a “Walk Away LGBT” event in NYC.
— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) January 13, 2023
Santos said trans people could benefit from a trans conservative activist educating them. pic.twitter.com/b2RkA3YPnI
Friday, January 13, 2023
Heritage Dark Money
The advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, the powerful conservative thinktank based in Washington, spent more than $5m on lobbying in 2021 as it worked to block federal voting rights legislation and advance an ambitious plan to spread its far-right agenda calling for aggressive voter suppression measures in battleground states.
Previously unreported 2021 tax filings from Heritage Action for America, which operates as the foundation’s activist wing, shows that it spent $5.1m on contracting outside lobbying services. The outlay comes on top of $560,000 the group invested in its own in-house federal lobbying efforts that year, as well as registered lobbying by Heritage Action staffers in at least 24 states.
The 990 tax filing was obtained by the watchdog group Documented and shared with the Guardian. It points to the pivotal role that Heritage Action is increasingly playing in shaping the rules that govern US democracy.
The efforts help explain the unprecedented tidal wave of restrictive voting laws that spread across Republican-controlled states in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. The Brennan Center reported that more voter suppression laws were passed in 2021 than in any year since it began monitoring voting legislation more than a decade ago.
...Heritage Action, whose board includes the Republican mega-donor Rebekah Mercer, is set up as a 501(c)4 under the US tax code which exempts it from paying federal taxes. It operates as a “dark money” group, avoiding disclosing the sources of its total annual revenue of over $18m.
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
Bizarro Political Strategy: Cutting Social Security
House Republicans are making clear that they intend to seek cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare with their new majority in the 118th Congress.
Their plans to target health care programs follow demands from a group of conservatives that helped elect House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) over the weekend. Those far-right lawmakers have sought across-the-board spending cuts in order to tackle the growing national debt.
But the narrow House GOP majority ― McCarthy can afford to lose just four votes on any bill ― is far more divided on cuts to defense spending than for entitlement programs.
“I’m all for a balanced budget, but we’re not going to do it on the backs of our troops and our military,” Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), a former Army Green Beret, said Monday during an interview on Fox Business. “If we really want to talk about the debt and spending, it’s the entitlements programs.”
As part of his list of concessions to conservatives, McCarthy reportedly agreed to cap spending for the next year at fiscal 2022 levels, which would amount to over $130 billion in cuts from last month’s $1.7 trillion government funding bill.
Monday, January 9, 2023
Big Donor Money, Small Donor Money, and the Uncontrollable Rebels
Big Republican donors haven’t been much help in pushing California Rep. Kevin McCarthy over the finish line in his bid to become speaker of the House of Representatives.
The reason: His dissenters don’t need them.
About half the Republicans opposing Mr. McCarthy’s bid for House speaker fund their campaigns through small, online contributions instead of counting on major donors and corporate political-action committees, a Wall Street Journal review of Federal Election Commission reports found.
Those streams of $5 and $10 donations can turn into a flood when a lawmaker stakes out a contrarian position and stokes political drama.
“Many of the holdouts do not rely on major donors, PACs and the traditional offerings that a political party can provide,” said Ken Spain, a corporate adviser in Washington and former communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “There’s a perverse incentive for members to elevate their personal brand at the expense of the governing majority.”
...
The changed political-fundraising landscape cuts across both parties: Some of the Democrats’ top online fundraisers are the ones who have occasionally been at odds with their party’s leadership, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Sunday, January 8, 2023
McCarthy and the Rules
Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections. It also discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good.
It took 15 ballots for Kevin McCarthy to overcome hard-right resistance and become speaker.
McCarthy’s decision to give Freedom Caucus members three of the nine seats on the House Rules Committee easily represented the single most significant surrender of leadership power that we’ve seen in decades — one that will have major repercussions for the lower chamber.
Since the 1960s, the panel — which oversees the floor process and decides which amendments are considered —has been viewed as the “speaker’s committee,” with each member handpicked by the leader and genuflecting to his or her will.
Now, conservatives eager to flex will dominate that panel and operate independently of leadership, effectively wielding veto power over legislation. Given the committee’s partisan breakdown — nine seats for the GOP, four for Democrats — Republicans can afford to lose only two votes. That means that the three Freedom Caucus members on the panel could band together with Democrats to tank a bill even before it hits the floor. They’ll also be able to demand changes to legislation, undercutting the careful work by other committee chairs who may not agree with their views.
McCarthy’s camp has sought to downplay this change by arguing that (1) conservatives could kill any bill anyway because of their slim four-seat House majority and (2) it’s better for them to hash out their disagreements with conservatives in committee before bills head to the floor.
But “that misses the ballgame,” as one astute former House GOP leadership source told us: It “doesn’t take into account that the power of the floor isn’t just about what reaches it, but also what doesn’t — and what processes are permitted via amendment.”