Trump Has New Allied SuperPAC With GA Ties

Georgia political consultant Seth Weathers left the employ of Donald Trump’s campaign after one month.  But he still has Trump – and the mass of disaffected voters following in his wake – on his mind.  From

But this 31-year-old Southerner with a classic bootstrap tale isn’t satisfied being just another Trump groupie. One month into the job, he quit, and he’s about to make news as early as this week by forming a new super PAC, Will Not Bend. Weathers, distancing himself from the Donald, says its focus will be to merely “bring out unconventional Republican voters” against Hillary. But really, whose supporters are less traditional than Trump’s? And the money from this committee could be the final touch to push Trump over the finish line. “This is going to be great for Trump,” a person close to the Trump campaign told OZY under condition of anonymity.

Super PACs are not allowed to give funds directly to a candidate — not since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that super PACs can spend unlimited money on strategy, advocacy and all other elements of the giant machine required to power someone into office, except handing the dough directly to a Hillary or a Jeb. But it’s no secret which super PACs are putting millions of dollars into whom; indeed, nearly all of the presidential candidates today have one or more super PACs supporting them — except for Trump, who has bragged in just about every Republican presidential debate about funding his own way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When OZY reached out, Trump press secretary Hope Hicks reiterated that the billionaire has denounced all existing super PACs “that were claiming to support” him. (The campaign declined to return messages seeking comment on Weathers.)

But Weathers has his own plans, ones that are not limited to landing Trump in the Oval Office. He’s going national — far from this dimly lit, leather-cushioned Alpharetta cigar bar, which he describes as “where you go if you’re a 30- or 40-something Republican and want to bite into a bloody steak.” This is an easy fiefdom to rule, comfortably conservative, friendly and local in a red state. Weathers wants more. Months away from a primary, almost a year to the general, he isn’t willing to admit what he’s dreaming of — a job in the administration? A career as a Washington strategist? “If I say it out loud,” he says, “it won’t come true.”

OK Trump voters. Tell us again that Trump is funding his own campaign and is going to stop business as usual politics in Washington.  Or that Trump is shutting down his allied SuperPACs.  Or, perhaps like the Constitution, principle is something you can suspend temporarily until we figure it all out.


  1. TheEiger says:

    Where is the money for this super Pac coming from? I know Seth and this article just makes me roll my eyes and say move along. Nothing to see here.

  2. While not Trump-related, this is disquieting:

    “When he was a toddler, Weathers says, he and his brothers passed the time by placing pennies on the railroad tracks that ran by their home, just for fun, to see the coins get crushed. When that bored them, they upgraded to bricks.”

    I’m not sure that’s a story I’d continue to tell. According to Snopes, unlike a penny, putting a brick on the tracks CAN cause a train to derail, as it did in Indiana in 1999 with a six-car passenger train.

  3. F. Underwood says:

    I think there’s a difference between “leaving” a campaign and getting terminated for getting drunk and partying on the campaign dime in NY and missing important meetings and refusing to return phone calls to volunteers.

  4. DanPhillips says:

    “Weathers, distancing himself from the Donald”

    Does Trump have any control over what Weathers does? Come on Charlie, you’re reaching.

  5. Ryan Barr says:

    Oh you know good and well Trump supporters will keep repeating the schtick that he’s self funding his campaign, even though there is an option to contribute on Trump’s website.

  6. DanPhillips says:

    Now comes word that Roger Stone is forming a pro-Trump super PAC. Is Trump supposed to be able to control what Roger Stone does as well? (Actually, I think the firing/quitting of Stone might have actually been a work [to use pro-wrestling lingo] to distance Trump from the controversial Stone while still having Stone’s support.)

    Trump actually addressed this issue at his rally in Macon. He said he was told that three (I believe) super PACs had formed that were supporting him, and he sent them all letters to cease and desist. I don’t know if they did, and I don’t think he can actually make them anyway. But he said he takes contributions from individual donors because it would be difficult to turn them all down and return them, plus he doesn’t want to have to tell some little old lady who sent in a contribution that she couldn’t give. Also, campaign gear purchases on the website count as donations. I can tell you that the emails he sends do not ask for contributions unlike the ones I get from Rand Paul that do so incessantly.

    Conservatives used to talk about Bush derangement syndrome. There is clearly some Trump derangement syndrome going on here. There are a lot of things about Trump that could be criticized. This issue is not one of them. Were Trump to send Granny Smith’s spontaneous small donation back, I suspect some of the same people would be decrying that.

    • benevolus says:

      It doesn’t matter why he takes the money. The problem is that he brags about not taking any money.

      I would say that if he didn’t want it to be an issue he should just shut up about self-financing, but of course he doesn’t care if it’s an issue. He is the classic ‘any publicity is good publicity” guy, even if it’s about him lying.

      • DanPhillips says:

        If I’m not mistaken, he brags about not taking money from big donors. But at any rate, characterizing routine political blather that is essentially true as lying is evidence of Trump derangement syndrome.

          • DanPhillips says:

            Ah, so I’m right that this isn’t really about super PACs and small donors. First, we should have a moratorium on all immigration except certain hard cases like foreign spouses of US citizens. Immigration numbers since the 1965 Immigration Act have been overwhelming. Short of that, I’m not sure why your question is a difficult one. You simply ban anyone who identifies as Muslim. (Many legal scholars have weighed in since Trump’s original proposal saying this could be done legally.) But what if they lie? You also ban immigration from certain high risk countries and people having other identifiers like their name. There probably is some validity to the argument that doing so would anger the Muslim world community, but isn’t it curious that they presume a right to immigrate to America, but their countries usually have very strict immigration laws. That is one reason an across the board moratorium would be better. Then no group could claim they are being targeted.

            • benevolus says:

              Oh you are right, this is not about SuperPACS. It’s about Trumps credibility.

              “Identifies as Muslim”. So you ask them when they show up if they are Muslim?

              “Certain high risk countries”. List please.

              “Like their name”. What does this even mean? Anyone with an Arabic name?

              Across the board moratorium? That’s even much farther than The Donald has gone!

  7. DanPhillips says:

    “Across the board moratorium? That’s even much farther than The Donald has gone!”

    And? It’s what paleoconservatives like me and other immigration restrictionists have been calling for for years. Pat Buchanan called for a moratorium in ’92. I don’t know if you are a Republican or a Democrat, but it is the only move that gives the GOP a fighting chance of not becoming irrelevant on the national stage in a couple of decades. Post 1970 immigrants vote 8 to 2 for Dems. If current trends are not halted, the country will soon turn irreversibly Blue and the GOP will be a perpetual minority regional party. Truth be told, it may already be too late. Of course the Dems understand this perfectly and dance on the Republican Party’s grave, but if a Republican brings it up it is a thoughtcrime.

    And don’t play the feigned outrage and sputter routine with me. It won’t work. There is nothing at all complicated or outrageous about what I said. It is entirely commonsensical. High risk countries? Ummm… I don’t know, the Middle East perhaps as well as maybe Indonesia, some African countries. That’s why we have terrorism experts. So that leaves the problem of Muslims coming on EU passports, for example. That where names might come in, which is something I just came up with off the top of my head. Muhammed gets more scrutiny that Sebastian. Again, this is not at all complicated, but it is a bit cumbersome, which is why a moratorium would be better.

    • benevolus says:

      “Feigned outrage”? More like incredulous. But I give up. You win. Ban them all. Let’s see what happens.

      Just like global warming. I don’t have any kids. Why should I care.

Comments are closed.