As the 2024 elections draw near, the conduct of political candidates comes under increased scrutiny. One such candidate facing criticism is Democrat Mike Levin, whose campaign was allegedly bankrolled by the same donor involved in the Hunter Biden art scandal. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has accused Levin of being part of a possible “straw donation scheme,” a practice that raises serious ethical questions.
The controversy revolves around a significant contribution made to Levin’s campaign by Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, the donor behind the Hunter Biden art scandal. According to the NRCC, after Naftali contributed the legal maximum to Levin’s campaign, her minor son allegedly donated $1,000 to Levin’s campaign. This series of donations has led to suspicions of a potential attempt to circumvent campaign finance laws, raising concerns about the ethics of Levin’s campaign funding.
NRCC Spokesperson Ben Petersen did not mince words in his condemnation of Levin’s actions, likening them to the controversial dealings involving Hunter Biden. Petersen accused Levin of prioritizing money over ethics, suggesting that alarm bells should have been ringing at Levin’s headquarters regarding the potential impropriety.
The allegations have gained attention in the wake of a report by the Washington Free Beacon, which revealed similar patterns in Naftali’s contributions to other Democrats. The report suggests that Naftali’s children, who are beneficiaries of a trust set up by their grandparents, made donations to various politicians after Naftali reached her legal contribution limits. Among these recipients were Congressman Mike Levin and presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
Federal law permits minors to donate to political campaigns, provided they do so willingly and using their own money. However, the NRCC has raised concerns about whether Naftali may have directed or influenced her children’s contributions, potentially constituting a straw donation scheme. Such schemes have drawn the attention of federal prosecutors in recent months, raising the stakes for candidates like Levin facing allegations of unethical campaign practices.
While Naftali and her family have not commented on the matter, the questions raised by these donations continue to resonate in the political landscape. The accusations surrounding Levin’s campaign funding could have significant implications for his credibility and public trust as a candidate.
Mike Levin took possible straw donation from donor behind Hunter Biden art scandal
Vulnerable Democrat Mike Levin’s campaign was bankrolled by the donor behind the Hunter Biden art scandal via a possible “straw donation scheme.”
“After Naftali contributed the legal maximum” to Levin, her son — a minor — donated $1,000 to Levin’s campaign.
“This attempt to circumvent campaign finance laws should have set off alarm bells at Levin HQ, but like Hunter Biden, Mike Levin puts money over ethics.” – NRCC Spokesperson Ben Petersen
In case you missed it…
When Hunter Biden’s Art Patron Hit Federal Contribution Limits, Her Underage Children Kept the Money to Dems Flowing
Colin Anderson
In September 2015, Hunter Biden art patron Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali sent Hillary Clinton $2,700, the maximum amount she could give the presidential candidate for the upcoming primary election. Just days later, an unusual source stepped forward with more Clinton money: Naftali’s 17-year-old daughter.
Naftali’s daughter—who was in high school at the time—also sent Clinton $2,700, federal disclosures reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon show. The contribution came just 10 days after Naftali was legally barred from giving Clinton more primary campaign cash. In the years that followed, Naftali’s son continued the practice, sending thousands of dollars to California congressman Mike Levin and presidential candidate Kamala Harris after Naftali contributed the legal maximum to both Democrats. Naftali’s son gave Levin $1,000 at age 16 and Harris $2,000 at age 17.
[…]
Federal law allows minors to donate to political campaigns, though they must do so “knowingly and voluntarily” with their own money. Naftali’s children are the beneficiaries of a trust set up by their grandparents, court records obtained by the Free Beacon show, and money they receive from the trust is considered their own income under federal law. Still, Naftali could not direct her children to use money from the trust to contribute to liberal politicians—that decision would have to come from the children themselves.
If Naftali directed or paid her children to make the contributions after she no longer could, she would likely be guilty of running a straw donation scheme. Federal prosecutors have uncovered such schemes in recent months.
“Their parents can’t say, ‘If you donate, we’ll give you your money later, or we’ll give you a really big Christmas gift,'” said Kendra Arnold, executive director of campaign finance watchdog Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. “The facts in this case line up to indicate that could have happened here.”
The Naftali family did not return a request for comment.
Ben Petersen
Western Press Secretary
