What this page tracks
Most campaign money is easy to understand: it supports a candidate. This page is about the other kind — major influence campaigns that spend money to demote, damage, or quietly sideline an opponent.
Each case below has three parts: what happened (documented facts), who’s behind it (what we can verify about the network), and why we think they’re doing it — our read on the motive, clearly labeled as analysis, not fact. When the evidence doesn’t support a conclusion, we say so.
Case 1: The $181K spoiler in Ohio
In October 2026, a super PAC that didn’t exist a month earlier spent $181,380 on mailers supporting Gregory Levy — the socialist independent running in Ohio’s U.S. Senate special election against Republican Jon Husted and Democrat Sherrod Brown.
The facts
- The PAC
- Enough Promises Ohio, FEC #C00962563 — registered as a super PAC on September 29, 2026.
- The spending
- $181,380 in independent expenditures (printing/postage) supporting Gregory Levy, reported in 48-hour FEC notices on Oct 7 and Oct 10, 2026.
- Treasurer
- Johnmark Roller, Reynoldsburg, Ohio. No public political profile found.
- Donors
- Not disclosed yet. As a newly registered committee, its first donor report isn’t due until after the election window.
- The race
- Ohio’s Senate special election (Vance’s former seat): Husted (R, appointed incumbent) vs. Brown (D, former senator) vs. Levy (I) vs. Redpath (L). See the race →
A spoiler operation to bleed Brown’s votes
In a tight Husted–Brown race, a socialist independent on the ballot pulls votes disproportionately from the Democrat. Spending $181K to boost Levy’s visibility doesn’t need to elect him — it just needs to peel a point or two off Brown. That’s the classic spoiler play: you don’t attack your opponent; you fund his opponent’s opponent.
We can’t prove who’s funding it until donors are disclosed. But no socialist organization spends its own money through a 12-day-old PAC with a Gmail address. The structure says “built for one job” — and the job it does helps exactly one candidate: Husted.
Case 2: The pop-up blitz against Brown
The Levy spoiler isn’t the only outside operation in Ohio. In September 2026, Reuters reported that the Senate Leadership Fund and five other Republican-aligned super PACs accounted for a $14 million advertising blitz against Sherrod Brown in a single week — and that some of the newest spenders were “pop-up” PACs designed to keep their donors hidden until shortly before Election Day.
The facts
- The PACs
- Ohio Flyer PAC and Buckeyes PAC spent over $3 million combined on anti-Brown ads in one week (Sept 2026). No Going Back PAC (tied to Trump’s MAGA Inc.) spent $6.7M; Musk’s America PAC also attacked Brown.
- The treasurer link
- Ohio Flyer PAC and Buckeyes PAC share a treasurer with a pro-Trump super PAC from the 2016 campaign founded by then-campaign manager Paul Manafort and billionaire donor Tom Barrack. (Reuters, Sept 18, 2026)
- Donors
- Undisclosed at the time of the blitz. OpenSecrets’ Brendan Glavin noted the PACs’ recent registration dates meant they wouldn’t have to identify donors until mid-October.
- The ads
- Attacked Brown over transgender rights, bank bailouts, and sought to portray him as aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. (Reuters)
Soften Brown early, hide the money until it’s too late to matter
The motive here needs less inference: it’s a straight negative blitz to define Brown before he defines himself, in a race both parties see as deciding Senate control. The interesting part is the structure — new PACs, generic names, shared treasurers with old Trump operations, donor disclosure timed to land after the damage is done. The pop-up isn’t hiding what it’s doing. It’s hiding who’s paying for it until the ads have already aired.
Case 3: $20M to stop El-Sayed
In Michigan’s 2026 Democratic Senate primary, AIPAC’s super PAC — the United Democracy Project — spent $20,234,525 opposing Abdul El-Sayed, the pro-Palestine progressive, while backing his opponent Haley Stevens with another $10.5 million.
The facts
- The PAC
- United Democracy Project (FEC #C00799031), AIPAC’s super PAC. Created January 2022; CEO Rob Bassin was AIPAC’s political director for 22 years.
- The spending
- $20,234,525 in independent expenditures opposing El-Sayed; $10.5M supporting Stevens. 57% of UDP’s entire 2026 spending went to this one primary. Full audit →
- The result
- El-Sayed won anyway — by about 1 point. The money showed the scale of the effort; the result showed its limits. Full case study →
Block a pro-Palestine voice before he reaches the Senate
El-Sayed was the kind of candidate AIPAC’s network works hardest to stop: a progressive with a real shot who wouldn’t be a reliable vote for its priorities. Spending $20M+ in a primary — before most voters are paying attention — is about shaping who the nominee is, not winning November. The strategy is the same one UDP ran across 2026: $47 million of its $53.5 million targeted Democratic primaries, because that’s where the network’s preferred candidates get installed with the least scrutiny.
Case 4: MAGA Inc.’s $159 million arm
While the UDP spent its millions in Democratic primaries, a different machine was being built on the Republican side. No Going Back PAC — a super PAC Reuters reports is funded entirely by Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. — has spent more than $159.5 million on independent expenditures since September 1, 2026, making it the single biggest pop-up spender of the cycle. It is the largest of 31 newly-registered committees that have filed their first independent expenditures since September 1; together they have spent $246.9 million, about 80% of it negative.
The facts
- The PAC
- No Going Back PAC Inc., FEC #C00960435 — registered super PAC (independent expenditure-only). Treasurer: Charles Gantt, c/o Bulldog Compliance, Beverly, Massachusetts.
- The network
- Reuters reported (September 2026) that the PAC is funded entirely by Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC; it shares MAGA Inc.’s treasurer. The generic name, the shared treasurer, and the compliance-shop address are the standard pop-up fingerprint: the group presents as independent while operating as an arm of a larger political operation.
- The name
- “We’re not going back” was Kamala Harris’s signature 2024 campaign slogan, chanted at her rallies. This PAC’s name mirrors it. Whether that’s a deliberate taunt or a coincidence isn’t documented — but the money behind the name is MAGA Inc.’s.
- The spending
- $6.7M+ against Sherrod Brown in OH-Sen; about $8M attacking Rep. Tom Suozzi in NY-03; $2.69M opposing Abdul El-Sayed in MI-Sen (Oct 13 filing); and a $6.02M late-expenditure notice filed Oct 16 spanning roughly 30 races. Its largest line, MI-Sen, was reported as $3.92M — but filed as two identical $1,963,540 lines naming Mike Rogers and Abdul El-Sayed, the dual-purpose reporting pattern, so the true ad buy is about $1.96M, not $3.92M. See the race →
- Donors
- Undisclosed at the time of the spending — the pop-up pattern. Recent registration means donor names trail the ads by weeks, landing after the damage is done.
The general-election hammer, built to be disposable
The UDP works the primaries; the Ohio spoiler works a third candidate. No Going Back is the third tool in the kit: brute-force late negative spending to define Democrats in the final weeks — Brown in Ohio, Suozzi in New York, El-Sayed in Michigan. And if anything about the operation ever becomes a liability, the PAC takes the hit, not MAGA Inc. That’s what the disposable structure is for.
Note who El-Sayed is facing now: $20.4M from AIPAC’s network tried to stop him in the primary; now MAGA’s network is spending against him in the general. Different machines, different reasons — same target. Full case study →
Case 5: The $600K RINO-bait spoiler in Ohio
In mid-October 2026, a super PAC that had registered weeks earlier placed a $600,000 ad buy in Ohio’s tied Senate special election — reported to the FEC as two $600,000 lines (oppose Jon Husted / support William Redpath), but confirmed by the Semblen ad tracker as a single dual-purpose ad: true outlay $600,000, not $1.2M. The ads attack Republican Jon Husted as a “RINO” and “D.C. swamp creature” while urging a vote for Libertarian William Redpath, who polls at 1–4%.
The facts
- The PAC
- Buckeye Freedom PAC, FEC #C00963017 — registered as an independent-expenditure-only super PAC in October 2026 (Wisconsin). Financial summary for 07/01–10/14/2026: $0 receipts, $0 disbursements.
- The spending
- $600,000 (true outlay) on “Media Placement and Production” via RFO Marketing Partners LLC, disseminated Oct 17, 2026 — opposing Jon Husted and supporting Libertarian William Redpath in the same ad.
- Treasurer
- Thomas Datwyler — professional PAC-compliance operator affiliated with AxCap Team (Hudson, WI); also treasurer of DJM Buckeye Victory Fund. Website BuckeyeFreedomPAC.com; no social presence found.
- Donors
- Not disclosed. No F3X filed yet; first donor report due around Oct 22, 2026 (Pre-General).
- The race
- Ohio’s Senate special election: Husted (R) vs. Brown (D) statistically tied, with socialist independent Gregory Levy and Libertarian William Redpath also on the ballot. See the race →
A mirror image of Case 1 — this time aimed at the Republican
Case 1’s PAC boosted the socialist independent to bleed Sherrod Brown’s votes. This one runs the same play in reverse: boost the Libertarian to bleed Jon Husted’s. In a statistically tied race, a Libertarian polling at 1–4% draws disproportionately from the Republican — every point Redpath gains is a point Husted can’t afford to lose. And the “RINO” attack does double duty: it gives disaffected conservatives permission to park their vote with Redpath instead of holding their nose for Husted.
We can’t name the funder until the donor report lands. But the structure tells you the direction: no Republican-aligned group spends $600,000 calling its own party’s Senate candidate a RINO while boosting the Libertarian. Like Case 1, this one is built for a single job — and the job it does helps exactly one candidate: Brown.
Case 6: The defense-tech PAC picking a winner in CA-40
In California’s 40th District, two sitting Republican congressmen are running against each other — and a Wisconsin super PAC has spent $6.3 million to decide which one survives. After Prop 50 redrew the map, Rep. Ken Calvert (old CA-41) landed in the new CA-40 against incumbent Rep. Young Kim; both advanced from the June top-two primary. Americans 4 Security PAC has spent $5.56 million opposing Kim and $252,000 supporting Calvert — with another $300,000 anti-Kim media buy placed on Oct 20, 2026.
The facts
- The PAC
- Americans 4 Security PAC, FEC #C00733352 — independent-expenditure-only super PAC, registered January 2020, Plover, Wisconsin. Treasurer: Matthew Karas. 2026 independent expenditures: $6,296,020 (true outlay after collapsing dual-purpose ad pairs reported as two lines).
- The spending
- $5,556,105 opposing Young Kim; $252,486 supporting Ken Calvert (CA-40); $250,000 supporting Rep. Tom Cole (OK-4); $78,011 supporting Michael Alfonso (WI-7). See the race →
- Donors
- 2026 receipts $5.1M itemized: $2.1M from its own 501(c)(4), Americans 4 Security Inc (same treasurer, same Plover address — the c4’s own donors are undisclosed); $1M from Conservative Americans PAC; $525,000 from Palantir CEO Alex Karp; $250,000 from Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar; plus defense-startup executives and Oklahoma farm interests. Duffy for Wisconsin (Sean Duffy’s committee) gave $45,000 while the PAC spent supporting Duffy’s son-in-law Alfonso.
- The complaint
- CREW filed FEC and IRS complaints (amended March 2026) alleging the 501(c)(4) is a political committee in disguise funneling dark money — noting it gave $910,000 to a super PAC in 2025 and that most of its 2024 political money backed Tom Cole’s primary.
- The race
- CA-40: Calvert (R) vs. Kim (R) — a rare incumbent-vs-incumbent general election. One of them goes home on Nov 3 either way; the PAC is spending to choose which one.
Picking a preferred incumbent — with appropriators’ friends paying
This isn’t a fight against Democrats. It’s a defense-industry-aligned donor network — Palantir’s top two executives, defense-startup CEOs — spending $5.8M to decide which Republican holds a safe seat, alongside a long-running patronage line to House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole. When the money’s disclosed donors are the people who sell to the Pentagon and the beneficiaries are the people who fund the Pentagon, the ad copy is beside the point: the spending is the relationship. And the $2.1M routed through the treasurer’s own dark-money nonprofit keeps the ultimate funders — the ones the disclosed list doesn’t name — out of view entirely.
The pattern
Different networks, same toolkit:
1. Pop-up PACs with generic names. “Enough Promises Ohio.” “Ohio Flyer PAC.” “Buckeyes PAC.” “No Going Back PAC.” “United Democracy Project.” Names that say nothing about who’s behind them — the generic name is itself a layer of obscurity. (“Buckeye Freedom PAC” — Case 5 — joined the list in October.)
2. Donor disclosure timed to miss the moment. Register late, spend fast, disclose after the ads have aired and the votes are nearly cast. By the time anyone knows who paid, the operation has already done its work.
3. Shared personnel across supposedly separate groups. Treasurers, vendors, and operatives recur across PACs that present themselves as independent — the Manafort/Barrack-linked treasurer behind the Ohio pop-ups, the AIPAC lifers running the UDP.
4. Primaries and spoilers over general elections. The cheapest time to kill a candidacy is before it becomes the nominee — or to quietly boost a third candidate who splits your opponent’s vote.
How we label what we know
Every case on this page separates documented facts (FEC filings, named reporting, on-the-record data) from our read (motive analysis — clearly boxed and labeled). Facts get sources. Reads get reasoning you can check. When donors or principals are still hidden, we say that instead of guessing.
New operations get added here as they surface and can be documented. The dashboard’s election-news feed logs them first; this page is where the full picture lives.
See the money behind every race
Browse all 470 House and Senate races, with documented funding for 1,139 nominees.
View all midterm elections → ← Back to PoliVion home