🔒Bronin, Larson rake in money for primary. Who’s donating to them?

Campaign fundraising — and sharp criticism of where the money originates — has largely defined the Democratic primary for Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District, with U.S. Rep. John Larson and his challenger Luke Bronin raking in the most over the course of the campaign. New campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday continue to show Bronin and Larson as the top fundraisers and spenders, with challengers Jillian Gilchrest and Ruth Fortune lagging far behind. Bronin, the party-endorsed candidate, outraised Larson again by about $100,000 — about $598,788 to $481,451 — in the fundraising quarter that spans from mid-April through the end of June. The former mayor of Hartford spent nearly twice as much as the congressman during that same period — $922,896 to $430,889. All of the candidates say they want to get big money out of politics and see Congress take up campaign finance reform in a post-Citizens United landscape that paved the way for unlimited political spending by special interests such as corporations and unions. That has led to an explosion of money playing in national politics, with some of that landing in Connecticut’s four-way Democratic primary on Aug. 11. Larson and Bronin are the biggest benefactors, even as they spar with one another over the source of their fundraising. Gilchrest and Fortune both describe a “broken” political system where big money and special interests uplift candidates with the expectation they’ll benefit if they get into office. The four candidates have used different fundraising strategies in the race for the deep-blue Hartford-based seat that Larson has represented since 1999.

Wealthy donors have largely flocked to Bronin’s and Larson’s campaigns, both as individual contributors or funneled through political action committees. Larson has largely relied on donations through PACs, including some representing corporate and union interests, while Bronin has received most of his funding from individuals, including from billionaires and those associated with large firms. Gilchrest and Fortune, meanwhile, have raised significantly less. The two have instead focused more on canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts. The latest FEC reports illustrate the money trends that have played out throughout the entirety of the campaign. Larson got a head start since he was the only one running up until last summer. His fundraising goes back to the start of the election cycle in January 2025. His challengers didn’t need to file campaign finance reports until they declared, with the three filing their first quarterly reports last fall. Here’s a breakdown of donations to the candidates, who and where they’re coming from and their spending as the race ramped up:

Notable individual donors

Individual donations can range from any small-dollar amount up to the $3,500 contribution limit for each election. (That includes the primary, nominating convention and general election.) Of all the candidates, Bronin has received the most individual donations. Many of his top donors include a range of executives and other high-ranking employees in private equity and venture capital as well as those in the tech and AI industries. Four have maxed out to Bronin with a total of $10,500: Christopher Swift, an executive of The Hartford; Jim Lambert of Roundhill Express; Clifford Asness, the Greenwich billionaire hedge fund manager who co-founded AQR Capital Management; and his wife, Laurel Asness. Stephen Mandel, another Greenwich billionaire who’s the founder of Lone Pine Capital, and his wife Susan Mandel have donated a total of $14,000. Both Mandels, who have given to liberal causes, have also contributed to Democratic-aligned PACs that have endorsed Bronin such as The Bench, Majority Democrats and VoteVets. Stephen Mandel has also funded The Connecticut Project, a progressive advocacy group that paid Bronin $237,000 as a paid consultant, according his financial disclosure forms. Larson’s campaign has argued that billionaires and other wealthy executives are trying to “buy this election for corporate Democrat Luke Bronin,” but the congressman also has a share of top contributors with similar profiles, though they skew more toward business owners based in Connecticut. Larson’s donors who have maxed out to his campaign include Mark Scheinberg, the president of Goodwin College; Alan Lazowski, the owner of LAZ Parking; other members of Lazowski’s family; James Manafort of Manafort Brothers Inc.; and Jeffrey Hoffman of the Hoffman Auto Group. Bronin’s campaign argued that Larson calling out tech and private equity donations to the former mayor is hypocritical when the congressman has received his own. They highlighted donations to Larson from former Facebook president Sean Parker, who now runs the Parker Foundation, as well as executives with alternative asset management firm Blackstone. Marc Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, and his wife Carolyn Rowan have also given $7,000 each to Larson. Rowan has primarily donated to Republican candidates and GOP political committees and groups. Gilchrest and Fortune haven’t had as many individual donors giving to their campaigns. More than half of Fortune’s most recent quarterly haul — nearly $40,000 — came from the candidate. She gave herself more than $25,000 for her campaign. Much of that was spent on efforts to land a spot on the Aug. 11 primary ballot via petition signatures. “All of my contributions come from individual donors primarily in this district, including a contribution from my own funds last quarter,” Fortune said. “I do not take any corporate PAC money.” Gilchrest, meanwhile, raised about $26,000 in the most recent fundraising quarter, much of it from colleagues in the General Assembly as well as state officials. “Let’s just call this what it is: giant corporations and the richest people in America are trying to buy our seat in Congress. They’re giving money to John Larson and Luke Bronin because it buys obedience — that’s why their taxes keep going down while everything we need to survive gets more expensive,” Gilchrest said. “I answer to the people of this district — the ones actually paying those bills — and to no one else. Our seat is not for sale, and neither am I.”

PAC money and outside groups

Individual donors aren’t the only ones leaving a mark on the race. Money from political action committees and other spending from outside groups has loomed large. Half of Larson’s total fundraising throughout the election cycle — $2.5 million — has come from PACs. Many of them are affiliated with corporations, unions and other industries. The PAC connected to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has been the top contributor to Larson’s campaign. Some of that has come directly from the PAC, while more than $44,000 came from contributions earmarked to the campaign through the organization by individuals. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, has played heavily in a number of Democratic primaries this election cycle but hasn’t had as large of a presence in Connecticut. Its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, has been spending elsewhere. JStreetPAC, a Democratic-aligned group, has also contributed smaller amounts of money to Larson. The group defines itself as the “political home and voice for pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans” and supports a two-state solution. Some of the top corporate PACs giving to Larson include CVS Health PAC, General Dynamics Corporation Political Action Committee, Cigna Corporation Political Action Committee, Employees of Northrop Grumman Corporation Pac, Employees of RTX Corporation Political Action Committee and Avangrid Political Action Committee. A lot of Larson’s PAC money also comes from unions: the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Committee On Political Education; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Campaign Assistance Fund, the Laborers’ International Union Of North America PAC, American Federation Of Government Employees Political Action Committee, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Committee On Political Education. Larson has touted his support from labor unions around the state including an endorsement from the Working Families Party. Bronin has sworn off donations from corporate PACs. He’s received $5,000 from Crosspartisan PAC, which contributed small amounts of money to congressional candidates over the past two cycles. He also got $10,000 from VoteVets, a political action committee that seeks to elect Democratic military veterans to office. “While Congressman Larson uses corporate PAC money to fund dishonest attack ads, Luke continues to build momentum with the support of thousands of people who want new voices and new energy in the Democratic Party,” Akash Kaza, Bronin’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “He hasn’t taken a single dime of corporate PAC money, and this campaign is getting stronger every day because it’s focused on things like universal healthcare, housing affordability, abolishing ICE and stopping Trump’s corruption — and bringing a whole new energy to that fight.” Bronin, meanwhile, has started to benefit from outside groups getting involved in Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District primary on behalf of candidates. VoteVets is spending nearly $1 million on a TV ad campaign on behalf of Bronin through the primary. It’s one of the rare instances of the group investing in a primary against an incumbent in a safe blue district. All other endorsements are for Democratic incumbents running for reelection or Democrats running for open seats or taking on Republicans. The four-week cable and broadcast ad buy will give Bronin a major boost on the airwaves, alongside the candidates’ own advertising. Larson’s campaign has pointed out that funders like Mandel are donating to multiple groups that support Bronin, and that network of groups like The Bench, Majority Democrats and VoteVets share some similar consultants and donate to one another. “These numbers send a clear message: people are fired up to reelect progressive champion John Larson because of his fight for working people, and they do not want a corporate Democrat propped up by billionaire dark money,” Larson campaign spokesperson Bee Ungar said in a statement. “This district knows that Congressman Larson has spent his career fighting for working families, standing up to Trump, Musk, DOGE, and ICE, and delivering real results.” Bronin has pushed back on the “dark money” characterization, criticizing his opponent for attacks against a veterans organization.

How the campaigns are spending money

The most recent fundraising report was the most illuminating on the campaigns’ spending, given the proximity to the mid-August primary. Both Larson and Bronin’s campaigns spent money in the last three months on polling. Neither has publicized recent internal polls. Larson’s campaign released an internal poll earlier this year, while VoteVets commissioned a poll on behalf of Bronin in May. No public polling has been conducted in Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District. Bronin’s campaign spent about $75,000 on polling in June that was paid to Normington Petts, a D.C.-based polling and campaign strategy firm. Larson’s campaign, meanwhile, spent about $49,000 on polling in June to the D.C.-based polling firm GQR. That’s the same firm that conducted the late January poll commissioned by the congressman’s team. Over the past couple of months, Bronin’s firm also paid for advertising tens of thousands of dollars to the prominent Democratic consulting firm SKDK for advertising and media protection and spent more than $150,000 on direct mail services. Larson also spent tens of thousands on media buys through the advertising agency Buying Time, LLC, and digital advertising and production through the firm Threshold Group, LLC. He also benefitted from in-kind contributions from Social Security Works PAC for a fundraising blast email. In-kind contributions are non-monetary gifts provided to a campaign, and both that entity and the recipient need to report them to the FEC. Half of Fortune’s spending between mid-April through the end of June — nearly $44,000 — went toward her signature collection efforts to get on the primary ballot. Her latest FEC reports shows she spent $24,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts related to gathering petition signatures. She also spent nearly $1,000 on campaign yard signs. That left Fortune with another $25,000 to spend. Gilchrest spent the least of the four candidates, with another $35,000 on hand. Both Bronin and Larson entered this month with over $1 million each left in the bank to spend over the next six weeks heading into the primary.

Majority of donations flowing from CT

Out-of-state donors and national groups are making waves in the 1st District primary, but contributors from Connecticut still make up the majority of each candidates’ itemized contributions. About three quarters of Larson’s donations came from individual contributors in Connecticut. He’s received money from donors living in 28 states, including many who live in Massachusetts, New York and Maryland, as well as Washington, D.C. Bronin has more than double the number of individual donations compared to Larson. Of Bronin’s donors, about 65% of them are from Connecticut. Bronin has received money from contributors in 38 states including D.C. and Puerto Rico, with many of them also coming from New York, D.C., California, Florida and Massachusetts. Gilchrest and Fortune have significantly fewer individual contributors compared to the other two candidates, but Connecticut donors make up much of their hauls: 95% for Gilchrest and 65% for Fortune.