Is EMILY’s List Republican Now?
If you hear just one thing about the 2024 election coming from Democrats this year, it will likely be some version of “abortion is on the ballot.” This was the primary refrain during the 2022 midterms, as well—and with good reason.
As Republicans have pursued radical and unpopular abortion bans, mangling women’s health care and reproductive rights—even going so far as to ban IVF—Democrats have pushed pro-choice policies and ballot initiatives, which have proven time and again to deliver huge election-night overperformances over the past two years.
One might think, then, that one of the country’s largest pro-choice political organizations, EMILY’s List, would be in lockstep with the Democratic Party in its campaign to win back control of the House and maintain the Senate, in service of “restoring Roe.”
But so far, that hasn’t been happening. In the early days of the 2024 cycle, EMILY’s List has waded into races in ways that threaten to help Republicans rather than Democrats. It has teamed up with a Republican-funded organization and backed candidates with conservative voting histories or who risk tipping races for conservatives.
Take California’s 47th District. It’s Orange County: a true swing district. Pro-choice Democrat Katie Porter flipped it from Republican control in 2018 and has held it ever since, in part because she’s a prodigious fundraiser. But it hasn’t been easy. In 2022, despite a fundraising advantage of roughly $20 million, she beat out Republican Scott Baugh by only 3.5 points. (Baugh got a late $8 million boost from outside GOP groups.)
Rep. Porter is now running for Senate; she endorsed Democratic state Sen. Dave Min as her successor in Orange County. But Baugh is back, and Republicans think it’s winnable: CA-47 is atop the National Republican Congressional Committee’s target list for a blue-to-red flip, and they’re ready to deluge the race with cash.
So it makes sense, too, that super PACs that are being funded by overwhelmingly Republican donors would be attracted to the race. The most prominent is called United Democracy Project PAC; it is one of the PACs affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. So far, the group has been funded overwhelmingly by billionaires and multimillionaires who are prominent backers of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Nikki Haley, and it has only spent in Democratic primaries to weaken Democrats or move the Democratic Party to the right.
UDP has now spent $4.5 million in the race attacking Min, the presumptive Democratic favorite, and boosting Joanna Weiss, his Democratic challenger. It’s the only race where UDP has spent substantially so far this cycle. The AIPAC-allied super PAC Democratic Majority for Israel is also spending in the race. (Though Min has not called for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, he has pushed for more accountability from Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.)
Here’s where it gets weird, though. Women Vote PAC, EMILY’s List’s super PAC, has also spent substantially in the race and is also boosting Weiss, to the disadvantage of Min. Weiss is a weaker candidate than Min, to put it charitably. She has never held elected office. She doesn’t live in the district. Her financial disclosures show basically zero income over the past handful of years. Weiss is pro-choice, which is good, but, again, having never held elected office, she has a much shorter track record on pro-choice issues than Min, who sports a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and who co-authored the state’s constitutional amendment that codified abortion and contraception access in 2022. It is the only race Women Vote PAC has spent in so far this year, to the tune of $813,000. EMILY’s List announced it would spent at least $1 million on the race.
But it might be more than mere coincidence that EMILY’s List favors the candidate supported by Republican billionaires. According to FEC filings, in the latter half of 2023, Women Vote PAC accepted a $200,000 donation from UDP at the same time that UDP was raising millions of dollars from Bernie Marcus, Paul Singer, Bob Kraft, Jan Koum, and other Republican fundraisers, all of whom have donated extensively to extreme, anti-choice Republican politicians.
That $200,000 donation made UDP one of the five largest individual donors to Women Vote PAC in all of 2023. Meanwhile, the PAC is using the EMILY’s List logo and slogan on the mailers it has sent out attacking Min. (Min got a DUI last year, which constitutes the bulk of the attack ads.)
A spokesperson for EMILY’s List declined to answer any questions about whether there was internal policy around accepting money that had been funneled from Republican megadonors with close ties to anti-choice politicians. The group also declined to comment on whether they had given UDP permission to use their logo and likeness in campaign materials. (It’s common for political groups to restrict the usage of their own logos and material.) They also declined to answer questions about whether there was coordination between the two super PACs.
“EMILYs List is focused on electing Democratic, pro-choice women,” a spokesperson for the organization wrote in an email, adding that, on the Orange Country race: “Joanna Weiss is the best candidate to defend California’s 47th congressional district, a must-win seat to flip the House and beat back Republican attempts to pass a national abortion ban.”
In a broad, pulled-back sense, it’s a little confusing that Republican megadonors would give money to Democrats in these races. But the specific gambit makes perfect sense if you look closely. Even if Min, who is endorsed by the California Democratic Party, finishes in the top two in California’s primary next week—the state holds “jungle primaries,” in which the top two vote-getters head to a runoff, regardless of party affiliation—he could be so wounded by the millions of dollars in attack ads that he’ll be far more vulnerable against the Republican, Baugh.
On the other hand, if Weiss is able to beat out Min, the cost of dragging her across the finish line will be much harder for Democrats, given her minimal name recognition and track record. Either way, the seat becomes more likely to flip to Republican control. What’s more confusing is how a pro-choice Democratic group would land on, effectively, the same strategy.
Meanwhile, Women Vote PAC is sitting out the California Senate race, where two Democratic, pro-choice women, Porter and Barbara Lee, both look likely to get locked out of a top-two finish. Why isn’t EMILY’s List putting any money into their efforts?
Here’s another example of odd politicking in California by EMILY’s List. Democrats have identified the Central Valley’s 22nd District as one of their highest-priority races, targeting Republican incumbent David Valadao’s seat as one to flip. The usual Democratic campaign arms, like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, have backed Democrat Rudy Salas as their best chance to knock off Valadao. (Valadao is also being challenged from the right by a Republican.)
But, critics say, EMILY’s List has thrown another wrench in the gears after playing a key role in recruiting Democrat Melissa Hurtado to join in the race. Hurtado has shown next to zero fundraising prowess, and EMILY’s List has declined to formally endorse or support her financially. But the fact that she is in the race at all—which, per Hurtado’s own account, only happened after EMILY’s List presented her with polling indicating she could beat Salas head-to-head—has Democrats biting their nails.
In a statement, an EMILY’s List spokesperson wrote: “We had a conversation with Melissa Hurtado about her future and shared with her publicly available data on her past electoral performance. Our organization exists to have dialogue with Democratic, pro-choice women about their plans to run for office and build a bench for the future.”
Politico reported that there’s “huge concern that Democrats will get boxed out of one of the top pick-up opportunities in the country because of a primary challenge that could’ve been avoided with a few phone calls” in the event Hurtado splits the Democratic vote with Salas. It’s also entirely possible that neither Democrat will finish in the top two of the primary, and Democrats will get locked out of one of their very best flip opportunities before the calendar even turns to spring. Per the same Politico report, Hurtado’s presence “has also exacerbated tensions with EMILYs List” in the state.
Nor is it just a California problem. In New Jersey’s contentious Democratic Senate primary to replace Bob Menendez, EMILY’s List quickly endorsed Tammy Murphy, wife of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy. But Tammy Murphy was a lifelong Republican, voting for anti-choice candidates in Republican primaries as recently as the Obama administration. She is also trailing in polls, to say nothing of the other unique baggage that has come along with her candidacy. (Fellow pro-choice organizations have also not followed suit; the National Organization for Women, for instance, endorsed Andy Kim—never a Republican.)
Is this a vast conspiracy? Almost certainly not. EMILY’s List seems to have been strapped for cash for some time now. There were layoffs last fall, and the group has cut back on some of its ambitious nationwide programs. It’s also not the first time EMILY’s List has been criticized for helping Republicans. The group infamously endorsed a Democrat, North Carolina state Rep. Tricia Cotham, in 2022, only for her to switch party affiliations to the GOP upon winning her election. Then she became the final vote for a statewide abortion ban that passed thereafter. That episode in particular raised serious questions about the group’s vetting process, given that Cotham is the cousin of Emily Cain, who was then the executive director of EMILY’s List.
In any event, teaming up with anti-choice forces seems like a poor solution to a pro-choice group’s financial shortfalls—especially when abortion and women’s reproductive rights is likely the No. 1 issue this election cycle will revolve around.