A network of political action committees that portrayed themselves as Democratic or progressive organizations received nearly $7 million from a conservative super PAC while attempting to shape Democratic congressional primaries across the country, newly filed federal campaign-finance reports show.
The filings provide the clearest accounting yet of the money behind a multi-state effort that targeted Democratic primaries in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, Maine, California and New York.
The committees branded themselves in their public messaging and websites as opponents of President Donald Trump and supporters of progressive candidates. Their advertising, however, repeatedly benefited candidates Republicans were believed to view as easier to defeat in November—or attacked Democrats considered stronger general-election contenders. Now, these new filings show the full scope of the operation.
Earlier reporting had connected several of the groups to Republican political infrastructure through shared vendors, filing software, addresses and personnel. The latest disclosures establish the direct financial link: Conservative Americans PAC supplied all of the money used by the four committees.
Conservative Americans PAC has itself been financed by the American Prosperity Alliance, a tax-exempt nonprofit that does not publicly disclose its donors. The nonprofit has extensive ties to Republican political operations, including the American Action Network and Congressional Leadership Fund, the principal outside spending group aligned with House Republican leadership.
Conservative Americans donated $3.19M to Lead Left PAC, $1.55M to Progressive Champions PAC, $1.18 to Real Change PAC, and $1.05 to California Blue—a total of $6.97M in all on the subversive operation.
Lead Left
Lead Left PAC was formed on April 24 and advertised itself as an organization fighting “MAGA extremists.” Within weeks, it spent more than $3 million across three Democratic congressional contests. Its FEC report through May showed $3.19 million in contributions, all from political committees rather than individual donors.
Its largest intervention came in Pennsylvania’s competitive 7th Congressional District. Lead Left supported Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure while attacking Bob Brooks and Ryan Crosswell in the Democratic primary. Contemporary reports placed the group’s spending in the race at more than $2 million. McClure was widely viewed as a less formidable prospective challenger to the eventual Republican nominee than Brooks, who had support from organized labor and the Working Families Party.
In Nebraska’s 2nd District, Lead Left spent roughly $293,000 opposing state Sen. John Cavanaugh in his primary against Denise Powell. The group’s advertisements attempted to tie Cavanaugh to Trump by highlighting policy positions the two purportedly shared. Cavanaugh lost the primary by approximately 1,100 votes.
Lead Left also spent nearly $1 million supporting Maureen Galindo in the Democratic runoff for Texas’ 35th District and opposing Johnny Garcia.
Galindo had raised little money herself and drew national condemnation after calling for a facility that would imprison “American Zionists” and making other statements Democratic leaders denounced as antisemitic. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to nominate Galindo because she would be easier to defeat in a district redrawn to favor the GOP. Garcia ultimately defeated Galindo by roughly 20 percentage points despite Lead Left’s spending.
A Campaign Legal Center complaint filed during the primaries accused Lead Left of routing its expenditures through newly created companies in a manner that concealed the firms actually performing the work—notably Piruzi LLC, whose sole incorporator was the PAC’s treasurer. The complaint identified all three races—Pennsylvania’s 7th, Nebraska’s 2nd and Texas’ 35th—as targets of the PAC’s spending.
Real Change
Real Change PAC entered two more competitive Democratic primaries, attacking candidates favored by national party organizations while promoting more progressive alternatives.
In New Jersey’s 7th District, the group spent approximately $661,000 opposing Navy veteran Rebecca Bennett. Its mailers accused Bennett of “standing with ICE” and linked her to Trump, despite her campaign’s argument that Republicans were targeting her because they considered her the strongest prospective challenger to Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. Bennett won the Democratic nomination decisively.
In Maine’s 2nd District, Real Change spent more than $500,000 supporting state Auditor Matt Dunlap and opposing state Sen. Joe Baldacci, the candidate preferred by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other national Democrats. The PAC’s advertisements attacked Baldacci from the left, including over health care, while promoting Dunlap, who had support from the Bernie Sanders-aligned group Our Revolution. Dunlap narrowly won the primary and will compete for an open seat that election analysts have generally rated as favoring Republicans.
Real Change also inadvertently exposed a connection to Republican political consultants when a subscription confirmation from its website was sent through an email domain belonging to Cavalry LLC. The Republican communications firm has received millions of dollars from the Congressional Leadership Fund in previous election cycles.
California Blue
California Blue PAC operated in California’s top-two primary system, where all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of party and the top two finishers advance to November. The group supported Democrat Esther Kim Varet in the redrawn 40th Congressional District, where Republican incumbents Young Kim and Ken Calvert were competing against one another.
As in the other cases, the spending appeared to help a Democrat. But California Blue shared a vendor with Real Change PAC (Four Ponies Consulting LLC, again incorporated by California Blue’s treasurer), while another committee funded by Conservative Americans PAC—California Conservatives PAC—ran advertisements attacking Young Kim as insufficiently loyal to Trump.
The combined strategy could benefit Calvert: boosting the Democrat increased the possibility that Young Kim would be eliminated in the primary, while the conservative-branded committee directly weakened her among Republican voters. Popular Information traced both efforts to the same broader network of vendors and funding. Conservative Americans PAC gave California Blue $1.05 million in May, according to the newly filed disbursements.
Progressive Champions
The fourth committee, Progressive Champions PAC, presented itself as an organization dedicated to electing “bold, progressive candidates.” It instead entered the Democratic primary in New York’s 17th District by spending against Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former national-security official seeking the nomination to challenge Republican Rep. Mike Lawler.
Progressive Champions booked nearly $400,000 in broadcast television advertising attacking Conley as insufficiently progressive and connecting her to Trump. The committee also ran digital advertising against her. The district is among Democrats’ most important potential pickup opportunities. Lawler represents one of the relatively small number of Republican-held districts won by the Democratic presidential ticket in 2024.
Progressive Champions and Real Change were created five minutes apart, used the same small Alabama bank and later filed changes to their reporting schedules using Crimson Filer, campaign-finance software marketed primarily to Republican committees. The newly disclosed $1.55 million from Conservative Americans PAC confirms that Progressive Champions was, as suspected, part of the web of deceit.
Timing is everything
The committees’ timing was central to the strategy. Several were established shortly before the elections and structured their reporting schedules so they could spend large sums without identifying their donors until after voters had cast their ballots. By the time the reports naming Conservative Americans PAC became available, most of the targeted primaries were over.
The results were mixed.
The groups failed to nominate Galindo in Texas, defeat Bennett in New Jersey or block their target in every race. But Cavanaugh lost narrowly in Nebraska, and Dunlap defeated the national Democratic establishment’s preferred candidate in Maine. In Pennsylvania and California, the spending added millions of dollars to already complicated contests.
What the committees lacked in consistent electoral success, they demonstrated in scale. These were not four unrelated groups independently adopting similar tactics. They were components of a national effort financed through a single conservative super PAC and, behind it, a dark-money nonprofit embedded in Republican political infrastructure.
Conservative Americans PAC did not respond to requests for comment and clarification.