President Donald Trump has been a financial windfall for a number of political organizations that identify closely with his brand. And few have benefited more in the Trump era than the legal-advocacy group Judicial Watch.
Newly released financial records show contributions to Judicial Watch nearly doubled from 2015 to 2018. Last year, the group took in nearly $72 million. At the end of the year, it reported sitting on net assets of $110 million.
That’s an incredible war chest for a political nonprofit, a level usually enjoyed only by the most prestigious and established organizations. Contributions to Judicial Watch last year were only about $8 million shy of those to the Heritage Foundation, for decades the conservative movement’s flagship think tank.
ADVERTISEMENT
“People are supporting us because they see results from our work, which is unusual in Washington, D.C.,” said Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton in an interview on Thursday. The organization’s huge fundraising, he said, “reflects public support for our work.”
A longtime thorn in the side of perceived political foes in Washington’s bureaucracy, Judicial Watch was perfectly situated to capitalize on the Trump-era conservative fixation on the “deep state” and ostensibly malignant law-enforcement officers, chiefly those aligned with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, trying to bring down the president—“the coup conspiracy against President Trump,” as Fitton calls it.
“No one else is doing it, with all due respect to our erstwhile colleagues in the legacy media,” he said. “No one’s doing this investigative work. No one’s educating people about the truth about the government corruption that’s being used to undo the election and trying to undo our constitutional republic by unseating President Trump.”
Judicial Watch makes expert use of public-records laws to pry free documents and communications damaging to its targets. Its favorite target, both in the past and present day, is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But in 2018, according to its new annual tax filing, the group spent just $4.4 million on legal and investigative activities.
It devoted far more resources to “disseminating information about its public advocacy.” Much of that takes place through a website and video channel. But where Judicial Watch has had real success is in its extensive email and direct-mail campaigns. By melding such “public communications” with explicit pleas for more money, the group has raked in record financial support during the Trump era.
One typical example of a Judicial Watch direct mail piece was forwarded to PAY DIRT by its recipient on the condition of anonymity. It’s an eight-page letter detailing the group’s efforts to expose “how more than 200 left-wing groups tied to billionaire financier George Soros’ Open Society Foundations may be financially underwritten by your tax dollars.”
The letter ends with a postscript. “Investigating the labyrinth finances of the groups backed by George Soros… is both daunting and expensive.” It asks for “your most generous tax-deductible gift.” Such letters, which both plug Judicial Watch’s nonprofit activity and ask for more money, are what’s known as “joint costs,” or expenses devoted to fundraising as well as a nonprofit’s mission.
And according to its 2018 tax filing, Judicial Watch is making full use of such expenses. It reported $21 million in “program service expenses” last year. Nearly two-thirds of those expenses were joint costs, meaning they also contained a fundraising component. And that’s on top of the $15 million the group spent on explicit stand-alone fundraising activities.
“The most effective political messages ASK you to do something—to put skin in the game—in support of the political goal you hope to achieve. Sign a petition, volunteer, contribute,” Dan Backer, a conservative lawyer who represents a host of political groups that frequently meld official communications with fundraising appeals, told PAY DIRT in an email.
“If you’re not raising money to support your idea, your idea is going nowhere, because no one will hear it because you can’t meaningfully and effectively share it,” Backer said. “Speech may be free, but being heard costs a LOT of money.”
Get the data:
