By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

Independent Nate Powell did something no other candidate in the contested 2026 WA-5 primary race could do; he built a coalition that united progressives and traditional Democrats, and he pulled in a significant number of disenchanted Republicans around the singular cause to unseat incumbent Michael Baumgartner.

Although Powell fell behind Carmela Conroy, the election trajectory he influenced highlights a movement away from the Republican incumbent in WA-5 for the first time in over thirty-two years.

Republican Dominance Begins to Erode

Republicans won 59.6 percent of the WA-5 primary vote in 2022 and 61 percent in the 2024 primary. This August Republicans won just 46.9 percent of the vote, with a weakened Representative Michael Baumgartner as the only Republican on the ballot.

The Republican incumbent lost the party’s share in all twelve counties in the district, by roughly the same margin in each. Formerly deep-red Franklin and Lincoln counties lost as much Republican support by percentage as did Spokane and Whitman counties. Independent candidates took 20.6 percent of the district vote this year, and about two-thirds of that came out of the Republican vote. In Franklin County, the reddest in the district, Democrats won 12.8 percent in 2024 and held their own in 2026, maintaining the same 12.8 percent. But the Republican vote in Franklin County was down 8.4 points, while Independents gained exactly 8.4 points. The shift away from an incumbent whose legislative record is tied so closely to an unpopular president is clear.

The move away from Republican dominance in the district is also supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index rating. During Trump’s presidencies, Cook’s rating of WA-5 has fallen from a R+8 to a R+5.

Conroy Earns a Clear Mandate

Despite the independent surge, the district winner on primary night to advance to the general election was Carmela Conroy. She entered this year’s primary as the leading Democrat from 2024 and emerged with something much stronger: a decisive mandate. Facing the same number of Democratic opponents as she did two years ago, Conroy won nearly sixty percent of the Democratic vote. Her nearest Democratic rival finished with less than a quarter of her total. In 2024, Conroy narrowly led the Democratic field. In 2026, she dominated it.

Keeping His Word

On election night, before the outcome was certain to most, Powell spoke decisively. He told those gathered in the firefighters’ union hall that, if Carmela Conroy advanced, he would do everything he could to help her win in whatever capacity she believed would be most helpful. He was the first to commit; other candidates quickly followed.

When the count confirmed his impressive third-place finish six days later, he fulfilled that promise without hesitation. In a statement thanking the volunteers, campaign staff, family and friends, and the members of organized labor who built his campaign, Powell publicly urged his supporters to unite behind Conroy. He wrote that he trusts her to stand up for working families and to “fight for our community in Congress.” Then he encouraged everyone who supported his message to donate both their time and money to Conroy for Congress.

More Than a Concession

That appeal carried unusual weight. Powell had spent months building a coalition that extended well beyond the Democratic base. His supporters were not all traditional Democratic voters. Yet he asked them to unite behind the Democratic nominee because he believed defeating Michael Baumgartner mattered more than protecting his own political identity. He sought nothing in return, attached no conditions, and made no attempt to preserve distance from the campaign he had just joined. He simply kept the promise he had made on election night.

In the end, Powell did not ask his supporters to remember his campaign. He asked them to continue it, writing that “the fight continues, and today, it moves forward with Carmela Conroy.” He closed the statement simply: “In Solidarity.”

Subscribe to The High Ground

Washington’s Fifth Congressional District is considered Republican ground. Since 1995 the seat has belonged to three Republicans: George Nethercutt, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Michael Baumgartner, who won it when McMorris Rodgers retired in 2025.¹ But a crack has opened in the Republican coalition in Eastern Washington, and it gives a strong Democrat a chance in November.

Nationally, the party has split into two camps. One is the MAGA base loyal to Donald Trump. The other is a large bloc of traditional conservative Republicans uneasy with an administration that has pulled back from alliances and international institutions while becoming more willing to use military force abroad.²

For decades, the Republicans who represented Eastern Washington held a traditionally conservative view of foreign affairs. They backed international trade, because the region’s farm economy lives on exports, and they supported strong alliances and American leadership overseas. Baumgartner has articulated the traditional standard of congressional authorization and alliance support, but then he has consistently retreated, backing the administration’s unilateral use of force and voting against measures to constrain it.³ The administration, supported by far-right members of the House, has withdrawn from international agreements, including the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord.⁴ It has also adopted a more transactional approach toward longstanding allies. Many of those countries are now building new trade and security partnerships, relying less on the United States.⁵ As a result, the region’s farmers are squeezed by higher fuel and fertilizer costs from the war with Iran and reduced access to markets due to the tariff fights, and they want stability.⁶

Across the country, Democrats with military, intelligence, and diplomatic experience are winning in Republican districts.

Republican Ground Is Winnable

The independent Cook Political Report measures how strongly each congressional district favors Republicans or Democrats. Its Partisan Voting Index compares a district’s two-party presidential vote with the national vote over the two most recent presidential elections. A rating of R+5 means the district previously voted five points more Republican than the country.

Cook now rates Washington’s Fifth at R+5. A year ago the rating was R+8. The district’s rating has moved three points toward the national average.⁷

This year, Democrats with national-security records won nominations in Republican districts. Rebecca Bennett, a Navy helicopter pilot, won the Democratic primary in New Jersey’s Seventh, which Trump carried in 2024.⁸ Nancy Lacore, a retired Navy vice admiral, won a runoff in South Carolina’s First, which Trump also carried.⁹ Cait Conley, a former Army special-operations officer, won her primary in New York’s Seventeenth.¹⁰

Democrats with these records have already won general elections in districts more Republican than the Fifth. In 2018, Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer, won Virginia’s Seventh, which Cook rated R+6.¹¹ Conor Lamb, a Marine, won a special election that year in Pennsylvania’s old Eighteenth, which Cook rated R+11.¹²

Others have won more recently. Jared Golden, a Marine, won reelection in 2024 in a Maine district Trump carried. Derek Tran, an Army veteran, unseated a Republican incumbent in California in 2024. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, won a Michigan Senate seat in 2024 while the state voted for Trump.¹³

Washington’s Fifth now has three Democratic candidates with national-security credentials.

WA-5’s National Security Democrats

Carmela Conroy, a Spokane native and former Deputy Prosecutor with the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office, served almost 25 years as a Foreign Service officer in Japan, Afghanistan, New Zealand and in other regions. Among her assignments, she was the consul general in Lahore, Pakistan, during the Afghanistan/Iraq-war period, managing a staff of approximately 600 people in one of the most dangerous assignments in the region. She received the CIA’s Agency Seal Medal for her work preceding the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. She earned her master’s degree in national-security studies at the Naval War College.¹⁴

David Womack served 26 years as an Air Force officer and retired as a colonel. He commanded the 92nd Medical Group at Fairchild Air Force Base and graduated from the Air War College, the Air Force’s senior school for command and strategy. He then spent more than a decade leading health-care organizations, running two rural hospitals, including Whitman Hospital in Colfax, and serving as a senior vice president at Kaiser Permanente, responsible for 115,000 members and a $700 million budget. His connection to Eastern Washington includes his Fairchild command from 2002 to 2004 and his work at the Colfax hospital from 2009 to 2011. He returned to Washington State in 2021 and now resides in Walla Walla.¹⁵

Bajun Mavalwalla served more than two decades in the U.S. Army, most of it in the California Army National Guard. He began on active duty in the Regular Army, trained as a Russian linguist at the Defense Language Institute, and worked in electronic warfare and intelligence. He served most of his career as an enlisted soldier before becoming an officer. He deployed to Iraq and to Afghanistan and has been reported by PBS NewsHour and the Guardian to have earned three Bronze Stars. From 2010 to 2011 he served as a liaison to the political section of the American embassy in Baghdad, and his last deployment, in 2012 and 2013, was as a police adviser in Afghanistan. He moved to Washington State in 2020, according to his campaign biography.¹⁶

No Longer Safe

Washington’s Fifth has elected a Republican for thirty years, and it remains Republican-leaning. In a CNN poll released on July 29, only 19 percent of Republicans nationally say they are enthusiastic about the remainder of Trump’s second term, down from 38 percent in the spring. Roughly two-thirds of Americans say Trump’s military decisions on Iran have hurt the country, and 74 percent say rising gas prices have caused them at least some hardship.¹⁷ At the same time, WA-5’s Democratic candidates this year have national-security backgrounds that may appeal to a district concerned about the direction of American foreign policy and its consequences at home.

Endnotes

1. Associated Press, “Republican Michael Baumgartner wins election to U.S. House in Washington’s 5th Congressional District,” November 5, 2024; Ballotpedia, “Washington’s 5th Congressional District” (Nethercutt, McMorris Rodgers, and Baumgartner succession). https://apnews.com/article/9aa2110f5a914ece9d9a729e345308d1 ; https://ballotpedia.org/Washington%27s_5th_Congressional_District

2. Pew Research Center, “How foreign policy values and issues cut across the political typology groups,” June 10, 2026. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/06/10/how-foreign-policy-values-and-issues-cut-across-the-political-typology-groups/

3. Washington State Standard, “WA’s Baumgartner raises process concerns with U.S. strikes on suspected drug boats,” October 20, 2025; The Spokesman-Review, “Congressmen Michael Baumgartner, Adam Smith react,” January 3, 2026; Rep. Michael Baumgartner, post on X (@RepBaumgartner), June 23, 2025 (commending the Iran strikes); KXLY, “Congressman Michael Baumgartner commends President Trump on Iran bombings,” June 2025; U.S. House Clerk, Roll Call 346 on H.Con.Res. 64, December 17, 2025 (Nay); U.S. House Clerk, Roll Call 85 on H.Con.Res. 38, March 5, 2026 (Nay). https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2025/10/20/was-baumgartner-raises-process-concerns-with-u-s-strikes-on-suspected-drug-boats/ ; https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jan/03/congressmen-michael-baumgartner-adam-smith-react-a/ ;

; https://kxly.com/news/congressman-michael-baumgartner-commends-president-trump-on-iran-bombings/article_5cac9211-1de9-4f96-8d2f-b4de33434d3e.html ; https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2025/roll346.xml ; https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2026/roll085.xml

4. The White House, “Withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization” (Executive Order 14155), January 2025; The White House, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements” (Paris Agreement withdrawal), January 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-the-worldhealth-organization/ ; https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-america-first-in-international-environmental-agreements/

5. Prime Minister of Canada, “Canada announces new strengthened partnership with the European Union,” June 23, 2025; European External Action Service, “Security and Defence: EU and Canada sign a Security and Defence Partnership”; CNN, May 28, 2026 (Canada moving to reduce its reliance on the United States). https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2025/06/23/canada-announces-new-strengthened-partnership-european ; https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-canada-sign-security-and-defence-partnership_en ; https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/americas/canada-us-carney-trade-hnk-intl

6. Reuters, “Rising fuel prices hit US farms as Iran war drags on,” June 9, 2026; The White House, “Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff,” April 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/rising-fuel-prices-hit-us-farms-iran-war-drags-2026-06-09/ ; https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/

7. Cook Political Report, WA-05 (current PVI R+5); Ballotpedia, “Washington’s 5th Congressional District” (R+8 in prior editions, R+5 in the current edition). https://www.cookpolitical.com/house/race/485511 ; https://ballotpedia.org/Washington%27s_5th_Congressional_District

8. Reuters, “Bennett wins Democratic nod in New Jersey primary to face US House Republican Kean,” June 3, 2026 (Navy helicopter pilot; Trump carried NJ-7 in 2024). https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bennett-wins-democratic-nod-new-jersey-primary-face-us-house-republican-kean-2026-06-03/

9. The Guardian, “Admiral fired in Hegseth purge wins Democratic primary in South Carolina,” June 23, 2026; U.S. Navy, “Vice Admiral Nancy S. Lacore”; Wikipedia, “2024 United States presidential election in South Carolina” (Trump carried SC-1, about 55.8 percent to 42.7 percent). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/23/admiral-nancy-lacore-democratic-primary-south-carolina ; https://www.navy.mil/Leadership/Flag-Officer-Biographies/Search/Article/2236442/vice-admiral-nancy-s-lacore/ ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_South_Carolina

10. Reuters, “Conley wins Democratic primary to take on Republican Congressman Mike Lawler in New York,” June 24, 2026; Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, “Cait Conley.” https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/conley-wins-democratic-primary-take-republican-congressman-mike-lawler-new-york-2026-06-24/ ; https://ctc.westpoint.edu/scholars/cait-conley/

11. Virginia Department of Elections, “2018 General Election, U.S. House, Congressional District 7”; Ballotpedia, “Virginia’s 7th Congressional District” (Cook PVI R+6 under the pre-2022 map). https://historical.elections.virginia.gov/contest/134064 ; https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia%27s_7th_Congressional_District

12. Wikipedia, “2018 Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district special election” (Conor Lamb, Marine veteran; Cook PVI R+11; district later eliminated by redistricting). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election

13. Ballotpedia, “Maine’s 2nd Congressional District election, 2024,” and Maine Public, “Golden wins ranked-choice runoff in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District,” November 15, 2024; Associated Press, “Democrat Derek Tran wins election to U.S. House in California’s 45th Congressional District,” November 27, 2024; Wikipedia, “2024 United States Senate election in Michigan” (Slotkin won while Michigan voted for Trump). https://ballotpedia.org/Maine%27s_2nd_Congressional_District_election,_2024 ; https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2024-11-15/golden-wins-ranked-choice-runoff-in-maines-2nd-congressional-district ; https://apnews.com/article/1d4099c725cb49c28badcc348dce742f ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_Senate_election_in_Michigan

14. Carmela Conroy for Congress, campaign biography; Wikipedia, “Carmela Conroy”; U.S. Department of State magazine (identifying Conroy as consul general, Lahore). On her role in the 2011 Raymond Davis crisis and its relation to the bin Laden operation: Raymond Davis with Storms Reback, The Contractor: How I Landed in a Pakistani Prison and Ignited a Diplomatic Crisis (BenBella Books, 2017), pp. 141, 183-185, 209 (“In many ways, Carmela Conroy is the true hero of this story”); Steve Coll, Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America’s Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Penguin Press, 2018), pp. 470-472, 476 (planning for the Abbottabad raid “increased the pressure to somehow extract Raymond Davis”; Davis was released March 16, 2011, 47 days before the May 2 raid).

https://conroy4congress.com/

; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmela_Conroy ; https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/148639.pdf

15. David Womack for Congress, campaign biography; Air Mobility Command, “AMC announces senior officer retirements, assignments.” https://www.davidwomackforcongress.com/about.html ; https://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/148876/amc-announces-senior-officer-retirements-assignments/

16. PBS NewsHour, “Army veteran faces conspiracy charges after participating in anti-ICE protest” (attributing three Bronze Stars to “his father, Bajun Ray Mavalwalla, a retired intelligence officer”); The Spokesman-Review, “For Bajun Mavalwalla, running for Congress is personal,” June 16, 2026; Friends of Bajun, campaign biography (move to Washington in 2020). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/army-veteran-faces-conspiracy-charges-after-participating-in-anti-ice-protest ; https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jun/16/for-bajun-mavalwalla-running-for-congress-is-perso/ ; https://www.votebajun.com/meetbajun

17. CNN, “CNN Poll: Americans doubt Trump is paying enough attention to the country’s most important problems,” July 29, 2026 (CNN Poll conducted by SSRS; interviews conducted July 23 to 27, 2026). https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/29/politics/cnn-poll-donald-trump-midterms-polls-iran-war

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

Independent Nate Powell’s campaign for Congress positions him as a working-class guy promising to take on billionaires on behalf of the district. “Billionaires, corporate interests bought both political parties,” he insists.¹ His primary pitch: money corrupts.

But while his public rhetoric repeatedly accuses the two major parties of being beholden to the rich, his own campaign has quietly welcomed massive financial support from the ultra-wealthy.

Citizens United & the Independent Beneficiary

In just 7 months, Powell’s candidacy has been backed by $1.13 million in direct contributions and independent expenditures, much of it from outside Washington State.²

Speaking to a small group of would-be supporters in December of 2025, Powell cautiously described a dark money network that recruited him with a pledge to provide significant financial support. “There’s two sides to the money,” he explained. “There’s the hard side, that’s the actual donations to the campaign, and then there’s the soft side, that’s the Citizens United independent expenditure stuff. And they have some soft side money that they’re putting into it and helping me get started.” Powell then identified the dark money network and named Dan Osborn. Osborn founded the Working Class Heroes Fund,³ and Powell himself tied his backers to “the same organizations behind” Osborn’s Nebraska campaign. Much of the funding is untraceable dark money. At the December meeting, Powell whispered the truth about who is supporting his campaign: “they’re very quiet about that,” he said.⁴

Independent Expenditures

The majority of financial support directed to Powell’s candidacy do not appear in his campaign disclosures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), but they do carry his message through the primary.

Independent Expenditures are a product of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited money independently to support a political candidate.⁵ “Independently” means the spending must occur without any coordination with the candidate: the outside entity and the candidate cannot consult, share strategy, or communicate about how, when, or where the money is spent.⁶

“The challenge is the money of politics. It costs a ton of money,” Powell explained. “The numbers I’m hearing about what it’s going to cost to run this campaign are wild. They tell me it’s going to cost 2 million bucks to run to the primary, and it’s going to cost more than that in the general.”⁷

The Money Flow

Powell is more than halfway to his primary election target. His campaign has raised $322,821.25,⁸ but it’s the dark money and the Independent Expenditures that have pushed him forward. To date, the network of Super PACs, hybrid PACs, labor PACs, and 501(c)(4) organizations has invested an additional $806,913 in support of Powell’s candidacy. The money has been spent mostly on digital advertising, with glossy mailers and some television.⁹ And almost all of it from outside the state.

The dark money network’s independent expenditures supporting Powell can be tracked on the government’s FEC website, and much of it flows through the Fire House PAC. The primary conduit is the Independent Candidates Action PAC. Supported by a $200,000 contribution by crypto billionaire Michael Novogratz, who is worth over $5B according to Forbes Magazine,¹⁰ the ICA also received $800,000 from Contours Inc., a dark money group.¹¹ ICA also received $400,000 from Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, a 501(c)(4) that does not have to disclose its donors.¹² ICA, in turn, passed $400,000 to Fire House PAC. Notably, Contours Inc. donated another $300,000 directly to Fire House PAC.¹³ Of the $700,000 in pass-through donations, Fire House PAC has so far spent $614,902.27, almost all of its money, on independent expenditures in the WA-5 race: $407,500.89 supporting Powell directly, $183,445.88 opposing Republican Michael Baumgartner, and $23,955.50 opposing Democrat Carmela Conroy.¹⁴

Between July 2 and July 22, 2026, Powell was the beneficiary of an additional $188,560.73 in Independent Expenditure spending from an FEC-registered super PAC called Together for Working People (TWP). The organization also spent $3,450 on behalf of Powell in May.¹⁵

The FUSE Connection

FUSE Washington operates and controls a Super PAC called Together for Working People, according to TWP’s FEC Statement of Organization.¹⁶ FUSE publishes the Progressive Voters Guide for Eastern Washington.¹⁷ Both FUSE and TWP share the same staff, office space and e-mails. FUSE Washington staff directed how the $192,010.73 in Independent Expenditures supporting Powell were spent.¹⁸

On July 10, 2026, the Spokane Firefighters Union PAC, the political committee affiliated with IAFF Local 29, Powell’s own firefighters’ union, contributed $100,000 to Together for Working People.¹⁹ The next day, FUSE Washington released its Progressive Voters Guide, recommending Powell as its only congressional pick in WA-5.²⁰

Money Talks

Powell’s campaign mantra vilifies the two main parties for what he describes as their dependence on big-dollar donors. His most frequent complaint is that the billionaire class is destroying the country. “I’m running for Congress as an independent,” he says, “so Eastern Washington has a representative that isn’t owned by dark money and corporate interests.”²¹

As voters in the Fifth District go to the polls between now and August 4, they are asked to judge this man by his word.

Endnotes

1. Nate Powell, remarks at an exploratory campaign event, Spokane, Washington, December 20, 2025,

2. Federal Election Commission, “Powell for Congress” (C00935866), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00935866/; “Fire House PAC” (C00948059), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00948059/; “Together for Working People” (C00926675), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/.

3. Nebraska Examiner, “Nebraska’s Dan Osborn starts hybrid PAC for working-class candidates,” November 19, 2024, https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/19/nebraskas-dan-osborn-starts-hybrid-pac-for-working-class-candidates/.

4. Nate Powell, remarks at an exploratory campaign event, Spokane, Washington, December 20, 2025. See Endnote 1.

5. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep558/usrep558310/usrep558310.pdf.

6. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B), https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30116%20edition:prelim); 11 C.F.R. § 109.21, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-11/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-109/subpart-C/section-109.21; Federal Election Commission, “Coordinated communications,” https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/coordinated-communications/.

7. Nate Powell, remarks at an exploratory campaign event, Spokane, Washington, December 20, 2025. See Endnote 1.

8. Federal Election Commission, “Powell for Congress” (C00935866), 2025–2026 financial summary, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00935866/?cycle=2026.

9. Federal Election Commission, “Fire House PAC” (C00948059), Schedule E independent expenditures, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00948059/; “Together for Working People” (C00926675), Schedule E independent expenditures, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/.

10. Forbes, “Michael Novogratz,” https://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-novogratz/; Federal Election Commission, Independent Candidates Action (C00905067), April 2026 monthly report (filing 1970533), https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00905067/1970533/.

11. Federal Election Commission, Independent Candidates Action (C00905067), 2025 year-end report (filing 1935696) and February 2026 monthly report (filing 1947459, amended 1959305), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00905067/; Sludge, “A new web of secret money is shaping Democratic races across the country,” April 30, 2026, https://readsludge.com/2026/04/30/a-new-web-of-secret-money-is-shaping-democratic-races-across-the-country/; Washington Free Beacon, https://freebeacon.com/democrats/meet-the-billionaire-funded-super-pac-doing-james-talaricos-political-dirty-work/.

12. Federal Election Commission, Independent Candidates Action (C00905067), June 2026 monthly report (filing 1999860), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00905067/; Internal Revenue Service, determination letter for Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, Inc. (EIN 92-0652730), https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/dl/FinalLetter_92-0652730_GLOBALIMPACTSOCIALWELFAREFUND_01202023_00.pdf; ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, “Global Impact Social Welfare Foundation” (EIN 92-0652730), https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/920652730.

13. Federal Election Commission, “Fire House PAC” (C00948059), July Quarterly report (filing 1995129), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00948059/.

14. Federal Election Commission, “Fire House PAC” (C00948059), Schedule E independent expenditures, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00948059/.

15. Federal Election Commission, “Together for Working People” (C00926675), Schedule E independent expenditures, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/.

16. Federal Election Commission, “Together for Working People” (C00926675), Statement of Organization, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/.

17. Fuse Washington, “The Progressive Voters Guide,”

https://fusewashington.org/

; Progressive Voters Guide, “Spokane County,” Washington 2026 Primary, https://www.progressivevotersguide.com/washington/2026/primary/county/spokane/sample.

18. Federal Election Commission, “Together for Working People” (C00926675), Statement of Organization and Schedule E, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/.

19. Federal Election Commission, “Together for Working People” (C00926675), Pre-Primary report (filing 2001292), https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00926675/; IAFF Local 29, https://local29.org/local-29/; Washington Public Disclosure Commission, enforcement case 9063, https://www.pdc.wa.gov/rules-enforcement/enforcement/enforcement-cases/9063.

20. Progressive Voters Guide, “Spokane County,” Washington 2026 Primary (last updated July 23, 2026), https://www.progressivevotersguide.com/washington/2026/primary/county/spokane/sample.

21. Nate Powell for Congress, “America is on fire” campaign video, Instagram,

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

Michael Baumgartner is competing against twelve challengers for one of two ballot positions for the November general election. A single challenger will emerge to face the incumbent after the August 4 primary.¹ As President Trump’s approval ratings have fallen to their lowest levels of his second term,² the 2026 congressional election is likely to produce the most significant opportunity for Democrats in over twenty years. But will Democrats show up or will they leave the decision of who might represent this district, and potentially be the deciding vote on important legislative issues, to a relatively small number of politically active voters?

Statistically, only about four in ten registered voters in Washington’s 5th District will decide which two candidates move on to the general election.³ More troubling still is that between 70,000 and 90,000 residents are not yet registered to vote.⁴ If they fail to register, their voices will remain silent.

Those non-voters, both registered and unregistered, are our neighbors, our co-workers, the people two doors down. In Washington’s primary system, their electoral absence gives an unequal voice to a minority. When turnout is this low, a challenger needs only one vote more than any of the other eleven competitors to claim the second position on the ballot.⁵ If Democratic-leaning voters stay home, that thin margin can hand the general election right back to Baumgartner.

The Real Contest Is Happening Now

The August primary is approaching quickly, but it is not what many people believe they are watching. Most picture a Democrat facing Baumgartner in the fall. What is actually being decided is a scramble among a dozen challengers for one seat, settled by a slice of the electorate that underrepresents the needs of our district.

That is where you come in. Washington does not register voters by party. The turnout figures show a large pool of people who stay home. Each of us knows like-minded family, friends, co-workers who sit out the primary election, either because they don’t fully understand the stakes or because they feel their vote won’t count. This is exactly why the work belongs to each of us and not to a pollster.

What You Can Do Before August 4

The timing is tight, and it is exact. Ballots were mailed on July 17 and are already in mailboxes across the district. If someone you know is not yet registered, they still can be. Online and mail registrations must be received by Monday, July 27. After that, an eligible resident can still register and vote in person, all the way through 8 p.m. on Election Day, August 4, at a county elections office or voting center. A completed ballot must be postmarked by August 4 or placed in an official drop box by 8 p.m. that day. If it goes by mail, send it several days early so a late postmark does not disqualify it.⁶

The voter margin that will make a difference for the 5th District this year will come from the people who already lean your way and would otherwise stay home. Between now and August 4, find two or three of them. Turning them out is what creates the opening for a Democrat to reach November.

Endnotes

1. Washington Secretary of State, Amended 2026 Certification of Candidates to the Primary Election, May 12, 2026, https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/Amended%202026%20Certification%20of%20Candidates%20to%20Primary%20Election.pdf. Washington Secretary of State, Washington State Primary Election Fact Sheet, August 4, 2026, July 10, 2026, https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/PrimaryElectionFacts2026.pdf

2. Gallup, Presidential Approval Ratings, Donald Trump, https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx. Reuters/Ipsos, Trump approval ties lowest of term, June 23, 2026, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/few-us-say-iran-war-was-worth-it-trump-approval-ties-lowest-term-reutersipsos-2026-06-23/

3. Washington Secretary of State, August 2, 2022 Primary Voter Turnout, https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20220802/turnout.html. Washington Secretary of State, August 7, 2018 Primary Voter Turnout, https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20180807/turnout.html

4. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey profile, Congressional District 5, Washington, https://censusreporter.org/profiles/50000US5305-congressional-district-5-wa/. Washington Secretary of State, Understanding Voter Registration Data, https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-technology/understanding-voter-registration-data

5. Washington Secretary of State, Current Election Information, https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/helpful-information/current-election-information. Washington Secretary of State, Amended 2026 Certification of Candidates to the Primary Election, May 12, 2026, https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/Amended%202026%20Certification%20of%20Candidates%20to%20Primary%20Election.pdf

6. Washington Secretary of State, Washington State Primary Election Fact Sheet, August 4, 2026, July 10, 2026, https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/PrimaryElectionFacts2026.pdf

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

A reader of The LeClaire Report wrote in recently with a comment that provoked some thought and deserves a response. “I really like Carmela Conroy,” the reader said, “she knows the issues. But she lost the last election.” The reader continued, “I think we need someone new. I’m going to research the other candidates before making up my mind.”

I was surprised by the comment. The reader knows and likes Conroy. Her campaign appears to have succeeded with this reader. It established name recognition, trust, and likability. So why search for a new name, a new face, an unknown?

The reader’s comment reflects the Democratic kryptonite for WA-5.

Subscribe to The High Ground

No Democrat Since Foley

No Democrat has represented WA-5 since Speaker Thomas Foley lost to George Nethercutt in 1994.¹ In the elections since, Democrats have repeatedly nominated candidates who introduce themselves to the district for the first time, only to replace them after one loss. The habit of retiring a nominee after a single defeat has left the seat in Republican hands for a generation.

The approach has not produced a Democratic win in more than thirty years.

Conroy’s 2024 result was consistent with recent first-time Democratic nominees. She drew 39.29 percent against Michael Baumgartner.² Two years earlier, Natasha Hill drew 40.34 percent.³ Two years before that, Dave Wilson drew 38.54 percent.⁴ Conroy did not run behind her predecessors. What separates her today is not the previous vote count; it’s that she can now leverage name recognition and a more experienced campaign organization. And, she faces a known incumbant with a broadly unpopular record.

Not Starting From Scratch

A candidate who loses a congressional race keeps real assets. The reader’s e-mail illustrates the most valuable asset of all: the reader already knows and likes Conroy.

Political scientists have measured what that recognition is worth. Research published in the American Journal of Political Science found that merely recognizing a candidate’s name raises the support voters give that candidate, largely because recognition serves as a signal of viability.⁵ Research published in the American Political Science Review reached a similar conclusion in congressional elections. Challengers gain ground as voters come to recognize them because an unknown challenger gives voters little on which to base a decision.⁶ A first campaign turns an unknown into a known quantity. That work is expensive, and Conroy has already done it.

Recognition is not the only legacy of a past campaign. Conroy entered this race⁷ with an organization already assembled, supporters already identified, donors already contacted, and a year of travel behind her across a district that runs from Spokane through the Palouse to the rural counties along the Canadian border. None of that guarantees she will win. But it does mean that she is positioned better than each of the ten first-time competitors who are challenging Baumgartner, most of whom are still unknown to the electorate.⁸

Losing First, Winning Later

The reader’s instinct, one loss and move on, treats a first defeat as disqualifying. But an audit of current House members who won their seat after a previous loss shows that the reader’s instinct misses the value of campaign experience.

Angie Craig lost in Minnesota, then won. Anna Paulina Luna lost in Florida, then won. Derrick Van Orden lost in Wisconsin, then won. Monica De La Cruz lost in Texas, then won. They are Democrats and Republicans from suburban and rural districts. What they share is a first campaign that ended in defeat and a second that did not.⁹

This list of House members doesn’t prove that losing causes winning, but it does suggest that a first campaign often lays the groundwork for the second.

The Question Worth Asking

The reader who prompted this response raised an issue and then quickly resolved it by vowing to consider the other candidates before voting. No one is owed a nomination, and a serious voter should consider each candidate’s record. So, it is worth looking at what the record already shows about the race.

Conroy leads it. As of the last week’s FEC filings, she had raised more financial support than all of the other challengers combined, and her campaign holds more cash heading into the primary.

A stronger measure of her candidacy comes from the analysis of where the money comes from. Conroy’s filings list more donors who live in WA-5, giving more district dollars than any of the other challengers to Baumgartner.¹⁰ That financial support means that Eastern Washington is funding a campaign it will vote for. Money from outside the district is aimed at influencing voter decision making, but it cannot vote.

Conroy also brings a team that has already run a district-wide race. Her campaign has an established network of supporters across the district, and she enjoys the name recognition the reader acknowledged. Taken together, hers is the strongest campaign among the alternatives.

2024 was not her liability; it was her introduction.

Endnotes

1. NBC News, “Former GOP Rep. George Nethercutt, who defeated House Speaker Tom Foley in 1994, dies at 79,” June 17, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/george-nethercutt-defeated-speaker-tom-foley-1994-dies-79-rcna157653

2. Washington Secretary of State, “2024 General Election Results, Congressional District 5, U.S. Representative” (Michael Baumgartner 60.57%, Carmela Conroy 39.29%). https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20241105/congressional-district-5-us-representative.html

3. Washington Secretary of State, “2022 General Election Results, Congressional District 5, U.S. Representative” (Cathy McMorris Rodgers 59.66%, Natasha Hill 40.34%). https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20221108/congressional-district-5-us-representative.html

4. Washington Secretary of State, “2020 General Election Results, Congressional District 5, U.S. Representative” (Cathy McMorris Rodgers 61.31%, Dave Wilson 38.54%). https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20201103/congressional-district-5-us-representative.html

5. Cindy D. Kam and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, “Name Recognition and Candidate Support,” American Journal of Political Science, 2013. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12034. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12034

6. Gary C. Jacobson, “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review, 1978. DOI: 10.2307/1954105. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/effects-of-campaign-spending-in-congressional-elections/A4D6F1D5E7D94274EBFE4A6C4C38500D

7. Spokesman-Review, “Congressional candidates debate immigration, electability, Israel and trans rights in S-R forum,” July 5, 2026, confirming the Baumgartner-Conroy rematch. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/05/congressional-candidates-debate-immigration-electa/

8. Washington’s 5th Congressional District 2026 top-two primary candidate field (Michael Baumgartner and eleven challengers), Ballotpedia and Cheney Free Press, May 2026. https://ballotpedia.org/Washington’s_5th_Congressional_District_election,_2026_(August_4_top-two_primary) ; https://www.cheneyfreepress.com/story/2026/05/14/news/baumgartner-draws-12-challengers/44022.html

9. First-campaign losses followed by election to the current House are documented in each member’s Ballotpedia profile: Angie Craig (Minnesota’s 2nd, lost 2016, won 2018), Anna Paulina Luna (Florida’s 13th, lost 2020, won 2022), Derrick Van Orden (Wisconsin’s 3rd, lost 2020, won 2022), and Monica De La Cruz (Texas’s 15th, lost 2020, won 2022).

10. Federal Election Commission filings, 2026 election cycle: Conroy for Congress, total receipts $300,714, including $215,305 from 765 donors residing in WA-5, and $149,244 cash on hand.

https://www.fec.gov/

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

Independent congressional candidate Nate Powell, running to represent WA-5, is boasting on his website that a recent poll shows him beating incumbent Michael Baumgartner. The poll shows he has a 53% to 47% lead.¹ But a deep dive into the pollster’s website shows that only 17% of the poll’s respondents had ever heard of Powell.²

The language of the poll’s questions, its methodology, and what the poll leaves out, resulted in a manufactured outcome designed to elevate Powell’s candidacy. The poll was produced by Tavern Research and was funded through the dark-money network that recruited Powell. The poll presented Powell as the only independent candidate in the race, omitting his four independent rivals. And the pollster included a warning about the poll results, writing: “A share that big, built on voters who can’t describe the candidate, is soft.”³

The Polling Blueprint

Powell’s poll is one of four nearly identical polls Tavern Research released in May 2026, each in a different state. Each poll tested a single independent against a Republican incumbent: Dan Osborn against Pete Ricketts in Nebraska, Powell against Baumgartner in WA-5, Michael Thurow against Glenn Grothman in Wisconsin’s 6th, and Bill Hill against Nick Begich in Alaska.⁴

The method was the same in each. Every poll drew its respondents from opt-in web panels, weighted them on the same five criteria: gender, race, education, 2024 presidential vote, and age. Every poll set the Republican against named Democrats, a generic Democrat, and the independent supported by the same dark money PAC.

The outcome was the same in each poll. In all four states, the Republican beat every Democrat tested, and in all four the independent ran stronger than any Democrat. Two of the independents polled higher than the incumbent: Osborn over Ricketts, 47 to 42, and Powell over Baumgartner, 53 to 47. Four states, four Republican incumbents, and in every one the independent, not any Democrat, won the headline.

All four independent candidates share the same funding source. Each was recruited and endorsed by the Working Class Heroes Fund, an Omaha political action committee founded by Osborn, himself one of the four candidates.^5,6 Federal Election Commission filings show that WCHF received at least $450,000 from Contours Inc. Contours is a Delaware nonprofit the IRS recognized as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization in October 2025. By law, it is not required to disclose its donors, the defining characteristic of dark money.⁷ Powell’s polling data is labeled with Contours’ name on the pollster’s website.⁸

Inside the Methodology

The poll tested a head-to-head matchup between Powell and Baumgartner. But it also included a question about favorability. 83% of respondents checked the box that read “Not sure / Never heard of (him)”. In the question, the respondent was given one choice, Baumgartner, the incumbent Republican, or Powell, the unknown independent. The majority of participants chose Powell.⁹

Of the 578 respondents,191 (33%) identified as Republicans. 225 identified as independents, and 162 identified as Democrats. A pollster controls the demographic of respondents. Tavern drew its sample from web panels, the method identified in its own data reports. Those panels consist of people who volunteer to take online surveys for rewards rather than a random sample of voters.¹⁰ By design, the pollster chose to weight participation in favor of an independent candidate.

The real WA-5 contest is an August 4 top-two primary with twelve candidates, including six Democrats and five independents.¹¹ Tavern Research tested Powell as the lone independent, one-on-one against Baumgartner, with the four others, Andrew Bartleson, Ann Marie Danimus, Matthew Hayes, and Kyle Usrey, removed from the ballot.¹²

The Pollster’s Conclusion

The frailties of the poll’s methodology can be found at the source. Tavern’s own disclosure of its independent weighted poll warns, “The party label is doing the work.” The memo continues: “His 53% looks like a parking spot for voters who want to fire the incumbent but won’t vote for a Democrat, not real support for Powell himself.”¹³

The Poll’s Other Findings

The poll also asked voters how they view each candidate. Net favorability is the share who view a candidate favorably minus the share who view him unfavorably. A negative score means more voters dislike him than like him. Among independents, the group asked to choose between Baumgartner and Powell, Powell’s score is actually negative. Most of them do not know him, and the few who do lean against him. The poll data shows that no other candidate in the race rates lower with independents.¹⁴

By contrast, the Tavern poll specifically determined that Carmela Conroy was the best-regarded challenger in the field. The chart ranks each candidate’s net favorability within each voter group. Conroy’s +22 among Democrats is the strongest rating any challenger earns with any group of voters polled. Powell’s single best rating is +7, and it comes from Republicans. With independents, Powell falls to −4, below every other candidate in the race. Yet the poll says those same independents back him over Baumgartner, 69 to 31. The pollster noted that respondents voted for the independent label when no other alternative to Baumgartner was offered.¹⁵

When the Poll Becomes the Message

Powell’s website presents the poll as proof that he is the strongest challenger to Baumgartner.¹⁶ That headline now circulates as fact, repeated without the warnings the pollster provided.

Fuse Washington has adopted the headline. Fuse is a progressive advocacy organization, a 501(c)(4) founded in 2007, best known for its Progressive Voters Guide, and it identifies itself as the largest progressive group in the state.¹⁷ Its 2026 Eastern Washington action plan reproduces Powell’s headline on a slide of its own: “Powell: 53, Baumgartner: 47.” Fuse also shows three Democrats losing, and credits Tavern’s methodology for the conclusion. Fuse does not include an analysis of the underlying data, nor of the pollster’s warnings.¹⁸

The LeClaire Report asked Fuse Washington about its reliance on the poll. At the time of this writing, Fuse has not responded.

Polls are intended to measure public opinion, not manufacture it. When a poll is stripped of the context its own author says is essential, it can misdirect decisions about where money is spent, where volunteers work, which candidate an organization promotes, and ultimately how voters view the race. How a campaign presents evidence is itself a reflection of the candidate. With ballots about to be cast in Washington’s August 4 primary, a candidate’s duty is to ensure that claims presented to voters reflect not only a poll’s headline, but also its limitations.

Endnotes

1. Nate Powell for Congress, “New Poll Shows Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails Independent Nate Powell.” https://natepowellforcongress.com/new-poll-shows-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent-nate-powell/

2. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

3. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

4. Tavern Research, “WI-06: Grothman Leads Every Matchup. Independent, Michael Thurow, Cuts His Margin in Half,” May 29, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings/wi06-grothman-independent-halves-margin

Tavern Research, “AK-AL: Begich Leads Every Matchup. An Unknown Independent Runs Closest,” May 29, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings/ak-al-begich-leads-independent-runs-closest

Tavern Research, “Ricketts Has an Independent Problem in Nebraska,” May 11, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings/nebraska-senate-poll

5. Nate Powell, remarks, Spokane, December 20, 2025, video published by Indivisible Spokane.

6. Working Class Heroes Fund, Endorsements. https://www.workingclassheroes.fund/endorsements

Working Class Heroes Fund, About. https://www.workingclassheroes.fund/about

Federal Election Commission, Working Class Heroes Fund (C00892653), committee overview. https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00892653/

7. Federal Election Commission, Working Class Heroes Fund (C00892653), Schedule A receipts from Contours Inc., October 1, 2025 and April 27, 2026. https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00892653&contributor_name=Contours

Sludge, “A New Web of Secret Money Is Shaping Democratic Races Across the Country,” April 30, 2026. https://readsludge.com/2026/04/30/a-new-web-of-secret-money-is-shaping-democratic-races-across-the-country/

8. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

9. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

10. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

11. Washington Secretary of State / Spokesman-Review, WA-5 2026 candidate field, August 4, 2026 primary. https://www.spokesman.com/elections/2026/washington-primary-election-aug-4/races/congressional/congressional-district-5/us-representative/

12. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

13. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

14. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

15. Tavern Research, “WA-05: Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails the Lone Independent,” May 29, 2026, with crosstab file “WA-05 Crosstabs - Contours - WA5 20260518_133809.pdf,” fielded May 18-25, 2026. https://www.tavernresearch.com/research-and-writings//wa-05-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent

16. Nate Powell for Congress, “New Poll Shows Baumgartner Leads Democrats, Trails Independent Nate Powell.” https://natepowellforcongress.com/new-poll-shows-baumgartner-leads-democrats-trails-independent-nate-powell/

17. Charity Navigator, “FUSE WASHINGTON (EIN: 26-0573960).” https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/260573960

Fuse Washington, “About Us.” https://fusewashington.org/about-fuse

Fuse Washington, “Our Programs.” https://www.fusewashington.org/about-fuse/programs

Fuse Washington, “Behind the Scenes of the Progressive Voters Guide,” August 2, 2018. https://www.fusewashington.org/news/blog/behind-scenes-progressive-voters-guide

Progressive Voters Guide, “About.” https://progressivevotersguide.com/washington/2025/primary/about

18. Fuse Washington, “2026 Eastern WA Electoral Landscape, WA-5 Deep Dive,” internal deck, provided by requester.

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

The Fourth of July fills Eastern Washington with flags, and it should. But the loudest form of patriotism is not today’s parades, or tonight’s fireworks. It is what we all will do on Election Day. And between now and the primary on August 4, tomorrow is important, Sunday, July 5.

At 2 p.m., the Spokesman-Review and the Spokane Public Library will host a forum for candidates in the Fifth Congressional District at the downtown Central Library.¹ Every candidate has been invited. Our current Congressman Michael Baumgartner has chosen not to attend. When he launched his re-election in early May, he indicated he was too busy to meet his constituents on a competitive stage.

So, the patriotic assignment is ours. Voting for the right candidate at this moment, with all that threatens the economy, the country’s security and our democracy, calls for each of us to look beyond any single hot button issue. Defeating a Republican in CD-5 requires unity behind the right candidate. The person we send to Washington casts the district’s one vote on federal spending, impacting health security, housing security, food security, education, agriculture and policies that protect the rights and dignity for everyone living in this country. The right candidate will focus on reclaiming the authority of the power of the purse from the executive branch. The next democratically led Congress will have to investigate corruption, interpret the law, and cross-examine witnesses under oath in many committee hearings already being planned. While new legislation under Democratic leadership will make efforts to rein in executive corruption, the people’s house must still write bills to keep the government functioning as it rebuilds support for a more representative union. At this moment, a ballot cast on a single grievance, the price of gas, on immigration or even on the frustration many feel about the past shortcomings of the Democratic Party, will gift the seat back to Baumgartner.

Which is why Sunday is a test to give the candidates, not just an event to attend. Listen to how they answer. Be skeptical of the ones who promise to make life affordable again, or the candidate who promises to fix everything, but never says how. Be wary of the candidate who argues that the sky is falling, and only he or she can fix it. Consider, as you listen to each presentation, whether this candidate can work effectively within the Democratic Party caucus to influence legislation that will impact this district.. What committees will this candidate be assigned to by party leadership that will meaningfully advantage Eastern Washington and the rest of the country. A first-term member of the House cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling, outlaw corporate money by force of will, or promise free health care to all; a candidate who makes those pledges is performative, not aspirational. Ask instead the question the job demands: can this person read a statute, follow the money, and hold a powerful official to account when the cameras are off.

That standard rewards a particular kind of preparation demonstrated through experience, common sense and a proven understanding of how government is built to work.

The Fourth of July calls to us, not only to celebrate our 250 years of self-government, but to do the homework it asks of each of us, to ensure we can celebrate our 251^st year.

Bring your questions and listen carefully to the answers. There is a real chance this cycle that the right person on that stage will be our next member of Congress.

Editor’s Note, July 1, 2026

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, as it has since 1868.

Michael Baumgartner tried his best to overturn that protection. He signed an amicus brief that was filed with the high court as it heard the case this spring. In signing the brief, he aligned himself with the white nationalist movement, whose supporters authored the document. After yesterday’s ruling, Baumgartner complained that the Court had maintained a “farcical notion” and said Congress should close the “loophole.” By his statements and actions, WA-5’s congressman continues to show that he is tone-deaf to legal precedent and the law, but fully receptive to white nationalist priorities, an agenda repudiated by the Court in its 6-3 decision.

The following article was first published here on Jerry LeClaire’s Substack as the Supreme Court was about to hear arguments. It details Baumgartner’s alignment with factions of the country that continue to work against the public good in their undemocratic efforts to purify America in their image.

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

The Choice

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to consider one of the most significant constitutional cases in decades. Representative Michael Baumgartner is one of twenty-eight members of Congress, sixteen House Republicans and twelve Senate Republicans, most associated with the party’s far-right and hardline factions, who filed an amicus brief urging the Court to narrow the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.¹

An amicus curiae brief allows outside actors to insert arguments directly into a Supreme Court case, even though they are not parties to it. In this case, Baumgartner joined a coordinated congressional effort to support Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, which seeks to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Children born to lawful permanent residents, aka green card holders, are not targeted by the order.²

The brief was authored by America First Legal Foundation, the legal organization co-founded by Stephen Miller. In this brief, AFL advances a theory of citizenship that rejects long-settled constitutional doctrine.³ That theory has circulated for years in white-nationalist and “Great Replacement” legal and intellectual circles, where birthright citizenship is framed as a threat to national identity and to white political dominance.⁴

By signing onto this brief, Baumgartner aligned himself with a legal movement whose authors, sources, and intellectual origins are rooted in white nationalist ideology, a movement that has long characterized birthright citizenship as a threat often referred to as “the browning of America.”⁵

The Backstop

Baumgartner’s most direct description of how immigration policy is being coordinated came in a closed Ripon Society panel attended by conservative donors and activists. Speaking about his assignment to the House Judiciary Committee, he told the audience it had been “fascinating to see how much the administration looks to House Judiciary Committee Republicans as a backstop for what they’re doing.”⁶

As an example, Baumgartner said Stephen Miller, who serves as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and the administration’s lead official on immigration⁷, sought Judiciary Committee members out for a strategy discussion on immigration policy.⁸ He also said the very first dinner Pam Bondi held with her team was with Judiciary Committee members at the Department of Justice.⁹

Baumgartner did not describe these meetings as oversight or as efforts by Congress to check executive power; he described them as coordination, with the House Judiciary Committee positioned to support an agenda set inside the White House. The term he used, “backstop,” is revealing. A backstop reinforces an existing plan. It does not constrain it.

Taken together, Baumgartner’s account describes a coordinated sequence involving the White House, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), inverting the normal separation of powers and placing congressional oversight and prosecutorial independence in a supporting role to executive policy.

The Authors

The amicus brief Baumgartner signed was authored by America First Legal (AFL), a legal nonprofit founded by Stephen Miller and Gene Hamilton in April 2021.¹⁰ AFL has advanced immigration theories that had failed repeatedly in courts but had circulated for years inside a network of lawyers, think tanks, and advocacy groups rooted in white nationalist ideology.

Its birthright citizenship theory did not originate in the executive branch or Congress; it was incubated in a parallel legal ecosystem that had long rejected the settled meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That ecosystem is well documented. Miller’s role in it predates AFL. In 2019, leaked emails published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) showed Miller routinely sharing material from VDARE, a white nationalist publication, and promoting The Camp of the Saints, a novel revered in white supremacist circles for its portrayal of nonwhite immigration as the cause of civilizational collapse.¹¹ The SPLC described Miller’s communications as reflecting open white nationalism¹², prompting more than 100 members of Congress to call for his resignation in Trump’s first term.¹³

Gene Hamilton, America First Legal’s other co-founder, provides the institutional bridge. As a senior Justice Department official in the first Trump administration, Hamilton worked closely with Miller on immigration enforcement, including family separation.¹⁴ He later authored the Department of Justice chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025¹⁵, while continuing to lead litigation efforts through America First Legal.

The brief’s co-filing partners deepen that picture. Boyden Gray PLLC, a law firm which joined the filing¹⁶, is led by Jonathan Berry, an alumnus of the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship.¹⁷ ADF is designated as an extremist organization by the SPLC.¹⁸ Berry also authored Project 2025’s Department of Labor chapter¹⁹, linking the brief to a coordinated effort to apply the same legal framework across the federal government.

The intellectual origins of this theory go even further back, to institutions like the Claremont Institute and its Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, which has promoted a “total allegiance” theory of citizenship drawn from nineteenth-century nativist movements.²⁰ That theory treats children born in the United States to disfavored groups as inherently suspect, a logic historically used to justify Chinese exclusion, Japanese internment, and religious loyalty tests. The brief draws on that same tradition.

These actors are not united by party affiliation or policy preference. They share a premise: that demographic change itself is a threat to be managed through law. Within that framework, citizenship functions as a gatekeeping tool rather than a birthright, and the Constitution becomes an obstacle to be overcome by reinterpreting key clauses.

Only against that background does the brief’s fixation on “birth tourism” make sense. Not as a factual assessment, but as a rhetorical device.

The Distraction

Section VIII of the amicus brief argues that the lower courts’ reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would undermine national sovereignty and security, and it builds that argument almost entirely around claims about Chinese nationals traveling to the United States to give birth.²¹

The brief’s central figure is an estimate that as many as 1.5 million Chinese nationals have obtained U.S. citizenship through birth over roughly the last fifteen years, presented as a national-security threat involving foreign manipulation of American citizenship.²² That figure does not come from federal data. The brief takes it from Peter Schweizer’s book The Invisible Coup, which builds the estimate from Chinese-government figures and one academic’s higher projection.²³ The United States keeps no record of parental nationality on birth certificates, a point Schweizer himself concedes, so the number rests on foreign estimates the brief never independently verifies.

The birth-tourism frame the brief adopts is not new. It is a longstanding project of the organized restrictionist movement, including the Center for Immigration Studies, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designated an anti-immigrant hate group in 2016.²⁴ CIS was founded by John Tanton, whom the SPLC has documented as a white nationalist, and for years circulated material from VDARE and other extremist outlets.²⁵

The brief amplifies the most alarming version of these claims while ignoring independent estimates. The Niskanen Center found that actual birth tourism accounts for fewer than 2,000 births per year once long-term U.S. residents are excluded.²⁶ The Pew Research Center estimates that at least 250,000 children are born each year in the United States to undocumented parents, families who live here, work here, and are raising American children.²⁷ The Fourteenth Amendment was written to ensure that children born on American soil would not be denied citizenship based on the status of their parents. It guaranteed that belonging would be determined by birth rather than bloodline. Executive Order 14160 breaks that guarantee for roughly a quarter of a million children each year, set against the fewer than 2,000 birth tourists the brief invokes to justify it. The ratio of actual impact to rhetorical focus is roughly 125 to 1.²⁸

The legal theory the brief advances draws no distinction between a child born in a rented apartment used for a birth tourism operation and a child born to parents with long-term lawful status, such as those holding Temporary Protected Status or H-1B visas, who have lived and worked in the same community for years. Under the “total allegiance” standard the brief proposes, both are denied citizenship on the same terms.²⁹ The focus on birth tourism conceals the real scope of what the brief proposes. A quarter of a million children born to working families become a line in a national-security argument, while the policy that threatens them gathers momentum.

Baumgartner furthers the moment himself. At an August 2025 Republican fundraising dinner in Spokane, known as “Paint It Red,” he invoked slavery while praising Ulysses S. Grant. “And one of my absolute favorite things about Ulysses S. Grant is that he didn’t have any money, and he got some slaves because his wife was a slave-owning family, and he gave up his slaves, while poor, which would be like, you know, value-wise, like giving up your house.”³⁰ The remark treats enslaved people as a unit of property whose surrender measures Grant’s virtue, not as human beings held in bondage. It is the same operation that runs through the brief: reduce people to abstractions, and the moral cost of what you are advocating disappears. Baumgartner’s praise of President Grant was also imprecise. Grant emancipated one enslaved man, William Jones, while at least four enslaved people owned by his wife’s family continued to labor in the household for several years afterward.³¹

The Last Resort

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160 on his first day back in office.³² The order was immediately challenged in federal courts across the country. Federal courts across the country blocked its enforcement, finding that it conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.³³

Rather than allowing the normal appellate process to proceed, the administration sought Supreme Court review before any court of appeals had ruled. The Court granted certiorari before judgment.³⁴ That procedural step is typically reserved for cases involving genuine national emergencies or irreconcilable conflicts in the lower courts. No circuit split had emerged when the administration sought review.³⁵

It was at that point that the amicus brief Baumgartner signed entered the case. The brief did not introduce new evidence or respond to the courts’ reasoning. It asked the Court to adopt the same theory that lower courts had already rejected, repackaged with the birth-tourism narrative examined above.

This is where Baumgartner’s own description of the Judiciary Committee as a “backstop” becomes operational. The coordination he described extended to supporting a last-ditch legal effort to rescue an executive action that had already been found unconstitutional. Baumgartner’s willing signature did not advance a live legal question. It aligned him with a failed theory kept alive by the white nationalist legal movement that produced the brief.

The Record

The amicus curiae brief Baumgartner signed was filed with the Supreme Court under his name as a sitting member of Congress.³⁶ By signing as an amicus, he asked the Court to give weight to the arguments America First Legal advanced in deciding the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. That act carries responsibility. A member of Congress who appears as amicus is not registering a vote or issuing a press statement. He is vouching for the contents of a Supreme Court brief.

Baumgartner therefore faces only two explanations. Either he read the filing and endorsed its arguments, including its sources and framing, or he signed a Supreme Court brief without reviewing it. There is no third option that preserves independence, diligence, or credibility.

Regardless of which explanation applies, what remains is the fact of his signature. It appears on a document produced by a network with documented ties to white nationalist ideology. It appears on a brief that advances language and theories drawn from that tradition. It appears on a filing that asks the Supreme Court to narrow who counts as American at birth. This is the record Baumgartner has now created for himself. It is what his constituents will judge him by.

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (U.S., filed Jan. 27, 2026); full list of amici (Senate and House) on page 2, Interest of Amici Curiae. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

2. Exec. Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8,449 (Jan. 20, 2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

3. Amicus Curiae Brief, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, authored by America First Legal Foundation; see signature page. America First Legal Foundation, “America First Legal Files U.S. Supreme Court Brief on Behalf of U.S. Senators and Representatives Supporting President Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship,” press release. https://aflegal.org/press-release/america-first-legal-files-u-s-supreme-court-brief-on-behalf-of-u-s-senators-and-representatives-supporting-president-trumps-executive-order-on-birthright-citizenship/

4. Anti-Defamation League, “The Great Replacement: An Explainer.” https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/great-replacement-explainer

5. ADL, “Sovereign American Project” (2021). https://www.adl.org/resources/report/sovereign-american-project

6. Rep. Baumgartner, Ripon Society panel, “Effort to Reach Agreement on Reconciliation,” on or about May 13, 2025.

(11:40 for the introduction of Baumgartner; 14:40 for his comments on the backstop, Miller, and Bondi).

7. White House, “President Trump Announces Senior White House Staff Appointments.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-announces-senior-white-house-staff-appointments/

8. Ripon Society panel (see endnote 6).

9. Ripon Society panel (see endnote 6).

10. America First Legal Foundation, “About.” https://aflegal.org/about/

11. SPLC Hatewatch, “Stephen Miller’s Affinity for White Nationalism Revealed in Leaked Emails,” Nov. 13, 2019. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/11/13/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails

12. SPLC Hatewatch (see endnote 11).

13. Rep. Don Beyer, joint letter, “Members of Congress Call for Miller’s Resignation.” https://beyer.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4647

14. American Oversight FOIA, “Emails Reveal DOJ Officials’ Close Working Relationship with Stephen Miller.” https://americanoversight.org/emails-reveal-doj-officials-close-working-relationship-with-stephen-miller-at-height-of-family-separations/

15. Gene Hamilton, “Department of Justice,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Heritage Foundation, 2023), ch. 17. https://www.project2025.org/policy/

16. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, signature and counsel pages (Boyden Gray PLLC, counsel). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

17. ADF, “Blackstone Legal Fellowship”; Jonathan Berry official House witness bio. https://adflegal.org/training/blackstone/

18. SPLC Extremist Files, “Alliance Defending Freedom.” https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/alliance-defending-freedom/

19. Jonathan Berry, “Department of Labor and Related Agencies,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Heritage Foundation, 2023), ch. 18. https://www.project2025.org/policy/

20. Brief of Amicus Curiae the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (advancing the allegiance reading of the Citizenship Clause). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392804/20260127131459707_25-365%20TSAC%20CCJ.pdf

21. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, Section VIII, pp. 30-31. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

22. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, Section VIII, pp. 30-31 (the 750,000 to 1.5 million estimate). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

23. Peter Schweizer, The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon (HarperCollins, 2026), p. 78. The brief cites this source in Section VIII.

24. SPLC Extremist Files, “Center for Immigration Studies.” https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/center-immigration-studies/

25. SPLC Extremist Files, “John Tanton” (https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/john-tanton/); SPLC Hatewatch, “More Than An Occasional Crank: 2,012 Times the Center for Immigration Studies Circulated White Nationalist Content” (https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/more-occasional-crank-2012-times-center-immigration-studies-circulated-white-nationalist/).

26. Jeremy L. Neufeld, “Birth Tourism Revisited,” Niskanen Center, March 18, 2020. https://www.niskanencenter.org/birth-tourism-revisited/

27. Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center (births to unauthorized-immigrant parents). https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2018/11/01/birthrates-among-u-s-immigrants-and-their-children/

28. Author’s calculation: 250,000 (Pew Research Center) divided by 2,000 (Niskanen Center) is approximately 125 to 1.

29. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (arguing the Citizenship Clause requires complete jurisdiction and total allegiance). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

30. Michael Baumgartner, remarks at “Paint It Red” fundraising dinner, Davenport Grand Hotel, Spokane, WA, August 17, 2025. Transcribed by the author from an audio recording of the event. Independently documented in Emry Dinman, “Baumgartner ’paints it red’ with re-election fundraiser alongside guest speaker, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan,” The Spokesman-Review, August 17, 2025. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/aug/17/baumgartner-paints-it-red-with-re-election-fundrai/

31. “William Jones,” National Park Service (https://www.nps.gov/people/william-jones.htm); “The Formerly Enslaved Household of the Grant Family,” White House Historical Association (https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-formerly-enslaved-household-of-the-grant-family); “Myths & Misunderstandings: Grant as a Slaveholder,” American Civil War Museum (https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/).

32. Exec. Order No. 14,160 (see endnote 2).

33. Reuters, “US Supreme Court May Rule Allowing Enforcement of Trump Birthright Citizenship,” June 27, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

34. SCOTUS docket, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html

35. SCOTUS docket (see endnote 34).

36. Amicus Curiae Brief of Members of Congress, Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365, cover page. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392875/20260128114151284_Birthright%20Citizenship%20Merits%20Amicus%20Brief%201.27.26.pdf

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

On June 29 the Supreme Court ruled that federal law lets a state count a mailed ballot as long as it is postmarked by Election Day, even when it arrives days later.¹ When the Court heard arguments in the mail-in ballot case in March, Jerry LeClaire and I reported the case as it was presented to the court.² The ruling yesterday is a real win for mail voting. However, for the rural counties of Washington’s Fifth Congressional District it changes very little, because under separate postal rules a lawful ballot can be mailed before Election Day and still not be counted.

The Postal Rule The Supreme Court Never Considered

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, answered a narrow question. By a vote of five to four, the Court ruled that federal law lets a state count ballots postmarked by Election Day even when they arrive in the days after the election. Republicans argued that a ballot had to be received by Election Day, not merely postmarked and mailed by then.³ Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the electorate’s choice ‘is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.’⁴ The Court treated the casting of the ballot as the act that must happen by Election Day, and left the deadline for receipt to the states. Washington, like Mississippi, treats a mailed ballot as timely when it bears an Election Day postmark.⁵ For many rural voters, that postmark requirement could be subject to delays outside the voter’s control.

That problem stems from two recent USPS policy changes. On December 24, 2025, the Trump administration’s Postal Service redefined the postmark. A mailed item is now postmarked on the date it reaches an automated processing facility, not the date the sender actually drops it in the mailbox.⁶ For all of Eastern Washington, that facility is a single building, the regional processing center on South Spotted Road in Spokane.⁷ On April 1, 2025, the Postal Service slowed the mail that funnels through it, adding a day for mail sent from offices more than fifty-miles by road from a regional center. It also ended evening collection at those offices, so outgoing mail now waits overnight for the next morning’s truck.⁸ A ballot handed to a clerk in Republic or Colville on Election Day afternoon does not move that night. It reaches Spokane the next day, or later, and is postmarked there, after Election Day. Washington election law has not changed. The state still requires an Election Day postmark. A late ballot is rejected.⁹ The delay is the calculus of federal postal rules.

The Fifty-Mile Rule

The Postal Service flags ZIP codes to slow mail delivery when the sender is more than fifty-miles by road from the Spokane center.¹⁰ This rule disproportionately impacts WA-5 rural communities. Many post offices in the WA-5 fall on the far side of the fifty-mile barrier. To name a few: in Ferry County every community is outside the ‘save zone’, and ballots mailed from those offices on Election Day will be delayed. In Lincoln County: Harrington, Creston, Wilbur, Almira, Odessa and other communities will lose ballots mailed on Election Day. So too will ballots mailed on Election Day from Chewelah, Kettle Falls, Northport, Addy and other communities in Stevens County.

Plan Ahead or Lose Your Vote

Most voters will simply drop the ballot in the mailbox. If that is you, do not wait until Election Day. In many of WA-5’s rural communities a ballot mailed on August 4 can be postmarked after the deadline, and once that happens nothing can fix it.

Plan to mail your ballot no later than Friday, July 31, so it is postmarked by Election Day, August 4.¹¹

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. Watson v. Republican National Committee, No. 24-1260, slip op. (U.S. June 29, 2026) (5 to 4): the federal election-day statutes do not require ballots to be received by Election Day, so a state may count ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward. Opinion of the Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf. Coverage: CBS News, June 29, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-mail-ballots-mississippi-law-watson-v-rnc/.

2. Jerry LeClaire and Grant Fredericks, “The Mail and the Midterms: Ballots at Risk,” Indivisible--The High Ground, March 23, 2026, https://jerrysindivisible.substack.com/p/the-mail-and-the-midterms-ballots.

3. The Court held, by a vote of five to four, that nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day; the Republican challengers had argued that a ballot must be received by Election Day, not merely cast or postmarked by then. Watson v. RNC, slip op. (June 29, 2026); Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, “Supreme Court Decides Watson v. Republican National Committee et al.,” June 2026, https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/6/supreme-court-decides-watson-v-republican-national-committee-et-al; SCOTUSblog, “Justices uphold state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots,” June 29, 2026, https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/justices-uphold-state-law-allowing-for-late-arriving-mail-in-ballots/.

4. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Opinion of the Court, Watson v. RNC, No. 24-1260, slip op. at 7 (Part II.B): “The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf.

5. Washington requires a mailed ballot to be postmarked no later than Election Day, or returned to a drop box by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, to be counted. RCW 29A.40.110, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.110. Mississippi’s law at issue in Watson likewise treats a ballot as timely when “postmarked on or before the date of the election.” Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-637, described in Watson v. RNC, slip op. at 1 to 2.

6. USPS Domestic Mail Manual, Section 608.11, “Postmarks and Postal Possession,” effective December 24, 2025: a machine-applied postmark reflects the date of first automated processing at a facility, not the date the item was deposited. Final rule, Federal Register, November 24, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/24/2025-20740/postmarks-and-postal-possession. See also CNN, December 31, 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/31/politics/usps-postmark-rule-change-mail-in-ballots; Brookings Institution, “When a postmark no longer tracks mailing,” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/when-a-postmark-no-longer-tracks-mailing/.

7. The Spokane Processing and Distribution Center, 2928 S. Spotted Rd., Spokane, WA 99224, processes mail for all of Eastern Washington (ZIP prefixes 990 through 994) and North Idaho. “Equipment upgrades to USPS facility in Spokane boosts efficiency,” The Spokesman-Review, December 4, 2022, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/dec/04/equipment-upgrades-to-usps-facility-in-spokane-boo/; USPS, “USPS Highlights State-of-the-Art Package Sorting Machines, Holiday Season Readiness in Spokane,” November 26, 2025, https://about.usps.com/newsroom/local-releases/wa/2025/1126-usps-highlights-holiday-season-readiness-in-spokane.htm. Under the Delivering for America plan, regional processing centers handle all originating mail for their region. USPS Office of Inspector General, “What are the Postal Service’s plans for the new network?,” https://www.uspsoig.gov/focus-areas/did-you-know/what-are-postal-services-plans-new-network.

8. USPS implemented Phase 1 of its Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) on April 1, 2025. For Post Offices more than fifty miles by road from a regional processing center, end-of-day collection was discontinued and one day was added to service standards, so outgoing mail waits overnight for the next morning’s pickup. USPS, “USPS Is Enhancing Service Standards,” March 20, 2025, https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2025/0320-usps-is-enhancing-service-standards.htm; U.S. Government Accountability Office, B-338071 (RTO implemented nationwide April 1, 2025; mail dropped more than fifty miles from a regional hub collected the next day), https://www.gao.gov/products/b-338071; Save the Post Office, “Understanding the new USPS service standards and how they apply to your ZIP Code,” March 2, 2025, https://www.savethepostoffice.com/understanding-the-new-usps-service-standards-and-how-they-apply-to-your-zip-code/.

9. A Washington ballot must be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day or postmarked no later than Election Day; a ballot with a late postmark is rejected. RCW 29A.40.110, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.110; Washington Secretary of State, “Frequently Asked Questions on Voting by Mail” (“A late postmark means your ballot will not be counted”), https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/helpful-information/frequently-asked-questions-voting-mail.

10. USPS applies the slower RTO standard to a five-digit ZIP code when a Post Office in it lies more than fifty miles by road from its servicing regional processing center. USPS-LR-N2024-1-1, “RTO Determination Based on Distance from RPDC,” Docket No. N2024-1 (rev. November 12, 2024); Postal Regulatory Commission, Advisory Opinion, Docket No. N2024-1, https://www.prc.gov/sites/default/files/Advisory-Opinion.pdf. Community status was confirmed against the fifty-mile road standard by measuring road distance from each Post Office to 2928 S. Spotted Rd., Spokane; communities well beyond the line were confirmed by straight-line distance, which is necessarily shorter than the road distance.

11. To be counted, a Washington ballot must be deposited in an official ballot drop box by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day or postmarked no later than Election Day; the Postal Service recommends mailing at least a week before the deadline. RCW 29A.40.110, https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.110; RCW 29A.40.170 (drop boxes secured at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day), https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.40.170; Washington Secretary of State, “Frequently Asked Questions on Voting by Mail” (USPS recommends mailing at least one week before Election Day), https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/helpful-information/frequently-asked-questions-voting-mail.

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

Baumgartner called Donald Trump the most significant American president on Middle East policy since Dwight Eisenhower. He offered that phrase in April, as a ceasefire took hold in a war he had argued must end only when Iran’s nuclear program was fully dismantled, and with the condition that Iran be kept under economic pressure until it complied.¹ The memorandum of understanding that ceased hostilities last week does neither. Iran’s enriched uranium stays inside the country, its oil exports are permitted to resume, and the naval blockade Baumgartner wanted maintained until its uranium was surrendered has been dismantled.² He sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which has oversight of both the war and the agreement that put it on pause.³ He spent a year making the case for war and is now reluctant to accept the peace.

Permanently, Irreversibly, Verifiably

In May 2025, Baumgartner introduced House Resolution 398, roughly six weeks before American bombers first struck Iran’s enrichment sites. The resolution declared it United States policy to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and called for the “fully dismantling” of its nuclear weapons program.⁴ Days after those June strikes, joined by Representatives August Pfluger and Zach Nunn, he sponsored a second resolution demanding the program be dismantled “permanently, irreversibly, and verifiably,” with a commitment to defend Israel.⁵ The blockade, he said, should hold until all of Iran’s enriched uranium was in American hands, relief coming only after Iran surrendered it.⁶

Effective, Rather Than Concerning

In an April interview with the Spokesman-Review, Baumgartner defended Trump’s conduct of the war. The day before, with Iran’s military blocking the Strait of Hormuz, Trump had threatened that an entire civilization would die if the strait stayed closed. Baumgartner likened the threat to Machiavelli, describing it as Trump mirroring the regime’s apocalyptic language to prove he was not bluffing, and said the rhetoric struck him as effective rather than concerning. He told the paper he cared about the ceasefire more than about how the president framed things. Ryan Crocker, a Spokane Valley native who served as United States ambassador to six countries in the region and endorsed Baumgartner’s 2024 campaign, warned the opposite that week. The truce, he said, could leave Iran’s government stronger and its Revolutionary Guard more entrenched than before the war began.⁷

They Get To Do Both

On May 3, weeks before the agreement, Baumgartner wrote: “They can sell oil, or they can have enriched uranium.”⁸ The memorandum Trump signed lets Iran do both. Iran’s oil exports may resume the moment the deal is signed, and its enriched uranium stays in the country.⁹ United States intelligence assessments indicated that Iran’s stockpile of roughly 440 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium remained inside the country, beyond the reach of inspectors, leaving its nuclear timeline little changed.¹⁰ The deal also opens a path to ending sanctions and to a reconstruction plan for Iran of at least three hundred billion dollars.¹¹

Iran’s lead negotiator said Tehran had obtained through negotiation “several times over” what it had sought through the war.¹² Israeli officials were less pleased; before the agreement, they had believed Iran was nearing economic collapse.¹³ Reuters reported that the Revolutionary Guard, long a target of the sanctions, was positioned to capture much of the gain, and quoted one Iranian source calling the Guards “the real winners of the war.”¹⁴ It was the outcome Crocker had warned of in April.

Critical Oversight Role

His May 2025 resolution made a second demand, this one about Congress’s authority. Announcing it, Baumgartner said deterrence required “affirming Congress’s critical oversight role, especially regarding the authorization of force.”¹⁵ When Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a war powers resolution requiring congressional authorization for military action against Iran, Baumgartner spoke against it on the House floor and dismissed it as “a partisan political maneuver by the Democrats.” Warren Davidson, a Republican from Ohio, disagreed and voted for it.¹⁶ On June 3, when the House passed another war powers resolution, 215 to 208, Baumgartner voted no.¹⁷ Despite earlier calling Congress’s role critical, he opposed both measures that would have asserted it.

Under A Pile Of Dirt

Two weeks after that vote, on June 17, the memorandum was signed.¹⁸ The one time Baumgartner spoke about the MOU in public, he did not defend it. On the BBC’s Newsnight that day, asked how he answered the charge that the roughly three-hundred-billion-dollar fund for Iran amounted to rebuilding the enemy, he said the United States would “see what develops in the next 60 days.” It could still “choke off Iran’s economy at any time of our choosing,” he added, a step that would break the very agreement he was defending. Then he changed the subject. The president, he said, was the man who put Soleimani and the Ayatollah “in the dirt” and Iran’s nuclear program “under a pile of dirt.”¹⁹

It is a practiced move. For a year he had justified the war by reciting the regime’s dead Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks, Khobar Towers, the hundreds killed in Iraq, Soleimani in Trump’s first term.²⁰ Now, with a deal in front of him that lets Iran keep its uranium and sell its oil, Baumgartner did not defend the agreement’s terms. He returned instead to the same catalogue of old grievances and old victories he had invoked throughout the war: the regime’s dead Americans, Soleimani, the Ayatollah. He called the program buried while the agreement leaves roughly 440 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium inside the country.²¹ Asked about the MOU, he made the case for the war.

An Honor To Serve

The war Baumgartner had defended for a year killed thirteen Americans and wounded around four hundred.²² Few in Congress are better placed to judge whether it was worth it. Across that year he had repeatedly set out what an acceptable outcome would require. The memorandum meets none of those conditions, and he has not said so.

This week in Switzerland, Vice President JD Vance opened a fresh round of talks by asking Iran to “turn over a new leaf” and spoke of transforming the two countries’ relationship.²³ The outcome Baumgartner demanded is not the agreement Trump signed, nor the future Vance now describes. He cannot defend that deal without abandoning those terms, and he cannot attack it without turning on the president he praised.

His district is home to Fairchild Air Force Base and the military families stationed there. The week the memorandum reached Congress, the newsletter Baumgartner sent those constituents led with a change of command at Fairchild and the opening of a splash pad in Deer Park. It said nothing about the war, the deal, or the Americans who died.²⁴

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. Orion Donovan Smith, “As shaky U.S.-Iran ceasefire begins, Crocker calls Trump’s threats ‘beyond extreme’ while Baumgartner defends them as ‘Machiavellian,’” Spokesman-Review, April 8, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/apr/08/as-shaky-us-iran-ceasefire-begins-crocker-calls-tr/

2. Tanya Noury, “Read the 14-point memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran,” Military Times, June 17, 2026. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/06/17/read-the-14-point-memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-united-states-and-iran/
“What the Trump-Iran agreement says about Lebanon, Hormuz and uranium,” Al Jazeera, June 18, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/18/what-the-trump-iran-14-point-plan-says-about-lebanon-hormuz-and-uranium

3. Office of Rep. Michael Baumgartner, “Baumgartner Introduces Resolution to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons,” May 13, 2025. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-introduces-resolution-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons

4. Office of Rep. Michael Baumgartner, “Baumgartner Introduces Resolution to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons,” May 13, 2025. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-introduces-resolution-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons
H.Res. 398, 119th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/398/text
U.S. Department of War, “Historically Successful Strike on Iranian Nuclear Site Was 15 Years in the Making,” June 26, 2025. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4227082/

5. Office of Rep. Michael Baumgartner, “Baumgartner, Pfluger, Nunn Champion Resolution to End Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Defend Israel,” June 27, 2025. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-pfluger-nunn-champion-resolution-end-irans-nuclear-threat-and

6. Rep. Michael Baumgartner (@RepBaumgartner), post, March 28, 2026.

7. Orion Donovan Smith, “As shaky U.S.-Iran ceasefire begins, Crocker calls Trump’s threats ‘beyond extreme’ while Baumgartner defends them as ‘Machiavellian,’” Spokesman-Review, April 8, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/apr/08/as-shaky-us-iran-ceasefire-begins-crocker-calls-tr/
“Recent endorsements,” Vote Baumgartner for Congress, October 9, 2024. https://www.votebaumgartner.com/post/recent-endorsements

8. Rep. Michael Baumgartner (@RepBaumgartner), post, May 3, 2026.

9. Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. See note 2.

10. “Iran’s nuclear weapon timeline barely set back despite US-Israeli strikes,” Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2026. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-895127

11. Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, clauses 6 and 7. See note 2.

12. “Ghalibaf Declares Victory in Negotiations. Does Anyone Listen?” Middle East Forum, June 17, 2026. https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/ghalibaf-declares-victory-in-negotiations-does-anyone-listen
West Asia News Agency, “Negotiations Yielded Far Greater Results Than Military Action,” June 17, 2026. https://wanaen.com/ghalibaf-negotiations-yielded-far-greater-results-than-military-action/

13. “Iran’s economic collapse was ‘imminent’ before US deal,” Jerusalem Post, June 17, 2026. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-899740

14. Reuters, “Iranian Guards’ business empire to win big if U.S. sanctions lifted,” June 20, 2026 (canonical, paywalled). https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-guards-business-empire-win-big-if-us-sanctions-lifted-2026-06-20/
Times of Israel, “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to win big if US lifts sanctions as part of peace deal,” June 20, 2026. https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-revolutionary-guard-to-win-big-if-us-lifts-sanctions-as-part-of-peace-deal/

15. Office of Rep. Michael Baumgartner, “Baumgartner Introduces Resolution to Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons,” May 13, 2025. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-introduces-resolution-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons

16. Congressional Record, 119th Congress, March 4, 2026, p. H2395. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-03-04/html/CREC-2026-03-04-pt1-PgH2395.htm
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Roll Call 85, March 5, 2026. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202685

17. U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Roll Call 199, June 3, 2026. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2026199

18. Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. See note 2.

19. BBC Newsnight, interview with Rep. Michael Baumgartner, June 17, 2026, from 0:18 (broadcast; transcript on file with the author).
Clip excerpt: BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight), June 17, 2026.

20. Congressional Record, 119th Congress, March 4, 2026, p. H2374. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-03-04/html/CREC-2026-03-04-pt1-PgH2374.htm

21. See note 10.

22. Reuters, “US troops, families adjust to new normal of Iran war,” June 7, 2026 (canonical, paywalled). https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-troops-families-adjust-to-new-normal-iran-war-2026-06-07/
The Arab Weekly, “US troops, families struggle to adjust to ‘new normal’ of Iran war,” June 8, 2026. https://thearabweekly.com/us-troops-families-struggle-adjust-new-normal-iran-war

23. Associated Press, “Vance meets top Iranian officials as US looks to prod Iran to ‘turn over a new leaf,’” PBS NewsHour, June 21, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/vance-meets-top-iranian-officials-as-us-looks-to-prod-iran-to-turn-over-a-new-leaf
“US, Iran agree on ‘roadmap’ towards final deal in Switzerland talks,” Al Jazeera, June 22, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/6/22/us-iran-agree-on-roadmap-towards-final-deal-in-switzerland-talks

24. Rep. Michael Baumgartner, “Your Voice in Congress: Weekly Update,” constituent newsletter, June 19, 2026

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

The root failure of American politics, according to WA-5 congressional candidate Nate Powell, is that “it has turned everything into a game or a sport, just fighting against the other side, the other team.” Both parties, he says, “block each other and fight each other.”¹ In another video he stresses, “They say America is broken. I see it burning.” His words are the voiceover for his campaign video. The images supporting his words show him inside a mixed martial arts cage, slamming an opponent to the canvas.²

From the Cage to Congress

Powell presents his record as a mixed martial artist as part of his qualification for office. “I was an MMA fighter,” he says in the video. “I went undefeated in the cage.”³ Spokane Boxing Gym LLC endorsed his campaign.⁴

The stage is set. The rhetoric, the imagery, and the candidacy present physical aggression as a political virtue.

It’s In the Blood

On March 5, 2026, President Trump used the same credential as qualification for his cabinet. He announced on Truth Social that Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma would become Secretary of Homeland Security. “A MAGA Warrior,” Trump wrote, “and former undefeated professional MMA fighter, Markwayne truly gets along well with people, and knows the Wisdom and Courage required to Advance our America First Agenda.”⁵ Mullin was sworn in on March 24.⁶

Three years earlier, during a Senate committee hearing, Mullin stood, appeared to remove his wedding ring, and challenged Teamsters president Sean O’Brien to a fistfight. Senator Bernie Sanders gaveled him down. “Sit down,” Sanders said. “You’re a United States senator. This is a hearing.”⁷

The Arena

Since 1878, the South Lawn of the White House has hosted the Easter Egg Roll, one of the nation’s oldest public traditions on executive grounds, where every spring the Republic has opened its gates to children.⁸ On May 26, 2026, construction crews began ripping out the South Lawn and erecting in its place an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) octagon.⁹ Trump promotes the event as “the greatest show on earth.”¹⁰ Reuters described the construction as a “cage-fighting arena”.¹¹ The bouts are scheduled for June 14, Flag Day and the President’s 80th birthday.¹²

The current fight card lists seven bouts.¹³ Approximately 4,000 spectators will be ticketed within the arena, with an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 viewers nearby on the Ellipse.¹⁴ Paramount+ will broadcast the spectacle live as part of a $7.7 billion contract with the UFC.¹⁵

On the South Lawn, spectators will gather to watch men strike one another with fists, elbows, knees and feet; to watch bodies slammed to the canvas; to watch blood drawn by blows; to watch chokeholds tightened until an opponent submits or loses consciousness. This is the spectacle chosen to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

For generations, Americans have used the South Lawn to project something about the country to itself and to the world: ceremony, continuity, public ritual, children gathering on the grass behind the White House.

This year, on Flag Day, the grounds will serve as a gladiatorial arena.

The symbolism is the message.

In campaign videos, Senate hearings, and now on the South Lawn itself, the language and imagery of violence have increasingly moved into American political life.

When Violence Becomes Character

Voters in Eastern Washington are being asked whether the qualities that win physical fights are the same qualities that should govern a democracy.

When he announced his candidacy to Washington’s Fifth Congressional District seat, he stated, “I have a theory of violence.”¹⁶

Fighting is not merely part of Nate Powell’s biography. It is part of his political message.

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. Nate Powell for Congress, campaign video, Facebook reel. https://www.facebook.com/reel/939925945479414

2. Nate Powell for Congress, campaign video.

3. Nate Powell for Congress, campaign video.

4. Nate Powell for Congress, endorsement announcement, Facebook, April 18, 2026. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122119848513211327&set=a.122108182971211327

5. Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, March 5, 2026; corroborated by Sports Politika, March 2026.

Sports Politika

Out with the ICE Barbie, In with the Cagefighter

Welcome to Sports Politika, a media venture founded by investigative journalist and researcher Karim Zidan that strives to help you understand how sports and politics shape the world around us. My mission is to offer an independent platform for accessible journalism that raises awareness and empowers understanding…

Read more

6 months ago · 21 likes · 1 comment · Karim Zidan

6. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Senate Confirms Markwayne Mullin as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, March 24, 2026. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/03/24/us-senate-confirms-markwayne-mullin-secretary-department-homeland-security

7. CNBC, GOP Sen. Mullin challenges Teamsters boss to fight at Senate hearing: Stand your butt up, November 14, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/stand-your-butt-up-gop-sen-mullin-challenges-teamsters-boss-to-fight-at-senate-hearing.html

8. White House Historical Association, History of the White House Easter Egg Roll. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/press-room/press-backgrounders/history-of-the-white-house-easter-egg-roll

9. ABC News, Construction underway on UFC octagon at the White House, May 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/construction-underway-ufc-octagon-white-house-flag-day/story?id=133316489

10. ms.now, UFC Freedom 250 fight at the White House, 2026. https://www.ms.now/news/ufc-freedom-250-fight-white-house-trump-dana-white

11. Reuters, Construction of cage-fighting arena transforms White House grounds, Jacob Bogage, May 27, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/construction-cage-fighting-arena-transforms-white-house-grounds-2026-05-27/

12. CNN, Trump UFC event at the White House, May 28, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/us/trump-white-house-ufc-cage-cec

13. Paramount+, UFC at the White House: Where to Watch, 2026. https://www.paramountplus.com/sneak-peak/where-to-watch-white-house-ufc/

14. Reuters, Trump suggests he may keep the UFC arena at the White House, June 3, 2026. https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2026-06-03/trump-says-maybe-well-never-ever-take-down-ufc-arena-on-white-house-lawn

15. CNBC, Paramount buys UFC rights in Skydance merger, August 11, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/paramount-buys-ufc-rights-skydance-merger.html

16. Nate Powell, presentation, Spokane, December 20, 2025,

What six candidates said they would do with a seat in Congress, and how the audience judged their answers.

On May 30, at Mead High School in North Spokane, the organizers of the Power to the People candidate forum handed every audience member three cards. A green one to raise when a candidate said something they approved of. A red one to raise when they did not. And a ballot, to mark at the end for the candidate they judged had won. Six Democrats and independents sat on the stage, each hoping to advance from August’s primary and challenge Representative Michael Baumgartner. For two and a half hours, the audience answered the candidates in real time, in green and red, while a moderator delivered questions submitted by Eastern Washington residents.

The Detention Center Question

Patricia Castaneda, who runs Manzanita House, the Spokane nonprofit that has resettled refugees from more than a hundred countries, asked the candidates a two-part question. Homeland Security, she said, “is aggressively seeking to establish large detention facilities across the country.” If it sought to purchase property in Washington’s 5th District to house detained immigrants, she asked, how would they respond, and how would they exercise oversight of such a facility?

Kevin Fagan answered first. He would abolish ICE, he said, and if it tried to build in the district, “we would make sure to put a stop to that.” How, he did not say, beyond gutting the agency’s budget. Carmela Conroy answered next. She brought data. ICE had been handed more than a billion dollars to run “the largest detention facility system in American history,” she said, and the House could “pull that money back to stop the Department of Homeland Security and the Geo Group from imprisoning people who have never committed a crime.” Bajun Mavalwalla called detention centers something the district would “never build.” David Womack referenced the same mechanism Conroy had, “the power of the purse, to defund them.” Anne Marie Danimus spent much of her allotted time talking about fundraising, before pivoting back to the question, which she never fully answered.

Then came Nate Powell, and an audible gasp from the audience. A ban would not stop construction, he said. The facility would simply go to a state “like Idaho.” Then he added: “I would prefer to have our detention centers here.”

Red cards went up across the room.

Castaneda had asked two things: how a representative would respond to a facility, and how they would oversee one. Powell recommended where it should be built.

Humane and Orderly

Powell’s preference came with a condition: a facility here, he said, is one “where we can ensure that the work is orderly and humane.” Washington already operates such a facility, the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, run by the GEO Group. In 2023, the state gave its Department of Health authority to inspect it. GEO sued. In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld the state’s authority, rejecting the company’s claims, and issued its mandate in March 2026. Health inspectors have been turned away from the Tacoma facility ten times since 2023, twice after the court affirmed their right to enter, most recently on April 20. On April 28, the governor and attorney general asked a federal court to force GEO to let them in. The facility has drawn more than 3,500 detainee complaints; two people have died there since 2024.

Castaneda’s question was formulated in part by the established inhumane treatment of detained immigrants in facilities like the one in Tacoma. Powell failed to acknowledge the question’s sensitivity.

Another Red Card

The red cards rose again for Anne Marie Danimus, on jobs, when she voiced concern that raising the minimum wage would hurt small businesses, and she argued for a “FICA honeymoon for micro businesses.” Later, asked how to fix the federal government, she told the room to “Google it,” that artificial intelligence “will tell you exactly how to fix the US government.”

Bajun Mavalwalla’s answers were specific where Danimus’s were not. More than once, the specifics were wrong. He told the room that Tom Homan, the White House border czar, “is a CEO for a private prison company.” Between 2023 and 2025, Homan acted as a paid consultant to the GEO Group. He was never its chief executive. Mavalwalla also said the Supreme Court had ruled “that the state of Louisiana can simply declare an emergency and change their congressional districts in the middle of an election.” The Court’s ruling in April struck Louisiana’s map as a racial gerrymander and narrowed the Voting Rights Act. The ruling involved no state emergency.

The Case For Congress

Carmela Conroy stood when she provided an answer. She was the only candidate who did, for every question; the others spoke from their chairs.

Asked how she would check a president, she did not reach for a slogan. She started with the document. The job descriptions, she said, “are found in articles one, two, and three of the Constitution,” and “the first article is the legislature.” The framers “made that the most powerful branch,” she said, “because they never wanted the head of the executive branch to be able to act like a king, so they put the power of the purse in a different hand, they put that in the Congress rather than in the executive branch, which holds the sword.”

Checking a president, she said, “means withholding the money, defunding ICE, defunding out of control executive branches that are no longer following the law,” and “investigating and impeaching US government officials who are violating the laws.”

She and three rivals, Powell, Womack, and Mavalwalla, had “about 65 going on 70 years of executive branch experience” among them, she said, careers in the military, diplomacy, and public service. “That’s Article Two experience.” The job on the ballot, she argued, calls for Article One experience, the legislative power she had just described. Choose, she said, “somebody who has got the experience and the prosecutorial chops to get in there and make a difference.”

She tied it to the district. She described a town hall in Ritzville, in Adams County, a county Baumgartner carried better than four to one in 2024, where she told a room that had largely voted against her that she was running because the incumbent was not listening. There is, she said, “just one person, one elected official, whose job it is to look after Eastern Washington.”

The Verdict

Among the 201 valid ballots cast by attendees in the auditorium, Conroy finished first with 66. Mavalwalla and Womack effectively tied, at 53 and 52. Fagan drew 25. Powell drew 5. Danimus drew none. On the questions that asked what a member of Congress would actually do with the office, Carmela Conroy gave the strongest answers, and the room agreed. The count was provided by Spokane Indivisible, which noted it reflects the live audience only; the organizers may release a separate tally from the watch-party groups at a later date.

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

In 1828, King George IV of Great Britain commissioned an equestrian statue of himself to crown the triumphal arch he was building at the entrance to his palace. He specified the costume: that of a Roman military emperor. He chose a bareback pose.¹ Cast in bronze, the svelte sculpture depicting a uniformed hero betrays the historic record of a king who had never served in arms,² and whose fifty-inch waist required three hours each morning to be harnessed into a girdle.³ He was morbidly obese.

The equestrian statue of George IV remains today in its place of prominence in Trafalgar Square. In his ten years on the throne, he directed that his name and face be ubiquitously displayed for posterity. Much of George IV’s public life reflected a preoccupation with spectacle, image, and historical legacy. He put his name on a royal park, a commercial street, a bridge in Edinburgh, and a neighborhood in north London that carries his tribute today through one of Europe’s busiest train stations.⁴ He placed statues of himself in Brighton, Edinburgh and Windsor Castle, directing the pose and costume for each.⁵ He cast his monogram into the gates of Marble Arch, the four-story high structure covered entirely in white Carrara marble. His portrait appeared on every denomination of British coinage, from the farthing to the sovereign.⁶ He rebuilt Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and the Brighton Pavilion, scrutinizing the architectural plans himself. The cost overruns to the public purse for his projects were substantial; for instance, Windsor Castle’s authorized expenditure of £150,000 was dwarfed by the final bill of £800,000.⁷

King George IV died in 1830. His statues remain in place, and the streets still bear his name.

And the monarchy never fully recovered.

The Rented Crown

George IV’s ambition was clear before he was crowned. His 1821 coronation was designed explicitly to model the pageantry of Napoleon’s Imperial coronation of 1804. He designed the ceremonial robes himself. But he refused to be crowned with the crown worn by his great-grandfather, his grandfather and his father, choosing instead to commission a new and larger crown, set with 12,314 diamonds. Due to their cost, the diamonds were rented. The king wanted to keep the crown, but Parliament refused to pay for it. The total cost for his coronation came to £238,000, more than twenty times what his predecessor had spent.⁸

It was not the first time Parliament had agreed to cover his expensive tastes.

In 1787, his personal debts had grown large. As a young prince, he had secretly married a widow. British law at the time barred heirs who married Catholics from the throne. She was Catholic. Rumors of the marriage were circulating in London. Had it become public, it would have cost him the throne. Allies in Parliament secured a payment of nearly £161,000. The condition: he would declare the marriage a lie, which he did publicly. His wife considered it a betrayal. He got the money.⁹

By 1795, he had accumulated new debts of £630,000 (the equivalent of approximately $130 million today).¹⁰ Parliament agreed to pay his creditors again. The condition: he had to marry. His father, King George III, arranged the match. The bride was his first cousin, a German princess who spoke limited English, whom he had never met.¹¹ They separated shortly after the birth of their daughter in 1796 but remained officially married. She was forcibly prevented from attending the coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey on July 19, 1821. She died three weeks later. The cause of her death is not known.¹²

The Prince of Whales

Thomas Lawrence was the most celebrated portrait painter in Britain. His coronation portrait of George IV hangs today in the throne room at St. James’s Palace.¹³ Lawrence was known for making unremarkable subjects appear heroic. The critic William Hazlitt observed that Lawrence had recreated the king as “a well-fleshed Adonis of thirty-three.” Londoners often referred to the king as the “Prince of Whales.”¹⁴

Nine years earlier, the Morning Post had called the would-be king “an Adonis in Loveliness.” Journalist Leigh Hunt, editor of The Examiner, offered a different observation: “a corpulent gentleman of fifty... a violator of his word, a libertine over head and ears in disgrace.” Hunt was prosecuted for criminal libel and sentenced to two years in prison.¹⁵

To George IV, image was everything.

Britain’s Worst Monarch

Historian Lucy Worsley, in 2011, named George IV Britain’s worst monarch. The assessment was sponsored by English Heritage, the institution responsible for preserving the buildings he built.¹⁶

Historian Steven Parissien concluded that George IV “sundered the contract between monarch and nation.” His reign survived, Parissien argued, despite “his appalling neglect of his office and its responsibilities.”¹⁷

Twentieth-century historian E.A. Smith argued that George IV’s reign marked “a vital stage in the transition from the personal rule of the king to the rule of Cabinet and Parliament.”¹⁸ His ministers described his behaviour as “selfish, unreliable and irresponsible.”¹⁹

Displayed for Posterity

King George IV died on June 26, 1830. He had no surviving heirs. Victoria, his niece, came to the throne seven years later. She was eighteen years old.²⁰

Historian Jane Ridley described the monarchy Queen Victoria inherited as “deeply unpopular” and “seen as extravagant and out of touch.”²¹ The British public was openly calling for the monarchy to be replaced by a republic.²²

The powers squandered by King George IV were not returned to the monarchy after his death. Britain’s monarchs have been ceremonial figures ever since.²³

But the buildings, bridges and statues are still standing.

And we are still talking about him.

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. Equestrian statue of George IV commissioned 1828; Roman military emperor costume and bareback pose personally directed by George IV; statue self-funded rather than by public subscription; cast in bronze; stands today in Trafalgar Square. London Remembers memorial database. https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/george-iv; Wikipedia, “Equestrian statue of George IV, Trafalgar Square.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_statue_of_George_IV,_Trafalgar_Square

2. George IV held only honorary military titles and never saw active military service. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “George IV, king of United Kingdom.” https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-IV

3. George IV’s 50-inch waist and three-hour daily dressing routine. Brighton Museums and Art Gallery, “Inside George’s Breeches: The Health of George IV.” https://brightonmuseums.org.uk/discover/history-stories/inside-georges-breeches-the-health-of-george-iv/; Wikipedia, “George IV of the United Kingdom.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom

4. Regent’s Park. Grub Street Project. https://www.grubstreetproject.net/places/90534/; Regent Street. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_Street; George IV Bridge, Edinburgh. evendo.com. https://evendo.com/locations/united-kingdom/stirling/landmark/george-iv-bridge; King’s Cross. Londonist, “King’s Cross: London’s Most Hated Monument,” January 2024. https://londonist.com/london/history/king-s-cross-london-s-most-hated-monument

5. Statues of George IV in Brighton (commissioned 1822, unveiled 1828), Edinburgh (George Street, 1831), and Windsor Castle (1829); pose and costume directed for each. Wikipedia, “Statue of George IV, Brighton.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_George_IV,_Brighton; London Remembers, George IV statues. https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/george-iv

6. George IV’s monogram on Marble Arch central gates; arch 45 feet high, clad in white Carrara marble. marble-arch.london, “The Story of Marble Arch.” https://marble-arch.london/marble-arch-story/; London Remembers, Marble Arch. https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/marble-arch; George IV’s portrait on every denomination of British coinage 1820-1830. oldcurrencyexchange.com, “George IV Coins.” https://www.oldcurrencyexchange.com/george-iv-coins.html

7. George IV personally scrutinized plans for reconstruction of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and Brighton Pavilion. royalpalaces.com, George IV entry. https://www.royalpalaces.com/monarchs/george-iv/; Royal Collection Trust, “A History of State Portraits.” https://www.rct.uk/collection/stories/a-history-of-state-portraits; Windsor Castle authorized £150,000, final cost £800,000. royalpalaces.com (same source).

8. George IV’s 1821 coronation modeled on Napoleon’s 1804 coronation. Wikipedia, “Coronation of George IV.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_George_IV; George IV designed own robes; refused predecessors’ crown; commissioned new crown with 12,314 diamonds; diamonds hired for ceremony only; crown dismantled 1823. Wikipedia, “Coronation Crown of George IV.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_Crown_of_George_IV; European Royal History blog, “Coronation Crown of George IV,” July 19, 2020. https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2020/07/19/coronation-crown-of-george-iv-of-the-united-kingdom/; Total coronation cost £238,000; more than twenty times predecessor’s. Wikipedia, “Coronation of George IV” (same source); royal-insider.com, coronation cost comparison. https://royal-insider.com/2025/05/03/king-charles-coronation-cost-how-much-taxpayer-paid-spend/

9. George IV’s 1787 debts; secret marriage to a Catholic widow; Act of Settlement 1701. Wikipedia, “Act of Settlement 1701.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701; Parliament secured £161,000 payment; condition was public denial of marriage; Fitzherbert considered it a betrayal. Catherine Curzon, madamegilflurt.com, August 2013. https://www.madamegilflurt.com/2013/08/notable-birthdays-king-george-iv.html; New World Encyclopedia, “George IV of the United Kingdom.” https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom; regencyhistory.net, “George IV and Queen Caroline: A Disastrous Royal Marriage.” https://www.regencyhistory.net/blog/george-iv-marriage-princess-caroline

10. George IV’s 1795 debts of £630,000; modern equivalent approximately $130 million. madamegilflurt.com (see Note 9); officialdata.org UK inflation calculator (£630,000 in 1795 equals approximately £97 million in 2025, converted at GBP/USD rate approximately 1.34). https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/1795?amount=630000

11. Parliament agreed to pay 1795 debts conditional on marriage; George III arranged the match. encyclopedia.com, “Caroline of Brunswick (1768-1821).” https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/caroline-brunswick-1768-1821; Grokipedia, “Caroline of Brunswick.” https://grokipedia.com/page/Caroline_of_Brunswick; Bride was George IV’s first cousin; German princess; limited English; never previously met. Wikipedia, “Caroline of Brunswick.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_of_Brunswick; European Royal History, “April 8, 1795: Marriage of George, Prince of Wales and Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel.” https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2022/04/08/april-8-1795-marriage-of-george-prince-of-wales-and-caroline-of-brunswick-wolfenbuttel/

12. Separation after Princess Charlotte’s birth in 1796; Caroline remained legally George IV’s wife. Wikipedia, “Caroline of Brunswick.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_of_Brunswick; Caroline forcibly prevented from attending George IV’s coronation, July 19, 1821. historic-uk.com, “Queen Caroline of Brunswick.” https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Queen-Caroline/; Died August 7, 1821; refused post mortem; cause of death not established. Brighton Museums, “Caroline of Brunswick: The Injured Queen of England.” https://brightonmuseums.org.uk/discovery/history-stories/caroline-of-brunswick-the-injured-queen-of-england/

13. Thomas Lawrence pre-eminent portrait painter of his generation; 1821 coronation portrait commissioned for and hanging in throne room at St. James’s Palace. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 405918, “George IV (1762-1830).” https://www.rct.uk/collection/405918/george-iv-1762-1830; Simon Dickinson, “Coronation Portraits.” https://www.simondickinson.com/2023/05/04/coronation-portraits/; Wikipedia, “Coronation portrait of George IV.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_portrait_of_George_IV

14. William Hazlitt’s observation that Lawrence recreated George IV as “a well-fleshed Adonis of thirty-three.” National Portrait Gallery collection notes, NPG 2503. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02463/King-George-IV; George IV publicly mocked as “Prince of Whales.” National Portrait Gallery collection notes, NPG 123. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw02462/King-George-IV

15. Morning Post, 1812, describing George IV as “an Adonis in Loveliness”; Leigh Hunt’s role as editor of The Examiner and his published description. Jonathan Bate, Gresham College, “The Cockney Romantics: John Keats and his Friends,” May 14, 2019. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-05-14_JonathanBate_CockneyRomantics-T.pdf; Reginald Brimley Johnson, Leigh Hunt, 1896, archive.org. https://archive.org/download/leighhunt00johnuoft/leighhunt00johnuoft.pdf; Criminal libel conviction and two-year sentence. Sir John Soane’s Museum, “The Prince of Wales v. The Examiner,” 1813. https://collections.soane.org/b9110

16. Lucy Worsley named George IV Britain’s worst monarch, August 2011; assessment from English Heritage poll. Lucy Worsley blog, August 21, 2011, Goodreads (“When English Heritage ran a poll to discover Britain’s Worst Monarch…”). https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/1483837-the-naughty-prince-regent; EBSCO Research Starters, George IV. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/george-iv

17. Steven Parissien: “sundered the contract between monarch and nation.” Isabel Coates, Library Journal review (Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information), reproduced in AbeBooks UK edition listing, ISBN 9780719556524. https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/isbn/9780719556524/; EBSCO Research Starters, George IV (corroborating). https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/george-iv; “Appalling neglect of his office and its responsibilities.” Rachel Knowles, Regency History, review of George IV: The Grand Entertainment. https://www.regencyhistory.net/blog/george-iv-grand-entertainment-steven-parissien-book-review

18. E.A. Smith argued George IV’s reign marked “a vital stage in the transition from the personal rule of the king to the rule of Cabinet and Parliament.” Publisher description of E.A. Smith, George IV, Yale University Press, 1999. AbeBooks listing, ISBN 9780300076851. https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/isbn/9780300076851/

19. George IV’s ministers described his behaviour as “selfish, unreliable and irresponsible.” Wikipedia, “George IV of the United Kingdom.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom; EBSCO Research Starters, George IV. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/george-iv

20. George IV died June 26, 1830. Wikipedia, “George IV of the United Kingdom.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom; No surviving heirs: Princess Charlotte of Wales died November 6, 1817. Wikipedia, “Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Charlotte_of_Wales_(1796%E2%80%931817); Victoria was George IV’s niece; acceded June 20, 1837; eighteen years old at accession. Wikipedia, “Queen Victoria.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria; EBSCO Research Starters, Queen Victoria. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/queen-victoria

21. Jane Ridley: monarchy Victoria inherited “deeply unpopular” and “seen as extravagant and out of touch.” Jane Ridley, Victoria: Queen, Matriarch, Empress, Allen Lane, 2015, p. 68. Cited via History Tools, “How Queen Victoria’s Coronation Revitalized the British Monarchy.” https://www.historytools.org/stories/how-queen-victorias-coronation-revitalized-the-british-monarchy

22. British public and republican sentiment at Victoria’s accession. National Geographic, “How Queen Victoria Remade the British Monarchy,” May 2021. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/history-queen-victoria-british-monarchy

23. George IV eroded governing authority of the monarchy; constitutional shift to parliamentary governance; British monarchs have been ceremonial rather than governing figures since his reign. EBSCO Research Starters, George IV (scholarly assessment of constitutional consequence). https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/george-iv

By Grant Fredericks — The LeClaire Report

On February 27, eighty-one days ago, the cost of a gallon of diesel was $4.92 and gas was $3.87 in the Inland Empire.¹ The next day, the United States started a ‘war of choice’ with Iran and energy markets responded. In Spokane this week, a gallon of diesel costs $6.55 and gas is now $5.40.

The day the war started, Representative Michael Baumgartner posted his praise on X. President Trump, he wrote, had turned out to be “America’s most strategic and consequential Commander in Chief since Eisenhower.”² The strategy Baumgartner is applauding is costing his constituents.

The Asymmetry

Eastern Washington drivers already shoulder the third-highest combined fuel taxes in the country.³ Almost a thousand Amazon electric delivery vans on Washington roads pay no fuel taxes. Each van contributes a flat $275 annual fee, regardless of mileage.⁴

Amazon used the federal commercial EV tax credit from 2023 through September 2025 to build much of that fleet.⁵ By the time H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, ended the credit, Amazon’s vans were already operating across Washington roads.⁶ The same law ended the consumer EV credit that households in Eastern Washington could have used to offset rising fuel costs. Baumgartner voted to end both.⁶

The $2 Million Shortfall

A typical commercial delivery van runs about 30,000 miles a year. At that mileage, a diesel van pays roughly $2,435 a year in combined state and federal fuel taxes.^3,7 An Amazon Rivian electric delivery van on the same routes pays only the state’s flat EV fee, a per-vehicle difference of about $2,160.⁴

Multiplied across the 947 Rivian vans Amazon operates in Washington, that totals about $2.05 million a year in road-tax revenue Washington never realizes from Amazon’s electrified fleet.⁸ Residents who rely on gas and diesel carry the burden for road maintenance costs.

Federal Tax Credits – Not for Eastern Washington

Baumgartner has been on record against EV mandates. In May 2025, with the federal credits still open and Amazon aggressively building its EV fleet, the congressman said overturning California’s EV waivers would “put American drivers and their freedom to choose first.”⁹ Six weeks later, in an interview on the day President Trump signed the resolutions revoking California’s EV waivers, he said EV truck mandates would have been “crippling to our economy.”¹⁰

The 947 Rivian electric delivery vans operate from twelve cities west of the Cascade Range. None operate in Eastern Washington. The largest western concentrations are in Maple Valley, Burlington, Bremerton, Lakewood, and Tukwila.⁸

Amazon operates six facilities in Eastern Washington, more than four million square feet of warehouse, sort, and distribution space, with several thousand employees on the payroll.¹¹ No public record lists any of those facilities as part of Amazon’s electrified network.

Eastern Washington households helped fund the federal credit that built Amazon’s western fleet. The construction revenue, the maintenance jobs, and the cleaner air that comes with an electrified delivery network all went west. The credit is closed east of the Cascades.

The Deflection

In response to higher fuel prices, President Trump endorsed a fuel-tax-suspension proposal on May 11 that would pull roughly $17 billion out of the Highway Trust Fund, the federal pool that finances projects like U.S. 195.¹² Eastern Washington drivers fill that fund through their fuel taxes. Amazon’s EV fleet does not.

Four days earlier, on May 7, 2026, Baumgartner met with the Spokane Realtors Association during his “12 Counties in 12 Days” district tour.¹³ Tom Hormel, a broker with RE/MAX of Spokane, asked the congressman whether Congress could make headway on investing in U.S. Highway 195.¹³ The highway runs past two of Amazon’s Eastern Washington facilities.¹¹

Baumgartner answered with a question. “Does (Mayor Lisa Brown) and the City Council, do they have any big idea stuff they’re doing?”¹³ He then cited his state Senate record on the North Spokane Corridor, a state project under different jurisdiction.¹³ The mayor and the city council have no jurisdiction over federal investment in U.S. 195. Baumgartner does.

He did not mention the Highway Trust Fund or the federal road grant programs that finance projects like U.S. 195. He did not raise the option of mileage-based fees on commercial electric fleets, the mechanism that would let Amazon’s vans pay for the road wear they cause.

Unicorn Laughter

Baumgartner argued against EV trucks, voted to close the federal credit that funded them, and praised the war.

Last summer, he celebrated the law that crippled EV infrastructure, telling reporters: “You can’t run semitrucks across America on unicorn laughter and aspirational dreams of environmental extremists.”¹⁰

Eleven months later, diesel in Spokane is $6.55 a gallon.¹

Subscribe to The High Ground

Endnotes

1. AAA Washington Gas Prices, Spokane regional fuel data, accessed May 18, 2026.

https://gasprices.aaa.com/?state=WA

2. Representative Michael Baumgartner (@RepBaumgartner), post on X, February 28, 2026.

. Quote also reproduced in Nick Gibson with Orion Donovan Smith, “Top Washington Democratic lawmakers call for transparency, peers to assert congressional authority following strikes on Iran,” The Spokesman-Review, February 28, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/feb/28/top-washington-democratic-lawmakers-call-for-trans/

3. Washington’s combined fuel taxes rank third-highest in the United States. State gas tax: 55.4¢/gal; federal gas tax: 18.4¢/gal; combined gas: 73.8¢/gal. State diesel tax: 58.4¢/gal; federal diesel tax: 24.4¢/gal; combined diesel: 82.8¢/gal. See Adam Hoffer and Jacob Macumber-Rosin, “2025 Gas Taxes by State,” Tax Foundation, September 2025 (Washington ranked third). https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/gas-taxes-state/. State and federal rates per Washington Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Rates, effective July 1, 2025. https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/tax-incentives/deductions/motor-vehicle-fuel-tax-rates

4. Revised Code of Washington 46.17.323 (Electric vehicle registration fee, $150 + $50 additional fee) and 46.17.324 (Transportation electrification fee, $75); combined annual flat fee for battery electric vehicles is $275. https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.17.323 and https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.17.324

5. Internal Revenue Code Section 45W (Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit), enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117-169. Credit eligibility for commercial EVs ran from January 1, 2023 through September 30, 2025. IRS guidance: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/commercial-clean-vehicle-credit

6. One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, signed July 4, 2025. The law terminated Section 45W (commercial clean vehicle credit) effective September 30, 2025, terminated Section 30D (consumer clean vehicle credit), and accelerated the expiration of Section 30C (charging-infrastructure credit) to June 30, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1

7. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Evaluation of UPS Diesel Hybrid-Electric Delivery Vehicles,” Technical Report NREL/TP-540-47327, 10.2 mpg conventional diesel parcel-delivery benchmark. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47327.pdf

8. Washington State Department of Licensing, Electric Vehicle Population Data, Washington Open Data Portal, retrieved May 13, 2026. Methodology: filter records where Make = “RIVIAN” and Model = “EDV”; result is 947. https://data.wa.gov/Transportation/Electric-Vehicle-Population-Data/f6w7-q2d2

9. Office of Representative Michael Baumgartner, “Baumgartner Applauds the Passage of CRAs Disapproving of Harmful Biden EV Waivers,” press release, May 1, 2025. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-applauds-passage-cras-disapproving-harmful-biden-ev-waivers

10. Orion Donovan Smith and Mitchell Roland, “With Baumgartner in audience, Trump signs bill blocking Washington’s electric vehicle mandate; state sues in response,” The Spokesman-Review, June 12, 2025. The “crippling to our economy” and “unicorn laughter” quotations are from the pre-ceremony interview reported in this article. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/jun/12/with-baumgartner-in-audience-trump-signs-bill-bloc/

11. Composite source on Amazon’s six Eastern Washington facilities (GEG1, GEG2, GEG5, Amazon Air Spokane, DSK4, Hub Locker+): Spokane Journal of Business coverage of West Plains expansion (https://www.spokanejournal.com/articles/911-amazon-again-site-work-is-underway-on-the-west-plains); The Spokesman-Review, “Amazon opens fulfillment center in Spokane Valley,” September 8, 2021 (https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/sep/08/amazon-opens-fulfillment-center-in-spokane-valley/); KREM 2 coverage of West Plains expansion (https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/possible-new-amazon-facility-west-plains/293-3703e437-6747-4c39-848c-cedf3ab9c9a7); and Inland Northwest Business Watch reporting on Amazon Air Spokane (http://www.inlandnwbusiness.com/2021/04/amazon-planning-two-new-facilities-on.html).

12. “Trump says he supports temporary suspension of federal gas tax,” MSNBC, May 11, 2026. The $17 billion Highway Trust Fund impact figure is the Bipartisan Policy Center’s estimate of a five-month federal gas tax holiday, cited in the same report. https://www.ms.now/news/trump-supports-temporary-suspension-of-federal-gas-tax

13. Emry Dinman, “Baumgartner meets with defense contractors, real estate agents in Spokane stop,” The Spokesman-Review, May 10, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/may/10/baumgartner-meets-with-defense-contractors-realtor/

The Whistle Stop That Wasn’t

Yesterday, Congressman Michael Baumgartner concluded his “12 Counties in 12 Days Listening Tour”, advertised as a campaign kickoff to meet his constituents. The tour failed its promise of engagement. Baumgartner held a series of mostly closed-door meetings with invited donors, supporters, and business groups. Despite the email blasts, X posts, and Facebook notices from the Baumgartner campaign, the public was not invited. His District Director, Dan Bisbee, admitted that “most of these stops will be private meetings with city officials.”¹ It was promoted as a ‘Whistle Stop’ through his district, but it was choreographed to keep his constituents out of his way.

The Choreography, By Design

The tactics the campaign used to hide Baumgartner were not subtle. The published itinerary listed counties without identified venues, meetings without specific times, and hosts without names. The schedule included “Colville” as a tour stop; the Colville appearance was a private Republican Party fundraiser at a local bar. When residents got wind of the meeting, protesters gathered outside and chanted “Liar!”² The schedule also included “Colfax” four days later; that appearance was the Whitman County Republicans’ $25 Lincoln Day Dinner. It too was not a public event.³ On the day advertised as a Spokane meet-and-greet, Baumgartner met privately with the Spokane Association of Realtors and the Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition.⁴

The choreography kept Baumgartner in line with a national directive. The chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Richard Hudson, advised House Republicans last year, after a series of disastrous public meetings, to stop holding in-person town halls.⁵ Baumgartner was in lockstep with the directive. The events were strategically orchestrated to appear to be town halls, but without a public audience. His last town hall had been a disaster.

The Last Town Hall

Whitworth University, March 17, 2025. The 800-seat auditorium was full as participants shouted Baumgartner down. According to The Spokesman-Review, the shouting was “nearly constant” and the crowd “regularly interrupted each answer.” Audience members chanted “January 6th!” when he defended President Trump, and yelled “You’re a fraud!” and “Liar!” when he discussed Medicare and Medicaid. As the town hall devolved further, he sarcastically asked the room to “yell real loud” so they could “have a conversation.” Later, he asked the audience to “raise your hand if you voted for Donald Trump.” About a dozen hands went up. The rest jeered.⁶

He characterized constituents pressing him as wanting “tantrums,” not “plans.” He conceded: “I know almost nobody in this room voted for me.” He suggested it might be “the last in-person town hall in the near future.” Congressman Baumgartner has not held a public event in Spokane County in over a year. The county is the most populated area within his district.

A Campaign Kickoff Like No Other

The stated purpose of the tour was to launch Baumgartner’s 2026 reelection bid. Baumgartner is asking voters in Eastern Washington’s Fifth District for a second term.

His 2026 schedule has shifted away from open town halls toward smaller, less visible engagements. According to The Spokesman-Review, Baumgartner’s appearances now consist of small group meetings, policy roundtables, business visits, and short location-specific stops, covered after the fact rather than announced in advance.⁸ Local reporting describes who Baumgartner met with and what was discussed, not how many constituents attended or how the audience reacted. This is how he is running for reelection.

Eight days into the tour, Baumgartner’s official congressional newsletter told voters he had “had a wonderful time meeting with constituents and hearing your ideas and concerns.” He described those conversations as “invaluable” and told district residents, “As your representative, I remain committed to ensuring your voices are heard in D.C.”⁹ Of more than twenty stops on the tour, three were open to the public. Republic drew about thirty attendees. Davenport drew twenty-five. At an outdoor stop on the Columbia County Courthouse lawn in Dayton, sheriff’s deputies were stationed on all four corners while Baumgartner addressed roughly twenty-five people, including his own staff. Dr. Linda Gunshefski, writing in her Substack Pulse Check, reported the campaign phone-invited a Walla Walla resident at 2:30 p.m. to the 4:30 p.m. Davenport town hall, 150 miles north.¹⁰ The tour produced no open meeting in any of the four largest population centers in the district: Spokane, Pullman, Walla Walla, and Clarkston. Pullman is Baumgartner’s hometown. He did not meet with residents there.

Until November

Fourteen months ago, Baumgartner suggested the Whitworth town hall might be “the last in-person town hall...” He meant it. The congressman represents nearly 800,000 residents in Eastern Washington’s Fifth District. He launched his bid for a second term without facing his voters. The choreography that defined the tour appears to be the campaign model he intends to run. He’ll face the voters in November.

Endnotes

1. Spokane Public Radio, SPR News Today, “GOP Rep. Michael Baumgartner embarks on a tour of 12 counties in 12 days ahead of reelection filing,” Monica Carrillo-Casas, April 30, 2026. https://www.spokanepublicradio.org/regional-news/2026-04-30/spr-news-today-valley-sports-complex-upgrades-balance-attracting-tourism-with-environmental-safeguards

2. The Spokesman-Review, “Michael Baumgartner holds town hall in Republic as he tours across the 5th Congressional District,” Monica Carrillo-Casas, May 5, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/may/05/michael-baumgartner-holds-town-hall-in-republic-as/

3. Pullman Radio, “Whitman County Republicans Lincoln Day Dinner Friday in Colfax,” Evan Ellis, May 7, 2026. https://pullmanradio.com/whitman-county-republicans-lincoln-day-dinner-friday-in-colfax/

4. The Spokesman-Review, “Baumgartner meets with defense contractors, real estate agents in Spokane stop,” Emry Dinman, May 10, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/may/10/baumgartner-meets-with-defense-contractors-realtor/

5. Axios, “Scoop: NRCC chair tells Republicans to stop holding town halls,” Andrew Solender, March 4, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/republican-town-halls-nrcc-hudson. See also The Spokesman-Review, “Michael Baumgartner to hold town hall meetings on Monday in Spokane and Ritzville,” March 14, 2025, referencing Hudson’s March 4 advisory. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/14/michael-baumgartner-to-hold-town-hall-meetings-on-/

6. Whitworth University Democracy and Discourse Committee Community Conversation with Rep. Michael Baumgartner, March 17, 2025; transcript and video on file. The Spokesman-Review, “Rep. Baumgartner takes critical questions at Ritzville and Whitworth,” James Hanlon and Monica Carrillo-Casas, March 17, 2025. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/17/rep-baumgartner-takes-critical-questions-at-ritzvi/. Whitworth ticketing allocated 500 general admission seats and 300 reserved seats for students, faculty, and affiliated groups, configuring the venue for approximately 800 attendees; reporting describes the auditorium as full. Spokane Indivisible organizer Mary Ellen Gaffney-Brown estimated “probably 400” attendees were affiliated with her organization. The Spokesman-Review, “Left-wing activist group says it reserved hundreds of seats at Baumgartner town hall,” March 20, 2025. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/20/leftwing-activist-group-says-it-reserved-hundreds-/

8. The Spokesman-Review, “Baumgartner meets with defense contractors, real estate agents in Spokane stop,” Emry Dinman, May 10, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/may/10/baumgartner-meets-with-defense-contractors-realtor/

9. “12 Counties in 12 Days: Weekly Update from Rep. Michael Baumgartner,” official congressional newsletter from the Office of Rep. Michael Baumgartner, sent May 8, 2026 at 5:42 PM PDT from repmichaelbaumgartner@mail8.housecommunications.gov.

10. Dr. Linda Gunshefski, “Catching Chicken Mike’s Phantom Express,” Pulse Check by Dr. Linda Gunshefski (Substack), May 7, 2026.

Pulse Check by Dr. Linda Gunshefski

Catching Chicken Mike’s Phantom Express

There is a new game sweeping Eastern Washington, and it is called Catch Me If You Can: Congressional Edition…

Read more

4 months ago · 13 likes · 1 comment · Linda Gunshefski

An analysis of the April 15 Federal Election Commission’s filings of Representative Michael Baumgartner’s campaign for reelection uncovers a clear pattern.¹ Local small-donor support is diminishing while outside political action committees and corporate interests are increasing their investment. Less than thirty cents on every dollar entering his campaign is traceable to a donor inside WA-5.¹ The rest comes from wealthy individuals in other corners of the state, and from PACs based in Washington DC and the major fundraising centers around the country. PAC and committee money accounts for nearly a quarter of his receipts, more than twice what he has raised from small-dollar donors.¹ Behind those dollars are names, committees, and a legislative record.

Two weeks after the April 15 FEC filing window closed, Baumgartner began a “12 Counties in 12 Days” listening tour through Eastern Washington. His District Director, Dan Bisbee, told Spokane Public Radio on April 30 that “most of these stops will be private meetings with city officials.” Only three of the twelve stops are town halls. The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin reported the same week that the May 1 stops in Waitsburg and Dayton were Baumgartner’s first publicly scheduled in-person meetings in Walla Walla and Columbia counties since January 2025, a fifteen-month gap. The shift followed his March 2025 town hall at Whitworth University. He faced 800 angry constituents. He told reporters afterward that his next town hall might be conducted by phone. Since then, he has substituted online town halls on Facebook and private gatherings. His FEC filings show that he is raising money outside his district and avoiding face-to-face contact with the voters who live there.

The Donor Map

Inside the district, Baumgartner’s disclosed donor base is overwhelmingly Spokane. Of 513 unique WA-5 itemized donors, 414 live in greater Spokane. The city’s South Hill alone produced 125 donors, the largest single neighborhood cluster in his donor file. Pullman adds 19 donors. Walla Walla and the Clarkston-Asotin area add 35 between them.¹

The rural counties that make up the rest of WA-5 are the district’s most reliably Republican. Together they produced just 34 individual donors. Columbia, Adams, and Franklin counties produced none.¹ The communities that delivered Baumgartner’s Republican margins at the ballot box in 2024 are not funding his campaign this cycle.

Outside the district, his individual support is concentrated in two places. Nearly half of his non-WA-5 individual money comes from King County. Beyond the state, his disclosed individual contributions cluster in Delaware, Idaho, California, South Florida, and the Washington DC metro area.¹

Inside the Beltway

Across this cycle, 118 PACs have contributed to Baumgartner’s campaign, totaling $317,050.^1,2 Most are based near the seat of federal government, in Washington, DC and Northern Virginia, with a smaller share in other states. Carmela Conroy, the Democrat running against him, has raised $300,714 this cycle, more than all of the other challengers combined and roughly double her 2024 pace; of that, $1,100 came from three political action committees.³ PAC dependence is not a requirement of running for Congress. A pattern runs through Baumgartner’s contributors: they are concentrated in the policy areas his three House committees handle.

The full list, with state and dollar amounts, is published here.

What the PACs Want

Baumgartner sits on three House committees: Education and Workforce, the Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs.⁴ His PAC contributors line up with those committees. His Foreign Affairs subcommittee covers the Middle East and North Africa. Among his PAC contributors with stakes in foreign-policy decisions are the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), two Turkish-American PACs, the Pakistani-American Public Affairs Committee, and three defense contractors with substantial foreign-military-sales business.¹ Among his contributors with stakes in Education and Workforce jurisdiction are the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA), Cambia Health, the American Hospital Association, Premera, Molina, Guardian Life, and John Hancock.¹ Among his contributors with stakes in Judiciary jurisdiction are Microsoft, Amazon, the Motion Picture Association, ASCAP, the International Trademark Association, and BlackRock.¹ Every PAC on the list has a direct stake in Baumgartner’s committee work.

Innovate Without Permission

In September 2025, Baumgartner introduced H.R. 5388, the American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act.⁵ The bill establishes a five-year period during which no state may enforce any law regulating artificial intelligence systems in interstate commerce. It would override state AI laws passed in California and Colorado.^5,6 In his announcement, Baumgartner described the bill as codifying a Trump executive order and preventing a “patchwork” of state regulation, and said America “will win if we trust free people to innovate without asking the government for permission.” The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which Baumgartner does not sit on. He authored it anyway. Microsoft, Amazon, and BlackRock contributed a combined $7,500 to his campaign.¹ In November 2025, GovFacts reported that Big Tech companies have collectively spent more than one billion dollars lobbying for the federal preemption outcome that H.R. 5388 would deliver.⁶

What The Iran Resolutions Bought

AIPAC’s PAC contributed $10,000 to the Baumgartner campaign across two maximum contributions, one for the primary and one for the general election.¹ In August 2025, the American Israel Education Foundation, AIPAC’s affiliated nonprofit, paid for Baumgartner’s weeklong trip to Israel, his first as a member of Congress.⁷ As a member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Baumgartner has sponsored or cosponsored three non-binding Iran-and-Israel resolutions and one bipartisan bill in the current Congress: House Resolution 398, which he introduced in May 2025, declares it U.S. policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon;⁸ a follow-on resolution affirms the administration’s policy on dismantling Iran’s nuclear program;⁹ House Resolution 166, which he cosponsored, condemns the Iranian regime’s terrorism and supports Iranian opposition;¹⁰ and a bipartisan bill sanctioning hostage-takers passed the Foreign Affairs Committee.¹¹ AIPAC’s published policy page on Iran lists the nuclear-policy resolutions among its priority legislation.¹² On March 6, 2026, Baumgartner published an op-ed in National Review on the U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, framing the campaign as “not Iraq 2.0” and arguing for sustained pressure to fracture the regime’s war-making capacity.¹³ AIPAC’s PAC contributed its second maximum contribution of $5,000 five days later.

The Old Apparatus

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, in her last campaign cycle as the WA-5 incumbent (2021-2022), had raised $3.6 million in her first fifteen months.¹⁴ That is about two and a half times Baumgartner’s pace through the same window of this cycle. Half of her early-cycle money came from political action committees, more than twice Baumgartner’s PAC share. The national fundraising network McMorris Rodgers built has not reappeared in the Baumgartner campaign.

Vulnerability

Baumgartner won his seat in 2024 with votes from his district. He is trying to stay in office with money that does not come from his constituents. Incumbents are reelected when they have district support. They lose when they don't. OpenSecrets' tracking data shows his individual fundraising this cycle is running more than 8 percent below his 2024 pace.¹⁵

Baumgartner is vulnerable.

Endnotes

1. All Vote Baumgartner for Congress (FEC C00870758) campaign finance data, contribution records, donor disclosures, and filing dates referenced in this article are derived from Federal Election Commission filings, including the Q1 2026 April Quarterly (FEC-1964333) and prior quarterly reports for the 2025–2026 cycle. https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00870758/

2. PAC contributions to Vote Baumgartner for Congress, 2025–2026 cycle. Compiled from FEC Schedule A line 11C records. Full list of 118 PAC contributors with state and amount published at [URL].

3. All Carmela Conroy for Congress (FEC C00849794) campaign finance data referenced in this article are derived from Federal Election Commission filings, including the 2025–2026 cycle quarterlies (Q1 2026 FEC-1966219 and prior) and 2023–2024 cycle quarterlies (Q1 2024 FEC-1771310 and others). https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00849794/

4. “Rep. Baumgartner Announces Committee and Subcommittee Assignments,” official press release, baumgartner.house.gov. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-baumgartner-announces-committee-and-subcommittee-assignments

5. H.R. 5388, American Artificial Intelligence Leadership and Uniformity Act, 119th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5388/text. Sponsor announcement: https://baumgartner.house.gov/2025/09/19/baumgartner-introduces-bill-codify-trump-executive-order-preventing-patchwork/

6. GovFacts, “Big Tech Has Spent More than $1 Billion to Stop States From Regulating AI,” November 2025. https://govfacts.org/accountability-ethics/lobbying/big-tech-has-spent-more-than-1-billion-to-stop-states-from-regulating-ai/

7. “Back from weeklong trip to Israel, Baumgartner reflects on ‘misery’ of ongoing conflict and what it would take to end it,” Spokesman-Review, August 12, 2025. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/aug/12/back-from-weeklong-trip-to-israel-baumgartner-refl/

8. House Resolution 398, 119th Congress. Sponsor announcement: https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-introduces-resolution-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons

9. “Baumgartner, Pfluger, Nunn Champion Resolution to End Iran’s Nuclear Threat,” official press release, baumgartner.house.gov. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-pfluger-nunn-champion-resolution-end-irans-nuclear-threat-and

10. House Resolution 166, 119th Congress: condemning the Iranian regime’s terrorism and supporting Iranian opposition. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/166

11. “Baumgartner, Moskowitz Bipartisan Bill to Sanction Hostage-Takers Clears Foreign Affairs,” official press release, baumgartner.house.gov. https://baumgartner.house.gov/media/press-releases/baumgartner-moskowitz-bipartisan-bill-sanction-hostage-takers-clears-foreign

12. American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “Policy: Countering Iran’s Aggression and Nuclear Weapons Quest,” accessed May 2026. https://www.aipac.org/policy-iran

13. Michael Baumgartner, “Applying Iraq’s Hardest Lessons to Iran,” National Review, March 6, 2026. https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/03/applying-iraqs-hardest-lessons-to-iran/

14. All Cathy McMorris Rodgers for Congress (FEC C00390476) 2021–2022 cycle data are derived from Federal Election Commission filings, including the April Quarterly 2021 (FEC-1511306), July Quarterly 2021 (FEC-1526360), October Quarterly 2021 (FEC-1543700), Year-End 2021 (FEC-1563329), April Quarterly 2022 (FEC-1584364), and Post-General 2022 (FEC-1667962). https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00390476/

15. Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets, "Michael James Baumgartner — Individual Donors, 2025–2026 cycle," accessed May 2026. https://www.opensecrets.org/profiles/michael-james-baumgartner/us_congress/individual_donors?mpid=1175224

Republican leadership and caucus PACs

Corporate and law-firm PACs

Trade and industry association PACs

Totals: 118 unique PACs, $301,550 traceable to specific contributors. The $15,500 difference from the F3 cycle counter ($317,050) is unaccounted for in the available CSVs. Most likely it sits in a pre-Q1 2025 record that exists in the FEC database but is not present in the local filings, or it is an F3 cycle-counter rollup that does not perfectly match the underlying record-level data.

Dark money has entered the congressional race in Washington’s 5th District. Federal Election Commission filings, released April 15, unravel a web of abnormal fundraising, suspicious payments, dubious campaign contributions and self-dealing.¹

Records show the Working Class Heroes Fund, founded by Dan Osborn after his failed 2024 Nebraska Senate race, operates a recruitment network for congressional candidates.¹

The recruitment operation's methods became public last December when Spokane firefighter Nate Powell announced his congressional campaign. Powell disclosed that Osborn's organization had recruited him. Powell described being approached by what he called the “independent candidate initiative,” adding “they’re very quiet about that.” The organization had arranged a Seattle-based campaign team for him.²

“I’m taking a lot of their advice on how to run a campaign. They’re political professionals. I’m just a fireman,” Powell stated.²

Federal complaints filed by the chair of the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission and Americans for Public Trust now challenge this funding structure.^3,4

Recruiting Heroes

WCHF markets itself through systematic recruitment of candidates matching a specific demographic profile. Records show the organization targets white males with working-class, public-service backgrounds, including firefighters and veterans.⁵

The pattern spans multiple states: Nebraska’s Dan Osborn (firefighter, veteran), WA-CD-5’s Nate Powell (firefighter, veteran), and Wisconsin’s Mike Thurow (firefighter).⁶ Alaska’s Bill Hill matches the broader demographic profile of public servants.⁷ Each candidate was approached through the same Osborn recruitment network, which openly markets the archetype on its website, describing its mission as recruiting ‘Heroes’ who embody working families.^5,8 Records show WCHF has raised over $1 million exploiting this recruitment model.¹ The evidence suggests candidates with public-service backgrounds are being systematically recruited not primarily to win elections, but to serve a broader political strategy that uses their heroic credentials to legitimize fundraising operations that serve other interests.

Family Business

Across the Osborn political enterprise, including Working Class Heroes Fund, Osborn for Senate, and League of Labor Voters, Osborn family operations received $434,734 while the three recruited "hero candidates" received just $5,688 in direct support.¹ The disparity creates a financial ratio of 76 to 1.

The largest beneficiary was Independent Campaigns LLC, a Wyoming company formed in January 2025 and co-owned by Dan Osborn’s wife Megan Osborn, which received $195,467 from the three committees.¹⁹ Records show the company received its first payment of $50,000 just two days after formation, despite having no apparent operating history or public website.^1,9

Among the most revealing transactions: WCHF paid $5,500 to Independent Campaigns LLC specifically for “Nebraska Candidate Recruitment,” meaning the Osborn family company was paid to recruit Osborn himself as a Senate candidate.¹

Americans for Public Trust filed a formal complaint alleging improper personal use of political funds.¹⁰ Following the federal complaints, Independent Campaigns LLC was dissolved just days before the FEC filing deadline and Megan Osborn stepped away from her consulting roles, effectively dismantling the vendor structure that enabled the family payments.¹¹

A Question of Independence

WA-5 candidate Powell has publicly staked his campaign on independence from corporate money, telling prospective voters “I will not accept donations from corporate political action committees.”¹² Yet records show Working Class Heroes Fund, the organization supporting his campaign, received $500,000 from corporate sources and organizations that do not disclose their donors.¹ Its two largest funders, American Opportunity Action, a 501(c)(4), and Contours Inc., a Delaware corporation, contributed 47% of WCHF’s total receipts.¹

Powell’s campaign benefits directly from this corporate-funded infrastructure through shared consultants and coordinated operations.¹

The Donor Map

Dark money from outside the district doesn’t equate to voter support. The FEC provides a window into where district support actually comes from: campaigns must disclose the name, address, and occupation of contributors giving $200 or more, while smaller donations can be reported as unidentified aggregates with no geographic information. All figures are derived from FEC filings and campaign records, with minor variances possible due to reporting timing and refund processing.¹

FEC-Reported Donor Breakdown - April 15, 2026

Math Realities

The recruitment operation’s strategy becomes clear when measured against electoral reality. Over the last twenty years there have been 4,460 House elections. In that time, no Independent candidate has won a single seat.¹³ No political professional in the country is unaware of this record.

The candidate they chose reinforced the math. Powell tried to make a case for his candidacy to a local veteran’s group during his December announcement. But when asked about ICE oversight, Powell responded: “I think Congress could pass a bill that funds an organization to have some oversight there.” A veteran audience member immediately corrected him: “Congress is the oversight.”²

Powell’s support within WA-5 collapsed once his campaign’s text and phone outreach ended. In January, district residents contributed $29,074, 85.6% of his total, but FEC filings show his campaign spent heavily on fundraising infrastructure that month. By February, with no similar investment in local fundraising, WA-5 contributions dropped to $286. The number of district contributors fell from 27 in January to 2 in February, before rising to 15 in March.¹

With monthly expenditures exceeding $25,000 and $58,196 remaining, the campaign has roughly two months of operating capacity at current spending levels.¹

Eastern Washington faces a choice between representation and a recruitment experiment. Powell’s December exchange with a veteran over congressional oversight raised questions about his readiness for the job. His district donor base remains thin while his funding runway shrinks. Behind the campaign is an operation facing federal complaints that used a veteran’s service for purposes that have nothing to do with effective representation for Eastern Washington.

Endnotes

1. All campaign finance data, contribution records, expenditure records, donor disclosures, filing dates, shared vendor records, and coordinated spending patterns referenced throughout this article are derived from Federal Election Commission filings. https://www.fec.gov/

2. Powell campaign announcement, VETS POP (Veterans Protecting Our People) meeting, Spokane, December 20, 2025. Video

3. Americans for Public Trust complaint, filed March 23, 2026. Nebraska Public Media, March 24, 2026. https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/conservative-group-asks-for-investigation-into-senate-candidate-dan-osborns-campaign-and-pacs/

4. Jeffrey Davis complaint (Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission chair, acting in personal capacity), filed April 14, 2026. Nebraska Public Media, April 14, 2026. https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/us-senate-candidate-dan-osborn-faces-another-election-spending-complaint/

5. Working Class Heroes Fund website, “Heroes” recruitment messaging and mission description. https://www.workingclassheroes.fund/about

6. Mike Thurow biographical details (firefighter). Thurow for Congress campaign website. https://www.thurowforcongress.com/

7. Bill Hill biographical details. Bill Hill for Alaskans campaign website. https://billhillforalaskans.com/

8. WCHF recruitment of Powell, Thurow, and Hill through the Osborn network. Working Class Heroes Fund endorsements page. https://www.workingclassheroes.fund/endorsements

9. Independent Campaigns LLC formation, Wyoming registration, and Megan Osborn ownership. Lincoln Journal Star. https://journalstar.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/article_7a62bbd7-c256-4395-8f51-78444ce0976c.html

10. Americans for Public Trust formal complaint. Complaint PDF: https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2026/03/apt_complaint_dan_osborn_fox.pdf

11. Independent Campaigns LLC dissolution and Megan Osborn staffing change. Nebraska Public Media, April 14, 2026. https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/us-senate-candidate-dan-osborn-faces-another-election-spending-complaint/

12. Powell campaign statement rejecting corporate PAC contributions. Campaign Facebook post, 2026. https://www.facebook.com/votenatepowell/photos/and-not-one-dime-from-corporate-pacs-thank-you-to-every-grassroots-donor-tired-o/122117732661211327/

13. Historical U.S. House election data shows that independent candidates rarely win congressional seats. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was the last long-serving independent member of the House (1991–2007) before being elected to the US Senate, and no independent candidate has been elected to the U.S. House in the modern era since his departure. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_politician

Our friend Jerry LeClaire died on April 7 after a long fight with cancer. I have been told that some of you may have missed Jerry’s final post, published on the morning of his passing. Over 5,000 readers viewed the post, and over 140 people responded with words of friendship, remembrance and sorrow. It is certainly worth reading if you missed it.

Going forward, you may notice a slight change to the name of this Substack. This is his legacy, and it will always carry his name.

Late last year, Jerry told me one of his biggest regrets was that he would not live to see a Democrat defeat Baumgartner in November.

As we began to research our next stories, we became aware of a dark money operation, initiated from outside the district that had recruited a candidate whose campaign appeared designed to function as a spoiler, fracturing support for the strongest Democratic challenger in WA-5 and returning a weakened Republican incumbent to office.

Since December, Jerry and I had been building that story. We considered publishing in January, but Jerry’s instincts were right. He believed that the April 15 FEC filings would confirm what we were seeing. They do.

The reporting traces how money moves through dark money PACs, consultants, shell companies, and family businesses. The research and the documents we uncovered expose a pattern of deception, candidate exploitation, and personal enrichment that reaches from Nebraska into Eastern Washington.

That article will be published Tuesday morning. It is the last story Jerry and I worked on together.

Keep throwing pebbles!

Congressman Michael Baumgartner claims the United States is waging a just war against Iran. He told the Spokesman-Review on April 14, 2026 that the airstrikes are being conducted “in a humane way in concert with the Church, and consistent with the teachings of St. Augustine.”¹ He is a practicing Catholic, married at Our Lady of Lourdes Cathedral in Spokane, and he studied Just War Theory at the Harvard Kennedy School.² He made this argument to his constituents on the 45th day of the war.

When Just War Theory Meets a Blood Debt

Augustine’s just war doctrine rests on three criteria: legitimate authority, just cause, and right intention. Baumgartner studied those criteria. But Augustine’s defining language goes further. He wrote: “The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power.”³ Five days into the war, Baumgartner stood on the House floor and described 47 years of Iranian-attributed American deaths, framing past bloodshed as the reason the bombs were falling now.⁴ Augustine calls that motivation revengeful cruelty and places it first on his list of disqualifying evils.

Congress Has ‘Exclusive Responsibility to Declare War’ … Until It Doesn’t

Congress never authorized this war.⁵ In May 2025, Baumgartner introduced H.Res. 398, writing into his own resolution that “Congress has the exclusive responsibility to authorize the use of force” against Iran and that Congress “should take all necessary and appropriate steps to authorize” military action. Ten months later, on March 5, 2026, less than a week into the war, he voted against the War Powers Resolution that would have required congressional authority.⁶

When Warriors Pray

Augustine required that even in waging war, a commander must “cherish the spirit of a peacemaker.”⁷ On April 7, 2026, President Trump posted: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”⁸ Baumgartner’s justification for the war tracks precisely with Defense Secretary Hegseth’s. Baumgartner told the Spokesman-Review the strikes are “a long time coming, well-meaning, and well-deserved.” Hegseth framed it in scripture at a military briefing: “Blessed be the Lord my Rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.”⁹ Pope Leo responded in his Palm Sunday homily that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”¹⁰

‘No Stupid Rules’ Meets 100 Dead Children

On the opening day of Operation Epic Fury, February 28, 2026,¹¹ a US strike destroyed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, during school hours. A preliminary US intelligence assessment concluded the US was likely responsible. Amnesty International documented 168 killed, more than 100 of them children. BBC Verify, Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera, Reuters, and NPR reached the same conclusion.¹² The school had been separated from the adjacent military compound by its own perimeter walls for more than ten years. Before the war began, Pete Hegseth reduced the civilian casualty prevention staff at Central Command from roughly ten people to one, leaving a single staffer to maintain the ‘no-strike’ list, the database meant to protect schools, hospitals, and religious sites from being hit.¹³ He then declared there would be “no stupid rules of engagement.” No public record exists of any statement by Baumgartner on the tragic loss of innocent lives at Minab. The Catholic Catechism, the institutional expression of the doctrine he invoked, states that noncombatants “must be respected and treated humanely” and that blind obedience does not excuse those who carry out actions contrary to this principle.¹⁴ Yet to Baumgartner, it remains a “humane” and just war.

The Catholic Opposition Baumgartner Cannot Name

Baumgartner claims the war is being conducted ‘in concert with the Church,’ but he does not identify any Church leader who shares that position. In the The Spokesman-Review article where he made the claim, Rev. Patrick Conroy, a Catholic priest and former chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, calls the war ‘immoral.’¹⁵

Cardinal Robert McElroy, Archbishop of Washington, was asked directly on CBS News 60 Minutes whether this is a just war. ‘No,’ he said. ‘Under Catholic teaching, this is not a just war. This is a war of choice.’ Cardinal Blase Cupich, who served as Bishop of Spokane from 2010 to 2014, said in the same interview that the White House’s splicing of movie footage with actual bombing footage for social media entertainment was ‘sickening.’¹⁶ Rev. Patrick Conroy wrote to the Spokesman-Review: ‘Threatening to destroy a civilization is threatening a war crime.’ Pope Leo called Trump’s April 7 post ‘truly unacceptable.’¹⁷ The only Catholic voice invoking just war doctrine to defend the strikes is Congressman Michael Baumgartner.

In Whose Interest Is This War Being Waged?

Augustine required that war not be waged for personal gain.¹⁸ Eleven days before Operation Epic Fury began, Eric Trump invested in an Israeli AI drone manufacturer whose products are now deployed in the conflict.¹⁹ Both Trump sons are actively marketing drone interceptors to Gulf states under Iranian attack.²² The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has formally opened an investigation into oil futures trades placed before major Trump Iran announcements. In one instance, trading volume spiked to nine times its normal level in the minutes before Trump announced a pause in strikes. In another, traders placed $950 million in bets on falling oil prices hours before he announced a ceasefire.²⁰ No individual has been charged. The CFTC investigation is ongoing. Baumgartner cited Augustine’s framework, but he has not addressed its central question of right intention. Separate questions remain: in whose interest is this war being waged, and who is profiting?

Baumgartner’s Infallibility Claim

Baumgartner has invoked his Catholic faith as a public credential throughout his career in this district. But when the pope’s position on the war diverged from his own, he said Catholics consider the pope infallible only ‘when he sets Church doctrine, not when he talks about current events,’ adding that the pope, like every American, has his own political opinions.¹

Pope Leo took the unusual step of calling on Catholics directly: “ Contact the authorities, political leaders, congressmen to ask them, tell them to work for peace and to reject war. Always.”²¹ Congressman Baumgartner has told his constituents that this war is just, humane, and Augustinian.

Augustine, the pope, three American cardinals, a former Catholic Chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, and evidence from the opening day of the war all say otherwise.

The pope asked you to make a call.

Endnotes

1. Orion Donovan Smith, The Spokesman-Review, April 14, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/apr/14/michael-baumgartner-calls-christ-like-image-of-tru/

2. Baumgartner biographical details: The Spokesman-Review, April 14, 2026; marriage: The Spokesman-Review, October 7, 2010. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/apr/14/michael-baumgartner-calls-christ-like-image-of-tru/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/07/baumgartner-will-halt-campaigning-temporarily-week/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

3. Augustine, Contra Faustum XXII.74. Colorado Pressbooks, https://colorado.pressbooks.pub/warandsocietysourcebook/chapter/st-augustine-of-hippo-just-war/

4. House floor speech, March 4, 2026. The Spokesman-Review, March 8, 2026. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/mar/08/michael-baumgartner-makes-the-case-for-attacking-i/

5. No Iran-specific AUMF passed for Operation Epic Fury. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/398/text

6. H.Con.Res. 38 vote, March 5, 2026. House Clerk Roll Call 085: https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2026/roll085.xml

7. Augustine, Letter 189 to Boniface. New Advent: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102189.htm

8. Trump’s April 7, 2026 post. Reuters, April 7, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trumps-threat-iran-shocks-global-leaders-unnerves-some-republicans-2026-04-07/

9. Hegseth scripture quote: AP, March 2026; “No stupid rules”: Washington Examiner, March 7, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/f246bca60f2927336b5d06b2c9daee80 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/4483145/stupid-rules-of-engagement-war-iran-hegseth/

10. Pope Leo’s Palm Sunday homily, March 29, 2026. Vatican. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/homilies/2026/documents/20260329-palme.html

11. Operation Epic Fury began February 28, 2026. https://www.war.gov/Spotlights/Operation-Epic-Fury/ https://media.defense.gov/2026/Mar/03/2003882557/-1/-1/1/OPERATION-EPIC-FURY-FACT-SHEET-260303.PDF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war

12. Minab school bombing verification: Amnesty International, March 16, 2026; BBC Verify; Human Rights Watch, March 7, 2026; Al Jazeera; Reuters; NPR. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/usa-iran-those-responsible-for-deadly-and-unlawful-us-strike-on-school-that-killed-over-100-children-must-be-held-accountable/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/12/who-bombed-the-iranian-girls-school-killing-more-than-170-what-we-know https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/07/us/israel-investigate-iran-school-attack-as-a-war-crime

13. Hegseth staffing cuts: NPR, March 11, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/11/nx-s1-5744981/pentagon-iran-missile-school-hegseth

14. Catholic Catechism paragraphs 2313-2314. USCCB: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/excerpts-from-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-safeguarding-peace-1997

15. Rev. Patrick Conroy: Catholic priest, House chaplain 2011-2020, Gonzaga University ties. https://chaplain.house.gov/archive/conroy https://www.gonzaga.edu/about/our-university/leadership-and-administration/president/past-presidents/fr-patrick-j-conroy-sj

16. CBS News 60 Minutes interview with Cardinals McElroy, Cupich, and Tobin. https://www.cathstan.org/voices/in-60-minutes-interview-three-u-s-cardinals-reflect-on-pope-leos-leadership-and-churchs-opposition-to-iran-war-and-mass-deportation

17. Pope Leo’s reaction: Reuters, April 7, 2026; Vatican News, April 7, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-leo-calls-trumps-threat-against-iran-truly-unacceptable-2026-04-07/ https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-04/pope-leo-xiv-appeal-to-journalists-castel-gandolfo-7-april-2026.html

18. Augustine’s right intention criterion: Contra Faustum XXII.74; Letter 189; Catholic Catechism paragraph 2302. https://colorado.pressbooks.pub/warandsocietysourcebook/chapter/st-augustine-of-hippo-just-war/ ttps://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102189.htm https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/excerpts-from-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-safeguarding-peace-1997

19. Eric Trump XTEND/JFB investment, February 17, 2026. SEC filing; Reuters; Bloomberg. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/04/02/trump-sons-powerus-drone-interceptors-iran-missiles/c4be0c5e-2ec3-11f1-aac2-f56b5ccad184_story.html

20. CFTC investigation opened April 15, 2026. Bloomberg; Reuters. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-15/us-probes-suspicious-oil-trades-made-before-trump-iran-pivots

21. Pope Leo’s call to Catholics: Vatican News, April 7, 2026; Reuters, April 7, 2026. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-04/pope-leo-xiv-appeal-to-journalists-castel-gandolfo-7-april-2026.html https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-leo-calls-trumps-threat-against-iran-truly-unacceptable-2026-04-07/

22. Trump sons’ drone business activities: Powerus investments; Donald Trump Jr./Unusual Machines. Phase 2, Round 4 research documentation. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/company-backed-by-trump-sons-looks-to-sell-drone-interceptors-to-gulf-states-being-attacked-by-iran