Welcome back. I’m still Malachi Barrett.

In the days leading up to the August primary election, a lot of folks wondered who was behind a flood of attack ads targeting Council Member Mary Waters.

The last-minute campaign seemed aimed at boosting U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar’s reelection bid by undermining his top opponent. Later reporting revealed the ads were connected to pro-Israel groups and Republican activists.

Ads falsely accused Waters of being against LGBTQ marriage and resurfaced a decade-old scandal where Waters accepted a Rolex watch as compensation for a political favor.

Another mail campaign supported Shakira Lynn Hawkins, a third candidate in the race.

It’s debatable how much impact the ads had, but Waters finished second behind Thanedar. Her campaign manager said it played a major factor, and I met several voters on Election Day who said the ads soured them on Waters.

By that metric, the ads were effective. Blue Wave Action spent $2.3 million, including $1.5 million donated from other political committees and $903,500 from individual donors. Money well spent, for whomever cashed the checks.

So who was behind it? A partial answer was immediately apparent: Blue Wave Action, a political action committee formed in July, was named in campaign finance disclosures. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Donors that fueled Blue Wave Action weren’t revealed until two weeks after ballots were cast.

Financial disclosures due on Aug. 20 show the group was closely linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that has become increasingly involved in U.S. elections.

The revelation was particularly interesting because Thanedar was targeted by AIPAC when he first ran for Congress.

AIPAC spent more than $4 million to support Thanedar’s opponent in 2022. At the time, Thanedar was known for urging Congress to end U.S. aid to Israel as a member of the state Legislature.

Thanedar has since become a vocal supporter of Israel’s war in Gaza and joined a trip to Israel organized by AIPAC. Waters differentiated herself through her criticism of Israel and calls to end military support.

My colleague Simon Schuster dug into the disclosures to reveal connections to the pro-Israel advocacy group.

He also explored how “pop-up” groups like Blue Wave Action use campaign finance rules to obscure information from voters.

We’ll hear more from Simon below about how he went about it.

How reporters follow the money

Simon Schuster is a political reporter for Bridge Michigan who previously ran the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization.

He has a deep knowledge of campaign finance procedures and how powerful groups move money while staying on the right side of the law. Simon was first to report on Blue Water Action’s donors, so I wanted to talk with him about why this was an important story.

Here’s what Simon shared, slightly edited for clarity and length.

What are the key things you look for when reviewing campaign finance disclosures?

SCHUSTER: First, of course, is the source or sources of the fundraising. In most campaigns that’s relatively easy to see, but when you see a political action committee or a nonprofit organization spending money independently to influence an election, that perks my ears up — especially if they haven’t disclosed their donors.

That’s particularly important for me is proportion: whether the amount being given to a candidate or spent independently from a source is large relative to all the money a candidate has raised.

When you see one organization or one individual dwarfing the rest, that often sets off alarm bells in my mind. There might be something newsworthy going on here.

Voters didn’t have an opportunity to learn who was behind the ads until after the election. How does this affect our understanding of money in politics?

AIPAC’s affiliated organization created an entity known as a pop-up Super PAC.

They follow the same rules as traditional super PACs, including filing regular reports that detail how much money is being spent and whether it’s to support or oppose a candidate. We were able to see a lot of Blue Wave Action’s spending before the election.

The only difference is that pop-up super PACs like Blue Water Action are created so close to elections that they don’t have to file their first fundraising disclosure until it’s already over.

So Blue Water Action avoided having to reveal any of their donors until Aug. 20, which allowed them to spend an unlimited amount of money without any voters knowing who was behind the advertisements

When you look at the mailers that were sent attacking Mary Waters, they had nothing to do with what AIPAC’s criterion for supporting or attacking a candidate is — which is support or opposition toward the actions of the state of Israel.

Because it’s a pop-up super PAC, they’re able to easily mask the intent and intentions of their spending. To me, that’s intentionally misleading voters about the motivations behind their actions.

What were the major questions you were hoping to find answers to?

This $2.3 million was the largest independent expenditure in any congressional primary race in Michigan this year, and it was attacking one candidate right before the election.

While I thought this kind of messaging and spending fit the mold for activity AIPAC had done in prior congressional elections in Michigan, it’s just a guess, because we don’t have the disclosures until after the election.

I’m not able to report “this looks like AIPAC.” I can only report that when evidence emerges, which due to these tactics was well after the election.

I wanted to confirm my hunch that this was indeed AIPAC spending and I wanted to know where the money came from.

We saw examples of local individuals – in particular the Schostak family, who are prominent Republicans – giving directly to Blue Wave Action.

There we saw a former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and a company related to his family giving to the PAC to support a Democratic candidate by attacking another Democrat in the primary.

Why should this matter to voters?

Because of the lack of transparency, it’s particularly important to highlight after the election because the PAC’s timing pointedly prevented us from knowing who was behind all of these mailers.

These mailers were everywhere and people had been talking about them a lot. Although that decision had come and gone in terms of the election results, it was important to show who was behind something that had played a significant role in the election.

I think it’s the obligation of journalists like myself to translate this into what it means for our elections: Taking data that can be difficult to parse and putting it in concrete terms.

You can’t say “this much money changed the vote by X percent, “but when there’s major spending going on in our elections, it’s the role of the media to track the source of those donations, see where it’s coming from and talk about the motivations behind it.

Breaking down the blue wave

The first thing to know is that this information is free and publicly available.

FEC.gov has searchable databases that show who donates to political causes, how campaigns raise and spend money, and who is behind political action committees.

That’s for federal elections. Wayne County has its own public campaign finance database for local races.

Finding out what groups supported Thanedar requires checking his candidate profile, as well as his opponents. Data is also arranged by congressional districts, allowing comparisons between candidates.

Thanedar raised under $1 million from individual donors while Waters raised only $150,300.

Thanedar was directly supported by Protect Progress, a cryptocurrency advocacy group that spent $1 million. Thanedar was indirectly supported by Blue Wave Action, which spent $2.3 million to oppose Waters and $52,540 to support Hawkins.

Blue Wave Action filings show donors, details on how the committee spent money and what other groups it’s connected to.

The August report shows 60% of donations to Blue Wave Action came from United Democracy Project and Voters For Responsive Government. All three groups exchanged money with AIPAC and share donors.

For example, Hotels.com founder Robert Diener donated to Thanedar, United Democracy Project, Blue Wave Action and AIPAC.

Robert Efroymson, president of the Jewish Federation of New Mexico, donated to Thanedar, Blue Wave Action and United Democracy Project.

The only Michigan donor to Blue Wave Action is connected to the Republican Party.

SF Properties, also referred to as Schostak Family Federal PAC, gave $75,000. The group also donated directly to AIPAC. It’s connected to former Michigan Republican Party Chair Robert Schostak.

Blue Wave Action also paid Huckaby Davis Lisker $3,000 for campaign finance compliance services.

The firm is a major client of prominent Republican groups and worked for vice presidential nominee JD Vance’s U.S. Senate campaign.