Raskin raises, banks millions, far outstripping other Maryland delegation members
With more than a year to the next elections, members of Maryland's congressional delegation and their would-be challengers had raised $6.2 million this year and already put almost $12 million aside — with nearly half of both amounts attributable to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th).
Raskin raised more than $2.5 million in the first six months of the year, according to the latest campaign finance reports from the Federal Election Commission, four times the amount raised by the second most-prolific fundraiser in the state, Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st), who brought in $609,303.
And Raskin had nearly $5.9 million in cash on hand as of June 30, more than 2.5 times Sen. Chris Van Hollen's (D-Md.) $2.2 million.
Raskin was the 20th-biggest fundraiser of the 919 House incumbents and challengers who reported raising any money this year, according to the FEC. A high-profile and vocal critic of President Donald Trump (R), he received donations from 44 states, although the largest share was from Maryland.
Raskin's campaign did not respond to requests for comnent.
But Patrick Gonzales, pollster with Annapolis-based Gonzales Research & Media, said Raskin's totals are unusual.
'There are eight Congress [House] members in Maryland, and for one to get that to get that significant of an amount higher — that just strikes me as odd,' Gonzales said.
Close to 90% of Raskin's donations were from individuals, and about half of those were small donations that were not itemized, an amount that also struck Gonzales as odd.
'Where does it come from? I don't have a clue, but it's a lot of money,' he said.
Raskin is one of the few incumbents to have challengers already for 2026. But Democrat Stephen Leon reported raising $1,673 this year and having $1,000 in the bank, while Republican Cheryl Riley, seeking a rematch after losing badly to Raskin last year in the heavily Democratic 8th District, reported raising $4,857 and having $4,039 in cash on hand.
Another longtime incumbent also facing challengers in 2026 is Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th). Despite continuing speculation about Hoyer's intentions — Hoyer, first elected to the House in 1981, will be 87 at the time of next year's elections — he reported raising $286,862 this year and having $636,456 on hand as of June 30.
Democratic challengers Quincy Bereebe reported raising $116,837 and banking $78,111, and Harry Jarin raised $106,193 and had $105,730 on hand, according to the FEC. But their reports show that Bareebe's receipts included a $110,000 loan to herself, while Jarin loaned his campaign $75,000.
In the 6th District, stretching across Western Maryland, Rep. April McClain Delaney reported bringing in $528,778 — of which $200,000 was a loan to her campaign — and banking $323,251.
Two Republicans have declared their intention to challenge McClain Delaney in 2026: Political newcomer Christopher Burnett reported raising $7,078 and having $6,870 on hand wile former Del. Neil Parrott reported raising $17,538, which includes an $11,000 loan, and having $7,215 in the bank on June 30. Parrott would be making his fourth bid for the seat, having lost to McClain Delaney last year and former Rep. David Trone (D) two times before that.
The only other incumbent with a declared challenger is Harris in the 1st District, where Democrat Daniel Schwartz raised $101,970 — including a $13,000 loan to his campaign — and had $56,748 in cash on hand. Harris raised $609,303 in the same period and had just over $1 million in cash on hand.
Neither Van Hollen nor Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) have challengers yet for reelection bids in 2028 and 203o, respectively. But Alsobrooks was already raising money after an expensive 2024 election in which she spent $31 million and ended the year with $49,845 in the bank and $101,342 in campaign debt.
The freshman senator reported raising $596,348 in the first half of this year, and having $107,720 in cash on hand as of June 30.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
13 minutes ago
- The Intercept
What to Do — And Not to Do — About a Judge Like Emil Bove
Emil Bove, the nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is sworn in before his confirmation hearing in the Senate on June 25, 2025, in Washington. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images President Donald Trump's second term has so far been a constant barrage of unconstitutional actions and illegal orders. So it was thus no surprise when the Senate on Monday confirmed Trump's former personal lawyer and Justice Department lackey, Emil Bove, to a lifetime appointment on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That 50 Republican senators would install this fascist bootlicker to one of the most powerful judicial positions in the land for life is, as MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann put it, 'a nail in the coffin' for a system of checks and balances on authoritarian presidential overreach. There's a risk, however, after a grave blow like this to legal, political, and constitutional norms, that liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order will mourn the wrong thing. Bove's appointment confirms something worse than the Republican embrace of lawlessness. He represents the Republicans' use and abuse of our fraught constitutional order for the purposes of enacting profound, life-denying, and long-lasting injustices to uphold a white nationalist regime. Liberal epitaphs to the American constitutional order risk mourning the wrong thing. Calling on the restoration of preexisting norms of law and constitutionality to reverse course will be, at best, insufficient. After all, liberal reliance on a system of order above justice helped deliver us Trump and his jurist enablers in the first place. This is not to understate how appalling it is that Bove has been appointed a federal judge. 'It is one thing to put lab-designed Federalist Society members on courts across the country — and, to be clear, several of Trump's nominees from his first administration went far beyond that,' wrote legal journalist Chris Geidner when Trump nominated Bove, 'but it is another thing altogether to name a lawless loyalist to a federal appeals court.' Geidner called Bove's confirmation a 'line that cannot be crossed.' It has now been crossed. Bove is perhaps best known as the Justice Department official who dismissed corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams — a decision that led more than 10 Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest. He fired federal prosecutors who had worked on January 6 cases. According to three Justice Department whistleblower accounts, Bove also told federal attorneys that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' and ignore orders blocking the administration from sending immigrants to El Salvador's gulag. Over 900 former Justice Department attorneys, identifying with both parties, wrote letters opposing Bove's judgeship. Yet Republican senators refused to hear whistleblower testimony and dismissed the widespread concerns about Bove as Democratic meddling. As usual, they did what the president asked. Bove's new, permanent position assures more serious harms to come. Given how few cases are heard by the Supreme Court, the 3rd Circuit is most often the final voice in the law for cases from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bove has made unwaveringly clear that, for him, the law is the president's will. This position is now standard in the Republican Party and all too consistently affirmed by a Supreme Court majority committed to unitary executive theory to vest authoritarian powers in Trump's hands. Earlier this month, Geidner posted on social media that 'should Bove be confirmed — which he should not be — he should immediately be the subject of an impeachment inquiry should Dems retake Congress.' Based on his actions at the Department of Justice, there are ample grounds to call for impeachment. Democrats should vow to do this immediately. Senate Democrats carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. Senate Democrats, after all, carry significant blame for Bove's judgeship, too. His seat should have been filled by Biden nominee, Adeel Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim judge on a federal appeals court. Instead of shutting down vile, Islamophobic Republican attacks against Mangi, Senate Democrats allowed the smears to gain ground and eventually stood down on the nomination. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday said, 'To confirm Mr. Bove is a sacrilegious act against our democracy.' He did not mention that, when he was Senate majority leader, he permitted a relentless Islamophobic campaign to tank Mangi, a qualified nominee, which left the judge's seat open for Trump's taking. The Democratic establishment may lament Bove's confirmation as 'a dark, dark day,' but we have no reason to think that this party leadership will bring us toward the light. Geidner's suggestion — to pursue impeachment — would be the very least that Democrats can do. What they should already be doing is using every tool in their power to hinder Trump's deportation machine. Given the Democrats' own vile embrace of harsh border rule, I am not holding my breath. The judges who have continued to push back directly against Trump's illegal actions, meanwhile, remain a crucial constraint on some of the administration's worst attacks on our rights. These judges are under unprecedented attack. On the same day Bove was confirmed, Trump's Justice Department filed a baseless misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. In March, Boasberg issued an order to block deportation flights to El Salvador under Trump's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — the very sort of order that Bove reportedly told attorneys to say 'fuck you' to. In an obscene retaliatory escalation, the Justice Department's complaint claims that Boasberg's alleged comments — that the administration could trigger a 'constitutional crisis' by disregarding court orders — 'have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.' The complaint says that the administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The idea that it constitutes judicial misconduct to suggest otherwise, despite clear evidence of the executive's disregard for certain unfavorable court orders, is the sort of authoritarian logic that obviates concerns about a constitutional crisis in the worst way: There can be no crisis if fascist rule silences all constitutional pushback. Then the problem is not a constitutional order in crisis, but a fascist order without opposition. This is not yet the state of affairs. The courts — certain courts, at least — are not yet a dead end. It should be increasingly clear, however, that they will not deliver us from fascism either. As legal scholar Aziz Rana wrote earlier this year, the left should 'strongly back litigation efforts and condemn Trump's defiance of the courts,' but not because the courts are a terrain of liberatory struggle. Rana is clear that 'the reason to oppose Trump's violation of court orders is not out of a general faith in judges or constitutional norms,' but because they are a tool, however limited, for protecting people and holding the administration to account. The affront at the heart of Bove's confirmation is not that he does not respect the law — although that should no doubt be disqualifying for a judge. If that's where we object, however, we risk lionizing a criminal legal system that also gives rise to racist policing and mass incarceration. Bove's violence lies primarily in his commitment to a form of injustice that ensures impunity for the corrupt and powerful, while the poorest and most vulnerable are treated as wholly disposable. The infamous advice Bove allegedly gave to ignore court orders over deportations was a 'fuck you' to the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but above all it was a 'fuck you' to the over 200 men who were rounded up, kidnapped, shaved, beaten, and tortured in a foreign gulag without any recourse. It was a 'fuck you' to human beings. It should go without saying that the constitutional order in and of itself has never in practice guaranteed equality and justice for all. The constitutionalization of slavery's abolition and many basic civil rights protections took extraordinary social struggle and political work. The successful dismantling of the constitutional right to an abortion took decades of political organizing, too. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees progress. 'The great social movements of the past, from abolition to civil rights, labour to women's suffrage, famously called for the defiance of unjust court judgments that sustained slavery, segregation and disenfranchisement, or criminalized union organizing,' Rana noted. 'Considering the current right-wing control over the courts, the left may find itself in a similar place in the coming years, calling for civil disobedience of judicial authority.' With judges like Bove in place, such action will likely be all the more necessary.
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
Kamala Harris leaves door open for potential 2028 presidential run
'For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,' she said, after explaining she didn't intend to enter the race for California governor in 2026. WASHINGTON – Former Vice President Kamala Harris won't be running for California governor in 2026– but is not ruling out another bid for the White House. The two-time Democratic presidential candidate, who abruptly took over as her party's nominee in the 2024 general election, said in a surprise announcement on July 30 that she would not compete in next year's gubernatorial race. What Harris, who currently lives in Southern California with her husband Doug Emhoff, did not say was whether she'd decided about running for president in 2028. 'For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,' she said. 'I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.' A source familiar with her thinking said Harris, 60, did not pass on a gubernatorial campaign in order to clear a path to run for president in 2028. But the person noted that Harris also did not close the door on running for president. And it would have been politically impossible for her to seek both elected offices. The next governor of California will take office at the beginning of 2027, around the same time that Harris would need to be gearing up for a presidential bid were she to compete again. Another factor: Harris is currently writing a book, two people with knowledge of her plans said, and is expected to go on tour. More: Burdened by what had been: Kamala Harris couldn't convince voters "She can do anything she wants to do, but she owes us nothing. And I hope she spends some time with the kids and Dougie, maybe teaches. I'm ready to go read the book,' longtime Harris ally Bakari Sellers said. 'She's a talent and 2028 could be it. Or 2032. Whatever she decides. She's young." The announcement adds an additional wrinkle to the decision-making process for Democrats with national ambitions who were forced to take a back seat to Harris last year, when former President Joe Biden quit his reelection campaign and endorsed his sitting vice president as his replacement. Harris lost in a landslide to President Donald Trump, whom she characterized on the trail as an acute threat to democracy in the face of robust evidence that the electorate was primarily concerned about inflation and the economy. She also came under criticism in the abbreviated campaign for refusing to distance herself from Biden, whose mental fitness and age have faced even greater scrutiny since he left office. In her statement on the California governor's race, Harris said the country is in a 'moment of crisis' because the nation's politics, government and institutions have frequently failed the American people. 'As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking – committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook,' Harris said. 'She could still drop the hammer' The announcement took even some of her closest political allies by surprise. 'I was anticipating an announcement for governor, because she would be good at it, and I thought she still wanted to get back in that fryer right now,' said Sellers, a co-chair of Harris' first presidential campaign. Harris allies said they do not know which way Harris would come down on a 2028 presidential bid, but they were glad to see her commit to remaining politically active. 'I think we'll all be waiting with bated breath to see what her next steps are,' former Biden and Harris campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said. Chavez Rodriguez worked for Harris in her Senate office and on her bid for the 2020 presidential nomination before joining Biden's team. She worked as a senior aide at the White House and ran his reelection campaign. She said she believes Harris is focused on 'figuring out what she can do in the moment…given the challenges that we're facing in the immediate, and what I know will be even more challenges coming up.' Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights, which works to expand Black women's political power and backed Harris' 2020 presidential bid, said her campaign had inspired other women to run. 'I am on team Kamala Harris in whatever she decides to do,'' Carr said, noting that Harris can lead outside of having an elected office. 'I'm on team 'Kamala, private citizen,' team 'Kamala, candidate.'' Jaime Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said he would like to see Harris campaign for Democrats running for office in 2026, especially in the South. He encouraged his party to stay focused on overturning Republicans' narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and winning governorships. 'It's good to have her out there, and I'm sure, as she goes around the country, she'll make up her mind about what she wants to do about 2028. But we can't think about 2028 until we get to 2026,' Harrison said. As for what it all means for possible candidates such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the answer is simple, Sellers said. 'Nothing, because she could still drop the hammer on all of them if she wants to run for president,' the Harris ally said. 'She'll beat all of them if she decides.'
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Judge Jeanine' Pirro pushed election falsehoods. She's Trump's pick for D.C. prosecutor.
Pirro's statements on Fox News about the 2020 election featured heavily in Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against the network. The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. used her Fox News show to question the legitimacy of the 2020 election and became so outspoken that the network canceled one of her episodes out of fear for what she might say. Jeanine Pirro, who hosted "Justice with Judge Jeanine" for 11 years, was one of eight prominent personalities on the network named in a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems that ended in a $787.5 million settlement. Many of Pirro's comments advanced the false theory that machines made by Dominion were being used to flip votes from Trump to Biden. A 2022 report from conservative legal experts found that Trump's allies did not provide evidence of widespread election fraud, and judges threw out virtually all of Trump's cases based on lack of evidence. Since May, she has been the acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., after President Donald Trump tapped her for the powerful post. The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance her nomination for permanent appointment July 17, and the Senate could confirm her as soon as this week. While the U.S. attorney job doesn't generally involve election issues, the office led the prosecutions of Trump supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in effort to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Democrats and other critics say Pirro's record of espousing debunked conspiracy theories make her unqualified for the position. 'I have serious concerns over somebody who was such a vocal proponent of these completely false election theories in 2020 taking over the office that was primarily responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of a violent attack on the Capitol,' said Jonathan Diaz, the voting advocacy director for the left-leaning Campaign Legal Center. Harrison Fields, a spokesperson for the White House, defended Pirro's qualifications. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the U.S. attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. 'Judge Jeanine, a highly respected and accomplished attorney and judge, is dedicated to President Trump's agenda to restore safety and justice in our nation's capital,' Fields said in a statement. 'Baseless, last-minute character assassination attempts are desperate and undermine the safety of D.C. residents and tourists who would benefit from her swift confirmation.' Here's what to know about Pirro and her record of promoting baseless accusations of voting fraud. Pirro's career as judge, district attorney Pirro had a long career as a prosecutor in Westchester County, New York before becoming part of Trump's inner circle. She worked as an assistant district attorney for 15 years before being elected judge on the Westchester County Court. She later spent 12 years as the elected Westchester district attorney. She was the first woman president of the New York District Attorneys Association, and she started the first domestic violence unit in a prosecutors office in the nation, according to her Justice Department bio. For nearly two decades, Pirro largely has been known to Americans a television personality with a lawyer's punch and a New Yorker's bluntness. She hosted "Justice with Judge Jeanine" on Fox News and later joined the network's roundtable program "The Five." Since the U.S. Attorney's office for D.C. also functions as the local prosecutor for the district, Pirro is leaning on her local prosecution record and emphasizing how she will help victims in the community. 'No more tolerance of hatred,' Pirro said after her swearing in at the White House. 'No more mercy for criminals. Violence will be addressed directly with the appropriate punishment. And this city again will become a shining city on a hill in an America that President Trump has promised to make great again and will make safe again.' Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, said shortly before voting against her confirmation that this experience was not enough. Padilla noted she hasn't litigated in more than 20 years, is not admitted to the D.C. bar, and never practiced in a federal court before Trump appointed her. 'These are serious law enforcement jobs,' Padilla said of being U.S. attorney. 'They are not patronage positions to be handed out to the president's unqualified friends and allies as a thank you for their loyalty.' Trump has appointed many other Fox News hosts to his administration, most notably Pete Hegseth to run the Department of Defense and Mike Huckabee to be ambassador to Israel. Some of his judicial appointments have been criticized for their perceived lack of experience. Trump has also staffed top Justice Department positions with his former personal lawyers, sparking fears among Trump critics that the lawyers could place loyalty to Trump over neutrally enforcing the law. 'She may belong on Fox News, but she does not belong in a federal law enforcement role,' Padilla said of Pirro. 'Reckless maniac' Pirro was one of the most outspoken critics of the 2020 election, and documents from the Dominion lawsuit show her skepticism started more than a month before Trump lost. When a Fox News employee asked her Sept. 27, 2020 if she would accept the results of the election, the lawsuit says she responded, 'I will accept the results, but I reserve my right to challenge the massive fraud I am justifiably anticipating.' The Dominion suit was settled just before opening arguments in the trial, with Fox News agreeing to pay the company $787.5 million. A Fox News spokeswoman said in a statement that the network acknowledged the court's rulings that some Dominion statements were false, and that the settlement reflected the network's commitment to high journalistic standards. By Nov. 7, 2020, the Saturday after the presidential election, executives were 'worried about her discussion conspiracy of theories' and canceled her show for that day. A few days later, a Fox producer emailed Pirro saying she would need to include statements from Dominion on her show, and then forwarded it to another person calling her a 'reckless maniac.' Pirro cited a Hugo Chavez conspiracy theory On Nov. 14, 2020, the day of her next scheduled show, the lawsuit says a Fox News producer received information from the network's internal research department debunking conspiracy theories about the Dominion machines. The lawsuit also says Pirro 'flashed Dominion's general denial on air for fifteen seconds.' That night, she hosted Sidney Powell, another Trump-affiliated lawyer who aggressively challenged the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. Before introducing Powell to discuss 'what she has unearthed in the creation of Dominion," Pirro said: 'The Dominion software system has been tagged as one allegedly capable of flipping votes.'' Pirro discussed with Powell how she might 'get to the bottom of exactly what Dominion is, who started Dominion, how it can be manipulated if it is manipulated at all.' Powell suggested Dominion machines were originally designed to alter votes for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, and that military intelligence officials should investigate the issue. Pirro agreed about the investigation. 'Yes, and it — hopefully, the Department of Justice, but — but who knows anymore,' Pirro replied. 'Sidney Powell, good luck on your mission.' On Nov. 21, 2020, during a segment she would refer to as her opening statement, Pirro described the case that Trump's lawyers were laying out: 'An organized criminal enterprise, a conspiracy by Democrats, especially in cities controlled and corrupted by Democrats,' and 'a company called Dominion which they say started in Venezuela with Cuban money and with the assistance of Smartmatic software' in which 'a back door is capable of flipping votes.' Democrats objected to her nomination The Senate Judiciary Committee did not hold a confirmation hearing on Pirro's nomination, but the committee's Republicans voted to advance her nomination on July 17. Democrats spent a few minutes before the vote criticizing Pirro. Sen Maizie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii said: 'Like all of president Trump's nominees, she has demonstrated unwavering loyalty to him, and if confirmed, we can expect that she will misuse the U.S. attorney's office to go after President Trump's political enemies.' Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, said when he met with Pirro personally she refused to answer whether it was appropriate to terminate prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for their work on the Jan. 6 prosecutions. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa who chairs the committee, entered a letter of recommendation into the record from the National Fraternal Order of Police that he quoted as saying Pirro is 'widely praised in her work prosecuting domestic abusers, sexual abusers, stalkers, and rapists.'
