Kencf0618 / Wikimedia Commons
Conservative political organizations funneled millions of dollars into Democratic primary races across multiple states this election cycle, using super PACs with names designed to sound like progressive groups — a strategy aimed at elevating candidates seen as weaker general election opponents, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Why It Matters
The tactic represents an escalation of cross-party primary meddling that has become an increasingly common feature of modern American elections. With control of the House potentially at stake, both parties have now demonstrated a willingness to spend heavily to shape the opposing party’s nominee selection — a dynamic that raises questions about transparency in campaign finance more than a decade after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending.
What Happened
Three super PACs — Lead Left PAC, Real Change PAC, and Blue California PAC — received substantial funding from Conservative Americans PAC while operating under names suggesting left-leaning origins. The money ultimately traces back to American Prosperity Alliance, a group with ties to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Conservative Americans PAC sent $3 million to Lead Left PAC in May and $1.2 million to Real Change PAC during the same period. The two committees then deployed those funds across several competitive Democratic primaries, typically running ads against candidates viewed as stronger general election threats.
In Pennsylvania’s 7th District, Lead Left PAC spent $1.4 million opposing candidate Bob Brooks — who went on to win the primary anyway. In Nebraska’s 2nd District, the PAC spent $300,000 targeting state Sen. John Cavanaugh, who subsequently lost to Denise Powell.
A separate operation supported candidate Galindo in an unspecified primary, but Galindo was defeated by Johnny Garcia by nearly 30 points. Real Change PAC operated in New Jersey’s 7th District and Maine’s 2nd District, where its spending contributed to state Sen. Joe Baldacci’s loss to state Auditor Matt Dunlap. Efforts to boost Tina Shah over Rebecca Bennett in New Jersey’s 7th District did not succeed. Meanwhile, California Blue PAC backed Democrat Esther Kim-Varet in California’s 40th District without success. A separate group called Progressive Champions PAC has been active in New York’s 17th District, focusing on Army veteran Cait Conley.
By the Numbers
- $3 million — Conservative Americans PAC’s May contribution to Lead Left PAC
- $1.2 million — Conservative Americans PAC’s May contribution to Real Change PAC
- $1.4 million — Lead Left PAC spending in Pennsylvania’s 7th District
- $300,000 — Lead Left PAC spending in Nebraska’s 2nd District
- Nearly 30 points — margin by which conservative-backed candidate Galindo lost his primary
Zoom Out
This kind of cross-party interference is not new. In 2018, pop-up super PACs spent millions in the West Virginia Democratic Senate primary in a race involving then-Sen. Joe Manchin. In 2022, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent money boosting Trump-backed primary challenger John Gibbs against GOP Rep. Peter Meijer — one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump following January 6, 2021. Gibbs won that primary but lost the general election.
Samantha Bullock, a spokesperson for Conservative Americans PAC, defended the strategy directly: “Republicans are leveling the playing field after over a decade of Democrats meddling in our primaries, and with the Democrat Party in the midst of a civil war, Republicans would be stupid not to take advantage while pushing their candidates farther left.”
The broader legal framework enabling this kind of spending dates to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which eliminated restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and outside groups. That decision effectively made large-scale, cross-party primary spending a permanent feature of the American electoral landscape.
What’s Next
Several of the races where conservative money was deployed remain in play heading toward general election matchups. Campaign finance watchdogs are likely to scrutinize whether the PAC names and funding disclosures met legal transparency requirements. The FEC filings that surfaced these operations will continue to be reviewed as additional spending reports become due in the coming weeks.
About the Author
