pop-up super – After a Kentucky primary unseated Rep. Thomas Massie and a Philadelphia primary delivered a decisive win for progressives, a parallel story emerged: super PAC spending that can run into the tens of millions while obscuring where the money originates, according
When the votes were counted on Tuesday night, Rep. Thomas Massie was gone — decisively ousted in his Kentucky primary. President Donald Trump had thrown his weight behind Massie’s opponent, framing the contest around Massie’s role in pushing for the release of the Epstein files.
In Pennsylvania, the night delivered very different results. Chris Rabb won by nearly 15 points in Philadelphia, a major win described as electrifying for progressives. Bob Brooks. a retired firefighter and union head. also sailed to victory in a Pennsylvania primary with the support of both the left and moderates.
The political narratives were loud. The money was louder — and harder to trace.
In Kentucky. super PACs with ties to Republican donors poured millions into influencing outcomes in both opposition to Massie or support for his opponent. using a campaign-spending structure that can make it difficult for voters to see who is really behind the ads. Federal Election Commission reports released through Tuesday show that AIPAC’s super political action committee and two other groups backed by pro-Israel donors spent more than $15 million in the race.
The Epstein files effort. which had been treated by Democrats as an election issue. did not produce the outcome Massie needed. Massie’s defeat was described as a win for Trump. who had launched an all-out attack on Massie for his role in pushing for the release of the Epstein files. The episode’s discussion also pointed to how enraged Trump became by the issue and how Massie struggled to argue that pushing for Epstein file release was a political win that wouldn’t harm the president.
In Pennsylvania, the spending story took a different form. Ads from Lead Left — a super PAC that reportedly has ties to Republican donors — attacked two candidates in the Democratic field as “not progressive enough.” That led to speculation that Republicans were trying to prop up a weaker candidate for the general election.
What ties both states together is the mechanism. In the episode of The Intercept Briefing. host Jessica Washington and politics reporter Matt Sledge described a system that can “game campaign finance deadlines” by routing money through one super PAC to others — including what he described as “pop-up super PACs” — so reporting happens later and “ordinary voters never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens.”.
The Supreme Court decision that underlies the modern campaign-finance landscape has been blamed, defended, and litigated for years. The episode traced the evolution back to Citizens United 16 years ago, which allowed courts to chip away at restrictions. Sledge described how. after that shift. any industry facing regulation or donors backing unpopular causes can open “the spigots” and try to push primaries their way.
Some industries. he said. have learned how to keep voters from making the obvious connection between the cause advertised and the donor behind it. Crypto. AI. and gambling — industries that ordinary voters often dislike — can still buy influence. he argued. by using super PACs that run ads “that have nothing to do with” those sectors while still trying to ensure politicians remember who spent heavily in their races.
The discussion then broadened beyond the immediate primaries into a wider spending map. It pointed to record-level campaign spending and the idea that some groups use multiple layers of super PAC relationships to keep donors concealed.
That approach shows up most sharply in how AIPAC is described as operating. The episode’s segment said AIPAC’s brand and Israel’s brand were “in the dumps” with Democrats and that even pro-Israel Democrats have said they are not taking AIPAC money.
The tactic. as described. involves pop-up super PACs with “bland. friendly-sounding names.” Instead of one main spending outlet. the episode said AIPAC’s primary super PAC affiliate is not the only vehicle. It described a structure in which AIPAC’s super PAC affiliate sends money to another newly created group. and sometimes even to a second layer of newly created groups — a chain that can delay or shift disclosures until after a race.
A Chicago example was used to illustrate the process. A newly created group called Elect Chicago Women received money from the United Democracy Project. which was described as AIPAC’s super PAC affiliate. Elect Chicago Women then handed a million dollars to another newly created group called the Chicago Progressive Partnership. The episode said that the effect of the transfer was that donor identities for that money did not have to be disclosed until after the race. under Federal Election Commission rules.
The episode also described a separate case in a Pennsylvania primary. It referenced Lead Left and the New York Times and Punchbowl reporting about ties to Republican groups. and said those ads were aimed at “sandbagging the progressive candidates. ” including by arguing that candidates were “not really progressive. ” specifically referencing a person named Ryan Croswell.
Another example was placed in Michigan. where the episode said newly created groups have been spending to boost Haley Stevens. described as AIPAC’s preferred candidate. It said the spending included the use of a consulting firm AIPAC’s super PAC has used before to buy television ads. AIPAC. the episode reported. came out and said it was not behind that spending. and it said no one had “gotten to the bottom of” where the money was coming from.
The episode’s discussion of hidden money also connected to broader mega-donor spending in the midterm cycle. The New York Times was mentioned for reporting that Andreessen Horowitz is the biggest donor this midterm cycle by a wide margin. The episode said Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz have dumped more than $115 million into the cycle so far. It gave context figures for other major donors: George Soros with about $102 million. Elon Musk with $85 million. and Wall Street financier Jeff Yass with $81 million.
Sledge described Andreessen Horowitz as having major investments in crypto and AI and as having created a “massive crypto super PAC network” in the last election cycle, with that same playbook reportedly being repeated for artificial intelligence this cycle.
The money story also moved into the world of influencers and messaging. The episode featured discussion of Ashley St. Clair. described as a former MAGA influencer who has posted videos alleging — in detail — how the White House and powerful figures on the right coordinate messaging with paid influencers. A clip from a recent interview on Zeteo included her description of multiple chats sequestered to large MAGA influencers. some involving members of the administration and others involving “the Trump children. ” coordinating reactions to issues in real time. including through paid campaigns.
On the Democratic side, the episode said Democratic California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer has been accused of not properly disclosing that his campaign paid influencers $10,000 each to promote him.
The episode’s core complaint was not that influencers exist, but that disclosure and regulation were missing. It argued that “disclosure should be a bare minimum. ” and that a functioning Federal Election Commission and Congress would step in to ensure the public can see when campaigns are paying influencers.
For voters, the question becomes what actually breaks through amid the fundraising web. The episode said the economy is expected to be the top issue. followed by the war on Iran as an extension of economic concerns. because it dovetails with affordability. It also discussed ICE as more likely to shape primaries than the general election. and immigration as an area where Trump’s numbers had eroded but remained about 10 points better than other issues. according to the episode’s conversation.
On redistricting. it said the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gutting the Voting Rights Act. unleashing redistricting wars sparked particularly in the South to eliminate minority-majority districts. It then mentioned that last week. the Virginia State Supreme Court rejected a voter-approved gerrymandering effort that would have boosted Democrats’ chances of gaining four seats in the House.
The episode described Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina as quickly passing new maps. It also said Mississippi’s governor stated he would not push redistricting this year, describing it as a timing issue. It added that a wall could come soon because primaries are coming fast and early voting has opened in many places.
The conversation put Michigan’s Senate race high on the list of what to watch, calling it a contest that captures disputes over both Democratic direction and voter preferences. It also framed California’s governor’s race as another major event.
It ended with a look at a local but politically telling contest: the DC mayoral race. The episode said the debate there has turned into youth crime and efforts to restart mass incarceration. It described the fight between Janeese Lewis George. who has fought against teen curfews. and Kenyan McDuffie. who has pushed for curfews while trying to paint himself as more of a progressive.
Across Kentucky and Pennsylvania. the primaries delivered different winners — but the spending machine described in the reporting followed the same logic. Money moved through structures designed to shape outcomes while hiding the donors behind the ads. leaving ordinary voters to navigate an election cycle where the biggest messages can arrive without the full story of who paid for them.
Kentucky primary Pennsylvania primary Thomas Massie Epstein files AIPAC super PAC Lead Left pop-up super PACs Federal Election Commission Citizens United campaign finance Andreessen Horowitz crypto AI gambling influencer disclosure redistricting wars Voting Rights Act DC mayoral race