U.S. Congressman Abe Hamadeh (AZ-08) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch a federal investigation into allegations of bribery and prosecutorial misconduct tied to the Democrat Attorneys General Association (DAGA), the States United Democracy Center (SUDC), and multiple state attorneys general offices.
The congressman, a former prosecutor, highlighted the direct impact on his Arizona constituents—grandmothers, business leaders, veterans, seniors, and activists—who he says have been targeted for exercising their First Amendment rights in what appears to be politically motivated prosecutions.
Court filings in State of Arizona v. Kelli Ward et al. uncovered an apparent coordinated scheme where partisan nonprofits allegedly funneled payments to influence criminal cases.
Key allegations outlined in Hamadeh’s letter to AG Bondi include:
Suspicious Financial Timing: Arizona AG Kris Mayes received $200,000 from DAGA. She received $50,000 after hiring SUDC in May 2023, and $150,000 right after announcing indictments in April 2024, raising red flags of potential quid pro quo.
Unprecedented Control by Partisan Group: The Arizona AG’s office claims an attorney-client relationship with SUDC, effectively ceding prosecutorial authority to a politically aligned nonprofit, undermining independence and due process.
Opaque Organizational Ties: Tax records indicate that SUDC shares leadership, addresses, and bank accounts with the Progressive State Leadership Committee, a structure seemingly designed to mask money flow and coordination.
Hamadeh also pointed to SUDC co-founder Marc Elias’s prior sanctions by the Fifth Circuit for “redundant and misleading” conduct and lack of candor, including filing undisclosed duplicate motions, requiring him to complete court-ordered ethics training.
“My constituents, including veterans and seniors who make up a significant portion of AZ-08, deserve confidence that their taxpayer dollars ensure law enforcement decisions affecting their rights are made impartially, and are not going to partisan Democrat-affiliated organizations,” stated Congressman Hamadeh. “The apparently credible allegations rise to a level of seriousness that warrants an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.”
In his letter to AG Pam Bondi, Hamadeh demanded answers within 30 days on:
The status of any DOJ probe into DAGA-SUDC arrangements.
Similar financial ties in other states with politically charged cases.
Protections for defendants’ due process rights.
Review of tax filings, bank records, and communications.
Timeline for investigation and public findings.
“The allegations outlined above, if substantiated, represent a fundamental corruption of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law,” concluded Hamadeh. “My constituents and all Americans deserve to know that criminal prosecutions are conducted based on evidence and law, not influenced by financial payments from partisan political organizations.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A recent whistleblower filing alleges Attorney General Kris Mayes was paid to prosecute President Donald Trump’s supporters.
According to the whistleblower, Christina Bobb — one of the indicted former Trump lawyers and current senior elections counsel for the Republican National Committee — Mayes inadvertently disclosed in filings her receipt of $200,000 from a Democratic Party offshoot founded in the 2020 election cycle for the purpose of defeating Trump and his allies.
Christina Bobb just dropped a huge bombshell. The Arizona AG (the position that rightfully should have gone to @AbrahamHamadeh but that is another story) has been pursuing Trump supporters under the false electors hoax. It turns out the AG followed a prosecutorial blueprint given… https://t.co/vqWgRnbsUi
The funds came from States United Democracy Center (SUDC), which the complaint alleged was payment to grant the organization prosecutorial influence over Mayes’ case against Trump’s 2020 attorneys, allies, and electors. The payment came in two allotments: $50,000 and $150,000.
“Prosecutors claim on the record and in emails that States United represents their office,” stated the complaint.
SUDC delivered a document to Mayes in the summer of 2023 proposing the charges to be brought against Trump’s foremost 2020 supporters. Mayes’ chief deputy attorney general, Dan Barr, told Capitol Media Services last December that the SUDC document “did not have a significant, if much, impact at all” in their case against the Trump 2020 electors.
Consistent with Mayes’ ongoing resistance to disclose further details of their working relationship with SUDC as related to the prosecution of Trump supporters, Barr declined to “get into the inner workings” of their relationship with SUDC.
Two key participants within SUDC involvement in Mayes’ prosecution have a history of high-profile actions taken to undermine Trump.
SUDC founder Norm Eisen was co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Trump in 2020.
The attorney on SUDC filings, Marc Elias, was counsel for former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Elias also coordinated the Steele dossier that would serve as the basis for the falsified allegations of Russia interference in the 2016 election. In recent years, Elias has been the left-leaning legal bully stick ensuring the success of Democrat-led election reforms and demise of Republican-led election reforms.
The whistleblower complaint also questioned whether Mayes would receive a third payment upon a successful conviction.
Bobbs’ complaint was filed alongside a motion to disqualify Mayes and SUDC from continuing prosecution.
The motion came shortly after a Maricopa County Superior Court remanded Mayes’ case back to the grand jury for violating due process.
In September, several months after this motion was filed, Mayes lost her bid to continue prosecution with the court of appeals.
Mayes not only has these recent court outcomes stacked against her case — she has federal pressures as well.
Last Friday, President Donald Trump pardoned his key 2020 supporters through a proclamation — including those whom Mayes seeks to prosecute.
“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” stated Trump.
Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller responded to the pardons with the prediction that Mayes would drop the case, saying she had “no choice” in a Tuesday interview with The Gateway Pundit.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Nothing undermines confidence in elections quite like discovering they can be compromised by foreign billionaires or botched altogether through complex schemes like ranked-choice voting.
This year, legislatures across the country took aim at both of these urgent threats to election integrity, as outlined by a recent report from Honest Elections Project. Altogether, eight states closed a critical legal loophole allowing foreign billionaires to flood ballot measure campaigns with foreign dark money. Meanwhile, six more states banned ranked-choice voting, the most legislative bans in a single year. In other words, conservative states have made 2025 a banner year for election reform.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn how vulnerable our elections are to foreign influence. Federal law forbids foreign nationals from donating to candidates or political parties yet offers no such protection for state or local ballot measures. This means that a foreign billionaire cannot influence a particular race, but he can spend millions to pass a constitutional amendment that rewrites the rules of the entire election system.
That loophole has been a gift to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss. According to the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, Wyss has directed roughly $280 million into the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has simultaneously spent more than $130 million in foreign-tied funds into ballot campaigns in 26 states. As shocking as these figures are, they likely represent the tip of the iceberg. After all, the same loophole can just as easily be abused by foreign nationals doing the bidding of China and Russia.
Fortunately, conservative states are taking action to ensure that ballot measures are no longer a Trojan Horse for foreign interference. After Ohio led the way in 2024, eight states this year—Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wyoming—enacted new laws to ban foreign nationals and the groups they finance from funding ballot measure campaigns. Even Kentucky’s Democratic governor signed the bill into law, proof that defending elections from foreign influence should not be a partisan proposition.
That hasn’t stopped many on the left from fighting to keep these loopholes open for purely partisan gain. Marc Elias, Democrats’ top election lawyer, went to court in Ohio in 2024 and again in Kansas this year to block these bans. He lost both times, once in front of an Obama-appointed judge. States clearly have the authority to ban foreign funding, and every state should.
The same is true of ranked-choice voting, and 2025 was an incredible year in the ongoing fight to stop its spread.
Under ranked-choice voting, voters are asked to rank multiple candidates. Ballots are counted in rounds as losing candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed. If a voter fails to rank enough candidates, the ballot is “exhausted” and thrown out. Candidates can win the most first-place votes but lose the election. Delays are inevitable; Alaska’s ranked-choice voting tabulation does not even begin until 15 days after Election Day. In California, a tabulation error once led to the wrong candidate being certified. Ranked-choice voting turns what should be a straightforward election into a complicated black box.
Fortunately, the public has seen the problems with this system from the start. In 2024, ranked-choice voting advocates spent nearly $100 million dollars on ballot measures promoting the scheme in six states. All failed. Only the District of Columbia adopted it, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Between 2022 and 2024, 11 states banned ranked-choice voting. And this year, six more – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming – acted to make the scheme illegal. And in Utah, lawmakers allowed a failed pilot program to expire, meaning ranked-choice voting will come to an end there, too.
As extraordinary as this progress is, conservatives must not become complacent. States like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina, Montana, and Arizona have all seen significant amounts of foreign-tied money pumped into ballot issue campaigns, but so far have not acted. And progressives remain committed to pushing ranked-choice voting, especially after witnessing the scheme elevate a Democratic Socialist in New York. Ranked-choice voting lobbyists are working legislatures nationwide, and activists are already gathering signatures for another ballot measure in the presidential battleground of Michigan.
That should serve as a warning. When it comes to securing our elections, the job is never done. This was a banner year for election integrity. Conservative leaders must keep the momentum going in 2026 and beyond.
Adrian Fontes has proven himself to be good at two things during his tenure as Arizona’s Secretary of State: losing in court and throwing tantrums. It’s really unfortunate. The state’s top election official is not supposed to be taken to court on a regular basis—especially for, you know, his repeated attempts to undermine election integrity. And of course, throwing tantrums should be more characteristic of toddlers, not a government official. But Fontes can’t help himself.
In his latest tirade, Fontes joined Hillary Clinton’s old consigliere Marc Elias on Democracy Docket to whine about President Trump’s recent executive order to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. Toward the end of the discussion, Elias asked Fontes about the multiple lawsuits against his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which he lost to us and Arizona Republican lawmakers. As has become all too common with our Secretary of State, he responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He attacked our organization and degraded our 15,000 activists and donors.
Yes. That’s right. The top election official in our state, who is supposed to remain unbiased and simply do his job to protect election integrity, lashed out against us and told people not to donate to us because we won our lawsuit against him and his illegal EPM.
Ummm…news flash, Mr. Fontes. One of the reasons our donors support our cause is to stop government officials like you from circumventing the law. So, when we win, they feel good because their money was put to effective use.
But we shouldn’t expect someone with such low character as Adrian Fontes to understand that. After all, this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use the power of his office to attack and intimidate organizations like ours that participate in the election process…
American elections should be decided by American voters. That is why the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation that defends that basic principle by requiring proof of citizenship to vote.
In a sane world — especially with an election on the horizon — the SAVE Act would quickly get a vote in the Senate and pass overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, that will not be the case due to Democratic objections to citizenship verification.
On the bright side, as Democrats attempt to normalize the practice of noncitizen voting in local-government elections, many states are not waiting around for Congress to fix the problem. Missouri, North Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin and Kentucky have advanced constitutional amendments to the ballot to let voters decide for themselves whether or not proof of citizenship should be required to vote.
Ohio and Louisiana voters advanced noncitizen voting bans by wide margins this year, bringing the total number of states to implement such a ban up to seven.
Most Americans believe it is common sense to verify that voters are citizens before they get a ballot, according to polling from Honest Elections Project. In fact, only 9% of respondents believe noncitizens should be able to vote in American elections.
However, contrary to popular opinion, progressive attorneys like Marc Elias have convinced like-minded judges to interpret federal law to prevent states from checking an individual’s citizenship during the voter-registration process. As a result, we are forced to rely on nothing more than an unaccountable honor system to police one of the most important aspects of the franchise.
Sometimes illegal registrations are innocent mistakes or the result of noncitizens being misled into believing they can vote. Other times, it happens deliberately. Thanks to our lax laws, it is clearly possible for noncitizens to cast ballots in American elections.
Democrats want to keep it that way.
Washington, D.C., recently enacted a policy to allow noncitizens to vote in 2022. Even the Washington Post editorial board condemned the law, noting that “[s]ome progressives hope that reshaping the electorate will allow them to reshape local politics, prodding the city further to the left on issues such as rent control and spending on social programs.”
The New York City Council passed a similar resolution to allow noncitizen voting in 2022. Thankfully, it was ruled unconstitutional by a state appeals court. Had that not been the case, it would have allowed hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to vote in local elections.
For decades, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, has openly advocated for noncitizen voting.
The fact is noncitizen voting has gone mainstream on the left. Progressives are actively looking for ways to change the composition of the electorate to push American politics to the left, from lowering the voting age to enfranchising felons — and, yes, noncitizens.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal races, they retort. That is true, but merely making something illegal does not stop it, because noncitizens do register and vote.
Democrats are exceedingly out of touch with the median voter on this issue. Perhaps that is why today’s left rejects the idea of the people choosing their government in favor of the government choosing a new people.
The House Democrats’ near unanimous opposition to the SAVE Act and the Democrat-controlled Senate’s likely refusal to consider the bill shows that liberals are not committed to safeguarding American elections from the influence of noncitizens.
The American people deserve to know why liberal politicians in Washington are so keen to put the interests of foreign nationals over the voting rights of American citizens. More state lawmakers must join the effort to secure our elections by nipping this trend in the bud.
