Well if she had powerful backers, this actually makes some sense. How do you circumvent the campaign finance laws? One way is to shuffle the money around. Big backer gives the max to the campaign, but then gives more to the private corporation. The private corp can then be used to pay for a lot of the campaign expenses on the side - should be disclosed, but easy to pay consultants, venues, printers, catering etc via the private corp without disclosing it as a campaign expense. Just theorizing, not accusing.
I don’t know all the details. Someone above has the company and PAC names listed. It seems clear to me that there is great motivation to name a charity/PAC and a company with the exact same name in order to cheat like I described, to shuffle money around to make a very marginal candidate look like she has broad financial support.
But also as I wrote, I think she only won for the fact that her constituents were totally apathetic in the primary. I may have the number wrong, but something like only 13,000 votes were cast in the primary. So she didn’t need to motivate that many people to beat the incumbent. Once she won the primary she was a shoe-in since so many people just vote (D) in the election without much more thought than that.
Very interesting post.
Shadiest house member and backers in a while.