This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/us/politics/republican-fund-raising-sheldon-adelson-donald-trump.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Sheldon Adelson Focuses on Congressional Races, Despite Donald Trump’s Pleas Sheldon Adelson Focuses on Congressional Races, Despite Donald Trump’s Pleas
(about 9 hours later)
The Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson is shifting tens of millions of dollars into groups backing congressional Republicans despite months of entreaties from allies of Donald J. Trump, according to several Republicans with knowledge of Mr. Adelson’s giving, dealing a major setback to Mr. Trump’s efforts to rally deep-pocketed Republican givers. The Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson and his wife are giving more than $40 million to groups backing Republican congressional candidates, according to campaign filings and interviews with Republican strategists, disregarding repeated entreaties for support from allies of Donald J. Trump and dealing a major setback to Mr. Trump’s efforts to rally the deepest-pocketed Republican givers.
Mr. Adelson had once dangled the possibility of giving as much as $100 million to pro-Trump “super PACs,” an infusion that with a stroke would have given Mr. Trump a financially competitive network of outside groups to back his presidential campaign. The contributions will again make Mr. Adelson and his family among the largest known donors in American politics, after several years in which they played a more subdued role in national Republican fund-raising. But Mr. Adelson’s decision to deploy his wealth down ballot, less than two months before Election Day, also represents the reluctance of most of the biggest Republican donors to invest in their party’s standard-bearer.
But with less than two months remaining in the campaign, the mercurial casino magnate — who entertained but ultimately rebuffed pitches from an array of Republican candidates during the party’s nominating contest this election cycle — appears to be focusing instead on Republicans in the House and Senate. Mr. Adelson had once dangled the possibility of giving as much as $100 million to pro-Trump groups, an infusion that at a stroke would have made the groups financially competitive against Hillary Clinton. But in recent weeks, the mercurial casino magnate — who entertained but ultimately rebuffed pitches from an array of Republican candidates during the party’s nominating contest this election cycle — became convinced that Mr. Trump’s chances of victory had diminished, according to the Republicans briefed on his decision.
Republicans briefed on his giving said Mr. Adelson had committed $20 million each to two super PACs backing Senate and House Republicans, contributions that would again make Mr. Adelson the single largest known donor to political organizations in the country. CNN, which first reported the $40 million in contributions on Tuesday night, also said that Mr. Adelson had allocated only $5 million to supporting Mr. Trump. The Adelson family’s biggest contributions are going instead to two “super PACs” backing Senate and House Republicans, each of which will get $20 million, making Mr. Adelson the single largest known donor to political organizations in the country.
A Republican with knowledge of the decision confirmed that $5 million in Adelson cash would be directed to organizations run by a fellow politically active billionaire, Joe Ricketts, rather than to two newer super PACs controlled by allies of Mr. Trump. Now Mr. Trump heads toward Nov. 8 with only limited financial help from super PACs and outside groups that can accept unlimited contributions from rich donors. Groups supporting Mr. Trump have aired a total of just $12 million in broadcast advertising, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Mrs. Clinton’s allies — buoyed by a sharp rise in giving by wealthy liberals on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley — are expected to spend at least $160 million by Election Day.
But it remains unclear exactly how the $5 million in support of Mr. Trump would be spent. During the Republican primary, the Ricketts family spent millions of dollars opposing Mr. Trump, who in return, in February, posted on Twitter that the family “better be careful, they have a lot to hide!” “If you want to help that Senate candidate or that gubernatorial candidate, the best way we could have done it was to nominate any of the other people who were running,” said Douglas Heye, a former adviser to House Republicans. “That’s not the reality of the world right now. The best way to do that now is to help that campaign directly.”
Mr. Adelson, whose fortune is currently estimated at almost $32 billion, could easily afford to spend more for Mr. Trump in the weeks ahead. But he is rapidly running out of time to make an impact on the race, and even his contributions to Republican congressional efforts are coming late in the game, when the price of advertising is climbing drastically and there are fewer undecided voters to persuade. Two Republicans with knowledge of his giving said that Mr. Adelson was allocating a far smaller sum, just $5 million, to benefit the top of the Republican ticket — the equivalent of token support by Mr. Adelson’s standards. And in a striking move, the money will go not to any of the pro-Trump super PACs but to organizations controlled by a fellow billionaire, Joe Ricketts, a Wyoming investor, whose own political operation will decide how to spend it. The Ricketts family spent millions of dollars during the primaries to defeat Mr. Trump, who responded with a Twitter message that the Rickettses “better be careful, they have a lot to hide!”
The new spending only cements Mr. Adelson’s reputation as both the most sought-after and most unpredictable donor in Republican politics. During the 2012 campaign, Mr. Adelson put $20 million behind the long-shot campaign of Newt Gingrich, a longtime friend, before backing the consensus establishment candidate, Mitt Romney. He went on to spend almost $100 million in disclosed contributions during that campaign, only to see most of his favored candidates defeated. A spokesman for Mr. Adelson declined to comment.
This past year, Mr. Adelson was frequently reported to be close to backing a favored Republican candidate in the primary fight, but ultimately stayed on the sideline. This cycle, Mr. Adelson was said to be leaning toward backing Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, while his wife, Miriam, preferred Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. “Everyone reached out to him. He promised $100 million,” said Ed Rollins, an adviser to Great America, one of several outside groups supporting Mr. Trump. “At this point in time, he’s like everyone else. Now he’s going to be a player, just not to the same extent.”
Feeling burned by the intense attention to his giving in 2012, Mr. Adelson was said to be ready to swear off super PACs, which must publicly disclose their contributions, in favor of political nonprofit groups, which can spend some money on campaign advertising and are permitted to keep their donors secret. But his new donations represent yet another turnaround: The groups in question, which include two super PACs called the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund, do disclose their donors. Mr. Trump’s efforts have been hampered in part by confusion: There are at least three competing super PACs supporting him. One is controlled and so far solely funded by the New York billionaire Robert Mercer and by his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, who have close ties to Mr. Trump’s campaign team. Two others — Great America PAC and Rebuild America Now — are controlled by rival teams of consultants, but each has received a blessing of sorts from the Trump family. Mr. Trump’s son Eric appeared at a fund-raiser this month for Great America, while another Trump son, Donald Jr., was the special guest at an event for Rebuild America Now less than a week later.
While Mr. Trump has enjoyed success for a Republican presidential candidate in raising small contributions, the same qualities that have fired up his grass-roots supporters have turned off many wealthier Republican contributors, making it difficult for both Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee to keep pace among larger donors.
Mr. Adelson at one point appeared to be the biggest potential backer in Mr. Trump’s corner. This spring, he published an op-ed article endorsing Mr. Trump and urging other Republicans to get behind him, and in August donated $1.5 million to the Republican convention where Mr. Trump was formally nominated in July.
But in the months since, Mr. Trump has shrugged off private pleas from Mr. Adelson and others within his party to modulate his tone and message against Mrs. Clinton. Those issues came to a head at a meeting this month of major conservative donors convened by the billionaire hedge fund executive Paul Singer, a resolute Trump opponent who has opined that Mr. Trump’s campaign proposals would trigger a “widespread global depression” if enacted.
Representatives of the Senate Leadership Fund and Americans for Prosperity, the political organization overseen by the billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch, were among those pitching donors at the meeting. So was the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, who told donors that he needed to raise another $60 million to $70 million to support the party and Mr. Trump through Nov. 8. According to a person who attended, Mr. Priebus urged donors to view the Republican slate as a package and argued that supporting Mr. Trump would help down-ballot races.
But the Kochs’ political organization, backed by an overlapping group of large conservative donors, is so far steering clear of the presidential race and focusing efforts on the House and Senate. And some of the top Republican donors in the country have now — like Mr. Adelson — given to the Koch organization or the Senate Leadership Fund, according to Tuesday’s filings. These donors include Mr. Singer, the Chicago hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, and a company controlled by Frank L. VanderSloot, a prominent Idaho businessman.
Mr. Adelson, whose fortune is currently estimated at almost $32 billion, could easily afford to spend more for Mr. Trump in the weeks ahead. But he is rapidly running out of time to have an effect on the race, and even his contributions to Republican congressional efforts are coming late in the game, when the price of advertising is climbing drastically and there are fewer undecided voters to persuade. In part to mitigate those costs, the Senate Leadership Fund reserved $40 million in fall advertising in June, before the cash was yet available to pay for it.
Democratic groups, meanwhile, are enjoying almost unmatched success in persuading rich donors and unions to pour money into super PACs, bolstered by Mrs. Clinton’s warm relationships with wealthy donors in her party. Through the start of September, according to Federal Election Commission filings, the lead pro-Clinton group, Priorities USA Action, has raised $13 million from S. Donald Sussman, a wealthy financier, and another $9.5 million from the retired hedge fund billionaire George Soros. S. Daniel Abraham, the billionaire founder of SlimFast, has contributed $9 million to the group. The entertainment executive Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, have contributed $10 million to the group, according to federal records.
Other outside Democratic groups are also stepping up their efforts for the final weeks before the election, focusing on grass-roots outreach rather than television advertising.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist, said in an interview on Tuesday that he is pouring another $15 million into For Our Future, a joint super PAC he is running with a several labor unions. The group is spending money across seven swing states, chiefly on field organizing and voter mobilization. They aim to knock on eight million doors between now and the election.
”We believe that that form of communication is the way to actually engage people,” Mr. Steyer said.