The post below this one was previously published earlier today. It can be read before or after this part 2, as there is no crucial sequencing.
Crabgrass looks at the operation, from the perspective of a skeptic wondering why they exist, who funds them, what alliances they have, are they a legitimate force, and what do they intend.
An unfavorable picture has emerged, from scanning web content.
First - in this post - money. Axios reporting Mar 6, 2024: "Exclusive: No Labels super PAC is dialing for dollars"
For the No Labels movement to field a credible bipartisan ticket, organizers need three things they don't have: presidential and vice-presidential candidates and a working campaign to help them make their case to the American people.
- The original No Labels group, founded by Nancy Jacobson, is focused on gaining ballot access in all 50 states. As a 501(c)(4), it can't run a traditional presidential campaign.
- The Super PAC — formally called the New Leaders '24 political action committee — registered with the Federal Election Commission in January and could serve as the campaign vehicle for any potential ticket, the New York Times reported. The PAC aims to raise $300 million for the general election.
What they are saying: "For this ticket to win, we need the many Americans who support this ticket to show their financial support, the same way Democrats and Republicans donate to their political parties regularly," Rob Stutzman, a senior adviser for the super PAC, wrote to potential donors.
- "By becoming a founding donor, you will allow the Unity Ticket to know that they will have the resources to compete and reach voters directly," he said in an email shared with Axios. They asking for $3 donations.
- The group will also include a traditional Super PAC, which can take unlimited — and anonymous — contributions to blanket airwaves across the country.
Three hundred million is not chump change, but this is DC based, the swamp, and aim and actuality need not be congruent. Just give money. Three bucks, and your name makes a list and the big money secret donors will think well of you. Something like that. Seeking a candidate they've been rebuffed by multiple politicians.
But - fundraise on! Money is its own reward.
Cutting to the quick, the main question worth asking - perhaps the only question worth asking or the first point of consideration was asked days ago:
Is No Labels an elaborate grift with no candidate? Their secrecy is telling.
No Labels has gone from noble intentions to shady chicanery. They've spent months spouting a 'just trust us' message while showing us no reason to trust them.
Chris Brennan - USA TODAY
Yeah.
From the item:
No Labels, the nonprofit trying to lure a third-party candidate to run for president this year, should consider rebranding itself as "No Candidate."
In the two weeks since the group's intentionally unidentified 800 "delegates" supposedly voted in a private virtual meeting to move forward with a plan to find a candidate, a steady string of potential contenders have told No Labels, "No thanks."
And there has been a concerning migration in messaging from No Labels, which had been pushing two key talking points since last year. It does not want to be a spoiler that helps former President Donald Trump defeat President Joe Biden, and the group will only field a candidate if they're likely to win the election.
Likely to win? Not likely to monkey around and help Trump? Get real.
Continuing -
Critics, and there are many in a growing chorus of concern, suggest that the folks running No Labels have no direction but are stubbornly sticking to a plan that will ultimately tilt the field in Trump's favor. And some suggest the financial incentive – six-figure salaries for the people pulling the levers of power and fat contracts for consultants – are keeping it all in motion.
Is No Labels really a lucrative grift posing as a civic exercise? It's starting to look that way.
No Labels has lost its way in the 2024 election with few good candidates
Richard J. Davis, a former Watergate prosecutor who served in Jimmy Carter's administration, worked with No Labels when it launched in 2010 with a focus on getting legislators to cooperate in a bipartisan manor.
Davis wrote an op-ed for The Hill this week, saying the group has lost its way and has become "a victim of its own arrogance" likely to help Trump win the presidency if it stays on this course.
"They're running out of candidates who could be credible," Davis told me. "One reason to keep this alive, in their mind, is to give them bargaining leverage with the Biden campaign to give them something. There's no good reason to keep going."
Davis said he thinks No Labels will have to "pull the plug" if they can't find a credible candidate.
Is No Labels an election disruptor?No Labels tells me they don't want to be a 2024 election spoiler. It's time to prove it.
No Labels, which in the past has been responsive to my questions while keeping its donors and operations secret, went silent this week and did not respond to questions about its timeline for taking action.
No Labels keeps its finances secret. That isn't helping their cause.
One of the questions I had for No Labels was about money – salaries and contracts. While No Labels looks like a political party, which would have to file monthly reports with the Federal Elections Commission, the group only has to file an annual nonprofit 990 tax form with the IRS. The most recent filing available to the public is for 2021.
So our understanding of the group's finances are more than two years out of date.
That, coupled with the group's insistence that donors stay secret, creates a lot of doubt and distrust for an organization that keeps claiming it has good intentions.
The Daily Beast reported in November that it had obtained the 2022 tax form for No Labels, which showed founder Nancy Jacobson taking a $300,000 annual salary, among other six-figure paydays for top staffers in a year when the group raised $21.2 million. Jacobson's husband, Mark Penn, owns the polling firm that consults for No Labels. That firm was paid $428,100 in 2021, according to that year's form 990.
Penn, a former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, made news in 2019 when he met with Trump during his first impeachment to discuss polling and again last year when he wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed urging Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president, while dismissing Biden as not being up to the job of defeating Trump again.
Is it any surprise that the word 'grift' keeps coming up?
No Labels originally planned an in-person convention, out in the open for all to see, for next month in Dallas but canceled that in November. Last week, the group posted a video announcing a 12-member "Country Over Party Committee" that will interview would-be candidates and recommend one to the group's delegates.
Again, all in secret. We don't get to see how any of that happens.
End Citizens United, a nonprofit that works "to get big money out of politics," knocked that committee as an "anti-democratic" move from a "corrupt dark-money sham." End Citizens United sued No Labels in January, seeking to force the group to disclose its donors.
Jonas Edwards-Jenks, an End Citizens United spokesperson, said he's been asked many times to speculate about what motivates No Labels.
"The one thing that keeps coming up is this is a grift," he told me. "They're using this to keep the fundraising going, to fill their pockets and keep their names in the news."
Politico reported last June a former No Labels employee identified Harlan Crow as one of the group's funders. If that name rings a bell, it's because Crow is a Republican mega-donor who was exposed last year for providing free lavish vacations and private jet travel to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
What is the true motive of the No Labels movement?
Speaking of keeping a name in the news, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last week became the only high-profile political brand to not rule out a No Labels run. Speaking on a podcast hosted by Democratic political strategist David Axelrod, Christie said he "wouldn't preclude anything at this point."
Christie, a former Trump advisor turned virulent critic of the former president, dropped out of the Republican primary on Jan. 10 before anyone had a chance to vote for or against him. Is he really the guy to beat both Trump and Biden? Short answer: No.
This is the fear for critics of No Labels, that someone like Christie enters the race and draws enough Republican and independent anti-Trump protest votes – which might have gone to Biden – that they enable Trump to prevail. Some think that might be an unintentional outcome. Some wonder if that's the point all along.
Kate deGruyter, a spokesperson for Third Way, a center-left think tank, said the secrecy around No Labels makes it difficult to discern a true motive. The group could have held an open convention, observable by the public.
"Instead, they chose to replicate the model of the smoke-filled room that the major parties got rid of decades ago," deGruyter said. "What struck me as really alarming was, even in the language of announcing the committee, they have shifted away from the language of how they would only go forward if they there could be a victory.
[...] No Labels has gone from noble intentions to shady chicanery. They've spent months spouting a "just trust us" message while showing us no reason to trust them.The math doesn't add up. No Labels can't field a winning ticket. They've walked away from the claim of being "in it to win it." Now they look like they're just in it to stay in it. That may be about money or relevance or leverage. It doesn't matter anymore.
If No Labels is who they claim to be, now is the time to abandon the 2024 presidential ballot. If they don't, then No Labels is what the critics have been warning us about all along.
Follow USA TODAY elections columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan
[highlighting added] Readers might find things in that item to critique. Possibly not.
Mother Jones has obtained a list of 36 wealthy contributors and corporate high-rollers who last year wrote big checks to support No Labels’ effort to win 2024 ballot lines in states across the nation. This roster includes past and present chief executives of major companies, including Loews Corporation (a vast conglomerate), Fluor (an engineering and construction giant), Abry Partners (a private equity firm), SailPoint (a tech firm), and Fortress Investment Group.
[...] Notable within this group is Michael Smith, the billionaire founder of natural gas behemoth Freeport LNG. He has donated more than $5.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super-PAC tied to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Smith also backed Virginia GOP governor Glenn Youngkin and a slew of Republican senators. He has donated—albeit smaller amounts—to several moderate Democrats, such as Montana’s Jon Tester and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. Meanwhile, Smith’s wife, Iris Smith, another contributor to this No Labels project, has been a major donor to Democratic causes. In 2020, she gave more than $500,000 to Biden’s presidential victory fund—a joint fundraising committee that split the money between Biden’s campaign and other Democratic party groups. In the weeks before she made this donation, she wrote checks to the reelection campaigns for GOP Sens. David Perdue and Thom Tillis. She has also contributed to McConnell and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton.
The Smiths did not respond to a request for comment.
A stalwart Republican donor on the list is Tom McInerney, a private-equity investor, who has regularly donated to the Republican National Committee and GOP-linked super-PACs. This year, he has contributed nearly $100,000 to the RNC and over $200,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. He has sent six-figure contributions to fundraising committees organized by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ($250,000 in 2021) and by former speaker Paul Ryan ($244,000 in 2017). He has been a financial backer of McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush. He recently donated to Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who is running for the GOP presidential nomination.
McInerney did not reply to a request for comment.
Three donors on the list contributed to Trump, but only one, Allan Keen, a successful Florida real estate developer, gave a hefty amount. In the run-up to the 2020 election, Keen donated $135,000 to Trump Victory, a joint-fundraising committee that supported Trump’s reelection. Previously, Keen financially backed the presidential campaigns of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, McCain, and Romney. More recently, he has donated to Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in December and became an independent.
At least 16 of the these 36 donors have graced Sinema with money.
Keen could not be reached for comment.
[... more of the same]
The path to locating the federal filing that included this list of donors is convoluted, but it illustrates how dark-money groups operate.
As a nonprofit, No Labels must file tax returns that are public. The most recent return publicly available covers 2021. That year, No Labels raked in $11.3 million from unidentified patrons. The document reports that $2.4 million—a whopping 21 percent of all the money that came in—was given as a grant to a group called Insurance Policy for America, Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware on December 20, 2021 and located at the same Washington, DC, address as No Labels.
In a filing submitted to the IRS, IPFA noted that its president, treasurer, and secretary was Jerald Howe Jr., a top executive at Leidos, a defense, aviation, information technology, and biomedical firm (formerly known as Science Applications International Corporation). Howe is a co-founder and treasurer of No Labels.
No Labels sent IPFA the $2.4 million three days after IPFA was set up.
[... A] Mother Jones reporter contacted Ryan Clancy, the lead strategist for No Labels, and left him a voicemail message requesting to speak to him about the group’s tax return. Clancy replied by email requesting a query be sent to him via an email and noted, “I will look into [it].” The reporter followed up with emails listing questions about the creation of Insurance Policy for America, the transfer of $2.4 million to IPFA, the use of IPFA for No Labels’ 2024 project, and the donations to IPFA. Clancy did not respond.
Maryanne Martini, communications deputy for No Labels, and Nancy Jacobson, the president and CEO of No Labels, did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did Howe.
[...] No Labels insists its work addresses the concerns of voters who have become disillusioned with modern American politics and the partisanship of each side. Yet it sticks with the cynical and common tricks of the trade and eschews transparency and accountability, cloaking the moneybags who underwrite its operation. The list of donors found in the IPFA filing covers only a modest fraction of the money that has so far flowed into this No Labels venture [...]
[highlighting added]
WHINERS.
Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen."
Casting their operation as aggrieved by collective actions of others, No Labels sent the DOJ a whining letter early in January of this year. Their 8p letter thing is online here. These are career DC consultant and politician folks, intent on undermining Joe Biden because he is too progressive for them. JOE BIDEN.
Nobody seems to want to have anything to do with them, Nikki Haley included, Joe Manchin included, Chris Christie included. Yes the two party system sucks. Yes they give us lesser evil choices. Yes, Joe Biden is a far, far lesser evil than Trump. However, No Labels is an organization which is itself a much greater evil than Biden - Harris, and anybody having anything to do with these front people and their secret donors are a toxic force. And, opening, "first - the money." There's no second. First carries the story.
That video ended with Lieberman mouthing platitudes. Liberman, during his life, never impressing Crabgrass as credible about anything. His 15 minutes of fame being as an Al Gore election-losing brainfart.