The Billion-Dollar Primary (w/David Moore)
‘Gray Money’ is Hijacking Our Democracy. What's next?
This work is only possible through reader support. Please help out with a paid subscription through Substack (discounted here) or on Patreon. Or, make a one-time donation here.
We’re witnessing an unprecedented assault on the integrity of our primaries, fueled by a deluge of “gray money” from the AI, crypto, and pro-Israel lobbying sectors. As I discussed with David Moore of Sludge (www.readsludge.com), these interests aren’t “participating in democracy”; they’re trying to buy it through a sophisticated web of super PACs and bundled contributions that often bypass the scrutiny of mainstream media. From the “earmarking” of millions for House leadership to the flood of deceptive attack ads in local races, the goal is clear: to ensure that the trajectory of history is shaped by those with the deepest pockets rather than the most votes.
People are beginning to push back through initiatives like the People’s Pledge and by challenging candidates who accept this tainted money. What happens now?
More information:
“Crypto, AI, and AIPAC Set up to Smash Super PAC Spending Records,” Sludge
“Return of the ‘People’s Pledge’,” Politico
“Brad Lander Is Demanding an AIPAC-Free Congressional Race,” Jacobin
TOPICS
Our conversation topics included:
The Deception of “Gray Money”: Super PACs purposefully use vague, patriotic-sounding names to mask industry-specific agendas (e.g., AI or Crypto) and run ads on unrelated “hot-button” issues to manipulate unsuspecting voters.
The Inefficacy of “Mainstream” Reporting: Traditional media outlets often fail to trace the complex web of earmarked and bundled donations, leaving the public unaware that their representatives are often beholden to a single industry’s “war chest.”
A Turning Point? The “People’s Pledge” and recent “tactical missteps” by big spenders (like the losses in Illinois) are signs that voters are becoming more sophisticated.
SELECTED QUOTES
David:
“Super PACs funded by an industry like AI or crypto often won’t discuss those issues in their TV ads. Instead, they’ll focus on other campaign topics or hot-button issues like immigration.”
“AIPAC’s PAC has rapidly become the highest-donating PAC at the federal level... delivering millions of dollars to House Democratic leadership at the same time those leaders have been slow to advance things like the Iran War Powers Resolution.”
“The swell of untraceable, anonymous ads flooding primaries on both sides of the aisle breeds distrust in the political process.”
Richard:
“You’ve been covering a lot of stories about what I would call legalized corruption—the real forces of influence in politics, the hidden forces.”
“The real-world implications of this money include genocide and war. These are not abstract concepts.”
“It sounds too overwhelming for voters to push back on. But it sounds like one place where this all comes together... is by demanding that candidates sign the People’s Pledge.”
TRANSCRIPT
Richard Eskow: One of my go-to news sources that I check on a regular basis is the website known as Sludge, which can be found at readsludge.com. The website presents itself as, quote, “your guide to the hidden forces shaping politics.” Joining me now is co-founder of Sludge, David Moore. David and his partner Donald Shaw founded the website, and they’ve been doing great work covering the forces that move politics. So, first of all, David Moore, welcome to the program.
David Moore: Thank you so much. So glad to be here.
Richard Eskow: Happy to have you, and happy to introduce the audience to Sludge. You’ve been covering a lot of stories about what I would call legalized corruption — the forces of influence in politics, the hidden forces, as you say. We could approach this from any number of angles, but why don’t we start here. You recently published a piece, I think at the beginning of February, on crypto, AI, and AIPAC, and how they’re setting up to smash super PAC spending records. You’re referring, I assume, to the records for spending in a midterm election, right?
David Moore: That’s right. And the trends show that super PAC spending is also increasing over time in presidential election cycles. But yes, we’re focused on how individual super PACs are spending in races on both sides of the aisle.
Richard Eskow: Okay. And one thing that’s particularly timely right now is the role of super PACs. We haven’t moved into the general election season yet, but we’ll see a lot of action there. Right now, though, we’re seeing it heavily in Democratic primaries, in particular around several key issues. You mentioned crypto, you mentioned AI. So before we get to AIPAC, let’s talk about the tech side of things. I think crypto is something that a lot of people don’t fully understand — what it is or what its implications are. But one thing it certainly does is spend big on our politics. Is that correct?
David Moore: That’s right. The way super PACs typically operate is by targeting digital ads or TV ads in races, including both primary and general elections. Often, these groups have very innocuous or generic-sounding names — Think Big is one example that’s currently active. In addition, super PACs funded by an industry like AI or crypto often won’t discuss those issues in their TV ads. Instead, they’ll focus on other campaign topics or hot-button issues like immigration.
Super PACs do sometimes disclose their big, deep-pocketed corporate donors — OpenAI or Coinbase, for example — but a significant chunk of their money is often not disclosed to the public. That’s why super PACs are sometimes called “gray money” organizations. They sit somewhere between fully dark money and more transparent spenders.
In the 2024 election cycle, we saw an absolute deluge of money coming in from a couple of different special interests. Crypto spent a record amount of money backing candidates it deemed insufficiently supportive of cryptocurrency regulation. The network around that was primarily called the Fair Shake super PAC network. In addition, the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — deployed its super PAC, called the United Democracy Project, along with an allied super PAC. They spent heavily to knock out candidates they deemed unsupportive of their agenda of promoting greater security cooperation with Israel.
And now, that model is being supercharged heading into the 2026 elections. Interestingly, as we’re speaking on April 8th, the initial primary contests over the past month have shown a mixed record for these groups. We’re seeing a combination of enormous cash reserves — we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars ready to be dropped on ads targeting unsuspecting voters — but the same playbook isn’t necessarily delivering the same results. So it’s early.
Richard Eskow: We are seeing, for example, record amounts being spent in primaries across the country. Give me an example if you can. We’re familiar with PAC spending delivering results. We know, for example, that Representative Cori Bush, an incumbent member of Congress, was outspent by AIPAC in her last primary and was defeated. Same with Jamal Bowman, another defeated incumbent representative. So we’ve seen these PACs win — not necessarily a success story for democracy — but now you’re saying that this time around, despite their enormous war chests, the record is more mixed. That’s interesting. Can you walk us through a few examples?
David Moore: Sure. Let me set the stage by looking at three categories of super PACs: AI super PACs, crypto super PACs, and AIPAC-aligned super PACs.
On the AI front, the industry has essentially replicated the crypto industry’s playbook. They’ve set up the same structure — a super PAC paired with a nonprofit organization and a scorecard — with arms that spend in both Democratic and Republican primaries using targeted messaging for each party’s voters. One of the main super PAC groups for the AI industry that was first out of the gate was called Leading the Future. It’s been funded largely by the venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as the president of OpenAI.
Richard Eskow: You mean Sam Altman?
David Moore: Well, actually, it’s the president, Greg Brockman, who funneled — along with his spouse — much of the $25 million from their side of it. Together, in just the first half of last year, Fair Shake reported nearly $75 million. I’m sorry, that’s the crypto industry group. The AI industry group was bankrolled with over — well, I should back up. That figure was from last cycle.
Richard Eskow: Fifty million, perhaps, and more in pledges? That’s what I’ve been seeing. Your article says the new Leading the Future AI super PAC had $50 million cash on hand and much more in pledges.
David Moore: That’s right — thank you for filling that in. More than $50 million pledged. And there are several other AI industry groups beyond that one. I won’t mention them all, but there are ones funded by Meta and others more aligned with the Republican side of the AI deregulation agenda.
On the crypto side, Fair Shake spent over $133 million in the last cycle and is now geared up to meet or exceed that. They had already raised over half of that total to deploy this cycle. The crypto industry also has additional super PACs ready to jump in. And the AIPAC super PAC was also on track for a record haul — it had raised more than $61 million in just the first half of last year. Together, these groups are equipped with hundreds of millions of dollars to drop in elections.
Their first test came in the Illinois primaries last month, on March 18th, and the track record was mixed. It’s not that spending a couple million dollars in a House primary was ever guaranteed to win a race — but it had proved largely successful for them in the previous election cycle. This time around, the results were more mixed across the board.
I can walk through which primaries showed gains and losses in Illinois, but the main takeaway is that Democratic voters were responding to other signals as well. There’s a real opportunity now for Democratic voters — and other primary voters — to look more critically at who’s funding the super PAC behind the ads they see. That’s part of the initiative behind a new Democratic effort called the People’s Pledge, which is gaining traction with candidates now.
Richard Eskow: And the People’s Pledge asks candidates to pledge that they won’t take PAC money, right?
David Moore: It goes further than that. Candidates pledge to reject waves of outside spending by super PACs as well. They commit not just to declining corporate PAC money — and in some cases, to refusing donations from executives in certain industries — but more importantly, they commit to rejecting the big-dollar outside spending from super PACs. So when you’re watching a game or a drama on TV and you see an ad promoting a candidate from a group with a name like “Elect Chicago Women” or something similarly vague — that spending would be rejected under the pledge.
That’s really a significant and potentially sea-change-level development in primary contests, if more candidates were to adopt it.
Richard Eskow: Does the People’s Pledge also commit candidates to supporting campaign finance reform if they’re elected?
David Moore: I’m not certain it includes that specifically. It’s focused primarily on electoral commitments. Candidates who have taken the pledge — there’s one in Maine, one in Maryland, and here in New York City, where I’m based, one running for a House seat — are calling on their opponents to do the same. They’re pledging to reject outside group spending and to improve the democratic process for voters more broadly.
For example, here in New York, there’s a House race between former Comptroller Brad Lander and incumbent Dan Goldman, where Lander is calling on Goldman to reject the waves of outside spending that have too often shaped these Democratic primaries and come from opaque sources. It’s an effort really focused on empowering voters, and it’s the sort of thing that state parties could be far more active in taking up. They have a lot of control over this.
Richard Eskow: And it’s very popular with voters, which is one of the reasons candidates do it. So hopefully that popularity helps counteract the effect of some of this money.
Now, a related issue: given the ongoing and tragic situation in Gaza, the idea that a candidate is taking AIPAC money — which was once taken for granted — has become somewhat politically toxic for Democrats. To the point where you have mainstream Democrats like Gavin Newsom saying they won’t take AIPAC money, and other congressional leaders making similar pledges. But to me, one of the valuable things Sludge does is expose the fact that a lot of AIPAC money doesn’t come with the AIPAC label on it. There are ways to get around that. Am I understanding that correctly?
David Moore: There are a number of ways that AIPAC spends to support the candidates it chooses to back. We briefly discussed examples from last cycle — Bush, Bowman, and others — where the AIPAC super PAC targeted progressives it deemed out of line with its agenda.
What a lot of people don’t understand, and what Sludge’s reporting has worked to illuminate, is that AIPAC’s PAC also delivers campaign contributions directly into candidates’ and sitting lawmakers’ accounts through an earmarking process. If you were an AIPAC donor, you could donate through their portal, and it facilitates the donation flowing into the campaign account of a sitting lawmaker. We calculated that, as of earlier this year, AIPAC’s PAC had earmarked and bundled more than $28 million to the campaigns of current members of Congress in this election cycle alone.
This can translate into enormous sums. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, for example, raised a million dollars for his campaign committees last year bundled this way through AIPAC’s PAC. Often, the paper trail from an individual donor through the PAC to the candidate isn’t fully visible — it shows up in disclosure records as individual donations. But AIPAC’s PAC openly touts its role in this process. Their website even highlights to donors that the candidates will know how much AIPAC is facilitating in donations.
All of this happens while AIPAC lobbies these same lawmakers to issue public statements of support for Israel, and to oppose efforts to restrict military aid to Israel on humanitarian grounds — whether that’s weapons aid or other forms of military coordination — particularly as such restrictions relate to international law compliance.
The element you raise is important: not many people perhaps realize that AIPAC’s PAC has rapidly become the highest-donating PAC at the federal level, far outpacing groups like the Realtors or other PACs that practice similar earmarking. AIPAC’s PAC is delivering millions of dollars to House Democratic leadership at the same time those leaders have been slow to advance things like the Iran War Powers Resolution.
Richard Eskow: And I think this is really important, David, for a variety of reasons — but one that I suspect a lot of listeners struggle with is: it’s not clear how this typically gets reported. You don’t often see mainstream news organizations reporting that Hakeem Jeffries — who, for example, held off endorsing the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York until two days before the election, and has taken other positions seemingly at odds with his own party’s base — has received millions from AIPAC. Is that because outlets simply don’t report it, or because the process you just described obscures the fact that it’s AIPAC bundling this money? In other words, campaign finance reports often don’t show it as millions from AIPAC, do they?
David Moore: That’s exactly right, and what I can tell you is that AIPAC’s PAC didn’t begin operating in this way until just a couple of cycles ago. Though AIPAC and its allies had wielded a lot of influence through their super PAC spending for many past cycles, they only really began spinning up this direct contribution mechanism in the 2021–2022 cycle, and then started dropping millions in the 2023–2024 cycle.
So campaign finance reporters — the kind featured on the front pages of the Times, the Post, or CNN — weren’t accustomed to tracing back millions in earmarked donations through FEC records. Sludge has been compiling those records and presenting them in searchable, easily accessible lists so that anyone, nationwide, can see how much their senator or representative has received from AIPAC’s PAC in bundled donations. Often, that makes AIPAC the largest donor to a given lawmaker — the very donor that is simultaneously lobbying them on efforts like the Block the Bombs Act from Senator Sanders, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Tina Smith, and others.
So when you look at what’s being advanced — or not advanced — by Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on questions of human rights law as applied to military aid to Israel, it’s important for people to keep in mind that those leaders’ direct campaign coffers are being padded with six-figure sums from AIPAC’s PAC, from the same people lobbying them to issue statements of support.
And it’s worth emphasizing: on a call-in show here in New York City, Hakeem Jeffries once said, “I accept $10,000 from AIPAC’s PAC — that’s the limit they can give me.” And technically, that’s accurate for that category of direct contribution. But they can also facilitate millions of dollars in individual donations flowing through them. So while the individual donors in those cases are U.S. citizens choosing to give to the candidate AIPAC is endorsing, AIPAC’s website makes absolutely clear that they are taking credit for this with lawmakers. Which means that when their lobbyists are pressing officials on weapons aid to Israel or on human rights legislation, the lawmakers know exactly how much they’ve received through AIPAC — even if the public does not.
Richard Eskow: And that, to me, is why the work you and Donald are doing is so important. Particularly now, given what appears to be some sort of two-week ceasefire as we speak. But the war in Iran has caused massive damage — thousands of deaths, and likely hundreds of billions of dollars in economic harm to the global economy when everything is tallied. And this was an initiative that, by most reporting, was primarily supported by Benjamin Netanyahu and backed by many of the same interests aligned with AIPAC. You and Donald Shaw wrote back in June of 2025 that AIPAC-funded Democrats avoided pushing for a war powers resolution on Trump and Iran. They’ve given lip service to it this time around. But it seems to me that the real-world implications of this money include genocide and war. These are not abstract concepts. We’re talking about millions of dollars going to candidates whose positions affect the trajectory of history and millions of people’s lives. Am I overstating the case?
David Moore: I don’t think so. The House war powers resolution was introduced in 2025, during Israel’s attacks on Iran and when Trump began launching missile strikes against Iran. A bipartisan resolution was introduced around mid-year — around June. House Democratic leaders declined to get behind it. At first it was backed by only a handful of progressives on the Democratic side.
Then, earlier this year, as Trump’s saber-rattling toward Iran intensified in February, House Democratic leaders had the opportunity to bring up the war powers resolution through a privileged measure — a mechanism available to the minority — and some Republicans began signaling they might seriously consider voting for it. But Democrats didn’t push hard. Jeffries and House Democratic leadership didn’t get it introduced in February before the strikes came at the end of the month.
In March, there was still an opportunity for the House to exert its constitutional authority — to lay down a marker that Trump’s strikes on Iran were unlawful, and that the tens of billions of dollars being spent to cause these thousands of deaths needed to stop. A couple of House Republicans signaled they were on board and might have pushed it across the finish line by a bare majority. And House Democrats didn’t bring it to the floor then, either.
Now, as we speak on April 8th, House Democratic leaders say they will reintroduce it when recess ends shortly. It might get over the finish line now — but they had the opportunities for the past several months, and much of that inaction comes from significant lobbying efforts to keep the war effort unconstrained.
Richard Eskow: Right. And you mentioned a couple of cases where this PAC spending has backfired. The one that came to mind was Analilia Mejia in New Jersey’s 11th district, where AIPAC — using one of those bland, meaningless names you mentioned, I believe the United Democracy Project — went after Tom Malinowski, a candidate who was, by most measures, fairly pro-Israel. Their apparent goal, as I understand it, was to make an example of him for not being sufficiently enthusiastic in his support. But the net result was that someone to Malinowski’s left — who was stronger on Palestinian rights — Analilia Mejia, got the nomination instead.
Now, I don’t know if that’s a rejection of the PAC so much as a tactical error on their part. But when you have that much money — I think they spent more than $2 million in that race — you’re distorting the outcome in a major way. My question would be: why wouldn’t the Democratic Party push to keep this money out of their primaries? It doesn’t help them win. It just helps Republican-aligned billionaires and other outside interests choose their candidates. And secondly, is this a sign that, for all their money, these groups aren’t quite as shrewd as they think they are?
David Moore: To address the first question — there’s another example from the Illinois primaries I mentioned. In those House and Senate primaries, AIPAC more or less split outcomes. They spent $5 million for a candidate who ended up losing to LaShawn Ford in the 7th district, and close to $6 million for Laura Fine, who ended up losing to the mayor of Evanston, Daniel Biss, in the 9th district. That’s a lot of money to lose.
AIPAC spent through super PACs called “Elect Chicago Women” and “Affordable Chicago Now,” as well as the United Democracy Project. For some of these super PACs, the donors were not publicly disclosed at the time the TV ads were running — Illinois voters were in the dark about who was funding what they were seeing. But it was widely understood, given the pattern of who these groups were backing, that these were AIPAC-funded super PACs. And AIPAC did not deny it. Subsequent campaign finance reports made it even clearer.
So to your question about how Democratic voters are being served by attack ads funded by dark money in their primaries — that’s precisely the question for state parties to take up. If more candidates and state parties examined the People’s Pledge and considered how candidates can voluntarily reject this money, that would be a meaningful step. Legally, outside groups can still spend freely thanks to a series of Supreme Court decisions, but candidates have a real role to play, and so do state parties, in shaping the rules of their primary contests.
As for whether these groups are as shrewd as they think — the New Jersey race you mentioned is widely seen as a tactical misstep by AIPAC. Democratic voters are increasingly sophisticated about this stuff, and dumping millions of dollars into outside spending doesn’t guarantee the outcome it once did. We are seeing more candidates come out against it. You mentioned Governor Newsom, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey — a long-standing AIPAC ally — recently claimed he would begin ceasing to accept AIPAC PAC donations. That claim needs to be tested against reality, because he’s been one of their top recipients. But it’s another example of the dynamic you’re describing.
Richard Eskow: And one of my reactions — which is another reason I think this kind of reporting is so important — is that when Cory Booker says he’s going to cut back on AIPAC money, he’s not necessarily saying he’ll cut back on money from the United Democracy Project, or whatever name they choose next. That strikes me as a very good reason why this reporting has to continue.
Before we go, let me check in on the tech side one more time. Crypto — as I mentioned — a lot of people don’t fully understand what it is or what it does. But essentially, it’s electronic currency that is unregulated, or underregulated, and its advocates want to keep it that way. That has, at times, posed major risks to the global financial system — people remember Sam Bankman-Fried and that fiasco, and there are others who could follow him. People also understand AI now, including its massive energy consumption and the data centers polluting surrounding communities. But do we have a sense yet — from your reporting — of how well these newer AI super PACs are performing? Or are they too new to get a read on?
David Moore: Right. Let me give you the lay of the land on crypto first, and then I’ll briefly touch on the connection to the AIPAC point you raised about Booker.
On the question of candidates who say they’re cutting off AIPAC PAC donations — when outside spending flows through a group like the United Democracy Project, it arrives as digital ads on your phone or TV ads in public spaces. The degree to which candidates who claim to be rejecting AIPAC money also commit to rejecting those outside ads is an open question. The goal of something like the People’s Pledge is to cut off that spending entirely. Booker is up for a vote this year, so outside spending in his favor is likely regardless.
On crypto: the industry has several items on its legislative wish list. One it already achieved was the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin bill that President Trump signed into law — a major regulatory win for them. There’s also a broader deregulation bill that has been moving back and forth between the House and the Senate, often called the Clarity Act. The crypto industry is working hard to get that over the finish line while Republicans still control both chambers and have a deregulation-friendly administration — especially given the enormous crypto investments held by people in and around the Trump administration itself.
It’s not clear whether the Clarity Act will pass before the midterms. We’ll see what happens after. But the crypto industry is entirely unapologetic about its political strategy. It said openly that it was prepared to spend enormously in Ohio in the 2024 election — tens of millions of dollars — backing Republican Bernie Moreno, who defeated Sherrod Brown, a senator on the Banking Committee who had been critical of crypto’s approach to consumer protection.
Now, Fair Shake and its affiliated super PACs are back, with Democratic and Republican arms ready to run the same playbook. And voters are going to see those ads. Early voting begins in California primaries next month, in May. Then come June in New York House primary races, and after that in Michigan, Maine, and other battleground states, as crypto looks to consolidate the deregulatory gains it’s already won.
Richard Eskow: At high risk to the public, I would argue. And it was striking to me, in your reporting on how these PACs are gearing up, that the current high-water mark for super PAC spending in midterms was in 2022 — when Club for Growth Action spent $69 million. Fair Shake, according to your reporting, reported total receipts of nearly $73.8 million in the second half of 2025 alone, according to FEC disclosures. Just that one organization appears on track for a hugely record-breaking year — and that’s just crypto. Add AI on top of that, then AIPAC. It sounds overwhelming for voters to push back on.
But it sounds like the one place where this all comes together — where people can really resist — is by demanding that candidates sign the People’s Pledge, confronting them at every public appearance and asking, “Why haven’t you signed it?” That’s my takeaway from what you’re telling me. But what’s your closing thought?
David Moore: I think you’re right. The swell of untraceable, anonymous ads flooding primaries on both sides of the aisle breeds distrust in the political process. Super PACs have become something of a punchline — “Americans for Americans” dropping attack ads — and it tires people out. It reduces voter participation.
It would be a huge step forward for more candidates to adopt the People’s Pledge, and to bring it into their state parties — whether on the left or the right — to encourage others to follow suit. Like the candidates in Maryland and other states who have already taken this step and said: we’re going to choose to reject this outside spending. We’re going to try, as much as possible, to focus our campaigns on the people we’re actually seeking to represent.