Who paid for the attack ads on Mary Waters? Why does this matter?

The ad falsely accused Waters of being against LGBTQ marriage and rehashed a decade-old scandal in which Waters accepted a Rolex watch in exchange for a political favor.

Another mail campaign supported Shakira Lynn Hawkins, a third candidate in the race.

It's debatable how big an impact the ads had, but Waters finished second behind Thanedar. Her campaign manager said the ads played a big role, and I met several voters on Election Day who said the ads soured them on Waters.

By that measure, the ads were effective. Blue Wave Action spent $2.3 million, including $1.5 million from other political committees and $903,500 from private donors. Money well spent, no matter who cashed the checks.

So who was behind it? One partial answer was immediately clear: Blue Wave Action, a political action committee formed in July, was mentioned in campaign finance disclosures. But that doesn't tell the whole story.

Blue Wave Action's donors were not announced until two weeks after the vote.

Financial reports due on 20 August show that the group is working closely with the American-Israel Committee on Public Affairs (AIPAC), a lobby group that is increasingly interfering in US elections.

This revelation was particularly interesting because Thanedar came under AIPAC's scrutiny when he first ran for Congress.

AIPAC spent more than $4 million to support Thanedar's opponents in 2022. At the time, Thanedar was known for pushing Congress to end U.S. aid to Israel as a member of the state legislature.

Thanedar has since become a vocal supporter of Israel's war in Gaza. and took part in a trip to Israel organized by AIPAC. Waters made a name for herself through her criticism of Israel and her call for an end to military support.

My colleague Simon Schuster has thoroughly investigated the revelations to uncover links to the pro-Israel interest group.

He also investigated how “pop-up” groups like Blue Wave Action use campaign finance rules to withhold information from voters.

Below we learn more from Simon about how he went about it.

How reporters follow the money

Simon Schuster is a political reporter for Bridge Michigan and previously led the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization.

He has extensive knowledge of campaign finance processes and how powerful groups move money while remaining compliant with the law. Simon was the first to report on Blue Water Action's donors, so I wanted to talk to him about why this is an important story.

Here is what Simon shared, lightly edited for clarity and length.

What things do you pay particular attention to when reviewing campaign finance information?

SCHUSTER: First of all, of course, it's about the source or sources of the fundraising. For most campaigns, that's relatively easy to identify, but when you see a political action committee or nonprofit spending money on its own to influence an election, I sit up and take notice – especially if they haven't disclosed their donors.

What is particularly important to me is proportion: Is the amount given to a candidate or spent independently of any source large in relation to all the money a candidate has raised?

When you see one organization or individual outshining everyone else, it often sets off alarm bells for me. Something newsworthy could be happening here.

Voters were only able to find out who was behind the ads after the election. How does this affect our understanding of money in politics?

The AIPAC-affiliated organization has created an entity called Pop-Up Super PAC.

They follow the same rules as traditional Super PACs, including filing regular reports detailing how much money is being spent and whether it is being used to support or oppose a candidate. We could see much of Blue Wave Action's spending before the election.

The only difference is that pop-up super PACs like Blue Water Action are formed so close to the election that they don't have to file their first donation disclosure until the election is already over.

This meant that Blue Water Action did not have to disclose any of its donors until August 20, allowing it to spend unlimited amounts of money without voters knowing who was behind the ads.

If you look at the emails that were sent attacking Mary Waters, you will see that they had nothing to do with AIPAC's criteria for supporting or attacking a candidate – namely, support or opposition to the actions of the State of Israel.

Because they are a pop-up super PAC, they can easily obscure the intent and intentions of their spending. To me, this is intentional misleading of voters about the motivations behind their actions.

What important questions did you hope to find answers to?

That $2.3 million was the largest independent expenditure in Michigan's congressional primary this year and was spent to attack a single candidate immediately before the election.

While I thought that this type of communication and spending would fit the pattern of AIPAC's activities in previous congressional elections in Michigan, that is only a guess, as the revelations will not be available until after the election.

I can't say, “That looks like AIPAC.” I can only report it if evidence comes out, which happened long after the election because of these tactics.

I wanted to confirm my suspicion that this was indeed AIPAC spending, and I wanted to know where the money came from.

We have seen examples of local individuals – particularly the Schostak family, a prominent Republican – donating directly to Blue Wave Action.

There we saw a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and a company associated with his family donating to the PAC to support a Democratic candidate by attacking another Democrat in the primary.

Why should this matter to voters?

The lack of transparency makes it especially important to highlight this after the election because the PAC's timing deliberately prevented us from finding out who was behind all of these emails.

These emails were everywhere and people had been talking about them a lot. Although this decision had stalled in terms of the election result, it was important to show who was behind something that had played a significant role in the election.

I think it's the duty of journalists like me to translate this into what it means for our elections: to take data that can be difficult to analyze and put it into concrete terms.

You can't say, 'This amount of money changed the election result by X percent,' but when large donations are made in our elections, it is the job of the media to track down the sources of those donations, find out where the money is coming from, and talk about the motivations behind them.

The first thing you need to know is This information is free and publicly available.

FEC.gov has searchable databases that show who donates to political causes, how campaigns raise and spend money, and who is behind political action committees.

This applies to federal elections. Wayne County has its own public campaign finance database for local elections.

To find out which groups have supported Thanedar, one has to look at his candidate profile as well as that of his opponents. The data is also organized by congressional districts, which allows for comparison of the candidates.

Thanedar raised less than $1 million from individual donors, while Waters raised just $150,300.

Thanedar was directly supported by Protect Progressa cryptocurrency advocacy group that has raised $1 million. Thanedar was indirectly supported by Blue Wave Actionwhich spent $2.3 million to fight Waters and $52,540 to support Hawkins.

Blue Wave Action's records list the donors, as well as details on how the committee spent the money and what other groups it is affiliated with.

The August report shows that 60% of donations to Blue Wave Action came from the United Democracy Project and Voters For Responsive Government. All three groups exchanged money with AIPAC and shared donors.

For example, Hotels.com founder Robert Diener donated to Thanedar, United Democracy Project, Blue Wave Action and AIPAC.

Robert Efroymson, President of the Jewish Federation of New Mexicodonated to Thanedar, Blue Wave Action and United Democracy Project.

Blue Wave Action's only Michigan donor has ties to the Republican Party.

SF Properties, also called the Schostak Family Federal PAC, donated $75,000. The group also donated directly to AIPAC. It is affiliated with former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Robert Schostak.

Blue Wave Action also paid Huckaby Davis Lisker $3,000 for campaign finance compliance services.

The company is a major client of prominent Republican groups and has worked for The US Senate election campaign of vice presidential candidate JD Vance.

Related