Editor’s Note: This story first appeared on Armchair Lehigh Valley and is being published on lehighvalleylive.com as part of a partnership with the website, which aims to give voters factual information in a nonpartisan way to help them make informed decisions at the polls. Armchair Lehigh Valley is run by publisher Katherine Reinhard and editor Robert H. Orenstein, two longtime journalists who formerly worked at The Morning Call in Allentown. Learn more about Armchair Lehigh Valley and subscribe here.
Ryan Mackenzie’s successful campaign to capture the 7th Congressional District’s Republican nomination received a boost that his opponents did not have – nearly a half-million dollars in outside spending from an influential conservative political action committee connected to billionaire David Koch and his company Koch Industries.
Americans for Prosperity Action spent $497,676 to promote Mackenzie’s candidacy starting last fall, with about half of that – $244,738 – in the four weeks leading up to the April 23 primary, according to an analysis of the Super PAC’s data available on the Federal Election Commission website.
Mackenzie, a state representative from Lehigh County for 12 years, won the primary with 42.6% of the vote, defeating Kevin Dellicker (34%) and Maria Montero (23.4%), according to unofficial results from the 7th District (all of Lehigh, Northampton and Carbon counties and a small section of Monroe County.) In November, Mackenzie will face Democrat Susan Wild, who is seeking her fourth, two-year term representing the Lehigh Valley area in the U.S. House.
The money AFP Action spent on Mackenzie’s candidacy was more than three times the $154,838 his campaign committee spent through April 3, the end of the pre-primary reporting period for candidate committees. By comparison, Dellicker’s campaign spent the most ($279,557) and Montero’s the least ($125,611).
AFP Action paid for political services to boost Mackenzie’s candidacy, including canvassing potential voters to gauge their candidate preferences, designing digital ads, and printing and mailing campaign materials.
As a Super PAC, AFP Action can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose a candidate but cannot coordinate its strategy or spending with a candidate’s campaign. Its independent expenditures are disclosed not in a candidate committee FEC report but in its own campaign finance reports, which are filed monthly. A traditional PAC is limited to contributing $5,000 per election to a candidate’s committee; the PAC and the candidate’s committee must each report the transaction to the FEC.
Berwood Yost, director of the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said such outside spending can benefit a candidate by energizing potential voters.
“This was a relatively low-turnout election. And so what you’re really trying to do is get more motivated base voters out. And if you have that kind of money that you can target voters and create get-out-the-vote operations and advertise, all those things, that can only benefit your campaign,” he said in an interview. “That can be decisive because, let’s face it, there’s often not a lot of distance between the candidates in a primary.”
Samuel Chen, spokesperson for the Dellicker campaign, said independent spending gives an advantage to a campaign.
“When an outside Super PAC spends significant cash in a race like this one … it will always have an impact. In this particular race, while Kevin Dellicker raised more money than both of his opponents, that fundraising was surpassed by AFP Action’s spending,” he said in an email response to questions. “This level of outside cash serves as free advertising for the candidate … which, in turn, frees up the candidate’s campaign to spend their cash elsewhere.”
Andres Weller, Mackenzie’s campaign manager, said the primary victory wasn’t decided by one factor but was the result of a team effort.
“We’re grateful for the assistance we received from so many different sources: friends and family, local volunteers and donors, and even national groups concerned about the future of our country,” he said in an email.
“This victory, which included wins in every county as well as both the in-person and mail-in vote, showcases our strength and momentum going into the general election. Ryan did especially well in his current Pennsylvania state House seat [187th], which is a testament to the trust that he’s built with his constituents. Primary voters chose Ryan because of his proven record of getting results for working families, children, seniors, and our communities. We’re looking forward to taking that message to every corner of the district in this general election.”
Wild, after winning the Democratic primary, released a statement from her campaign commenting on that night’s results and looking ahead to the Nov. 5 election.
“At a time when far-right extremists are taking away a woman’s right to choose, shipping good-paying American jobs overseas, and lying about the integrity of free and fair elections, Pennsylvanians deserve a representative who will stand up for them and against any and all forms of fear and hate,” she said. “That’s what I intend to continue doing in Washington.”
Looking back, looking ahead
Several national political analysts consider November’s 7th District election a toss-up, one of many tight races nationwide as Republicans look to retain control of the House and Democrats try to reclaim a majority it last held in 2022.
In 2022, Wild won the7th District election with nearly 51% of the vote, defeating Republican Lisa Scheller by 5,837 votes. That contest saw nearly $13.7 million spent by the candidates’ campaigns in the primary and general elections, the most in any congressional district in Pennsylvania.
Factoring in independent spending by PACs supporting or opposing the two candidates, that total jumped by more than $20 million to $34 million – more than the candidates spent themselves.
Here’s the breakdown of independent expenditures ($20,341,851) to support or oppose the 7th District candidates in 2022, according to FEC data:
- Scheller – $23,269 in support and $8,764,086 to oppose (total $8,787,355).
- Wild – $700,784 in support and $10,853,653 to oppose (total $11,554,437).
Wild, who did not have a primary opponent this year, holds a large edge in campaign committee fundraising over Mackenzie, according to FEC totals as of April 3. Her campaign has raised slightly more than $3.5 million, spent $919,989 and has $2,662,153 in cash. By contrast, Mackenzie raised $280,980, spent $154,838 and has $126,142 in cash.
AFP Action’s decision to back Mackenzie
Americans for Prosperity Action endorsed Mackenzie last September, saying he “has fought back against job-killing legislation and threats to small businesses while championing worker freedom and job creators when it comes to regulatory reform, taxes, and health care.”
During his time in the state House, “he’s been a reliable steward of taxpayer dollars and regularly champions legislation that would put important guardrails on government spending,” the PAC added. It gave him an “A” grade in its 2022 Pennsylvania House voting scorecard.
The PAC has received $53 million from Koch Industries since 2020, according to the campaign finance data site Open Secrets. The PAC raised $100.2 million since the start of the current election cycle on Jan. 1, 2023. As of March 31, it spent $62.4 million, including nearly $59 million on independent expenditures for and against 21 candidates, according to Open Secrets.
About half of that, $31.2 million, went to support Nikki Haley’s unsuccessful presidential bid. The PAC also spent $19.5 million total opposing the presidential candidacies of Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Mackenzie received the most money of any of the Americans for Prosperity Action-endorsed House candidates. (The PAC also is involved in Pennsylvania’s high-profile U.S. Senate race between incumbent Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Dave McCormick. The PAC spent $893,233 in support of McCormick’s campaign and $522,250 against Casey’s, according to the latest figures.)
Other independent expenditures for, against Mackenzie
Another Super PAC, Integrity Leadership Fund of the Easton area, spent $105,457 to oppose Mackenzie’s candidacy by paying for polling, anti-Mackenzie advertising, campaign materials and a website, according to its campaign finance reports.
The PAC registered with the FEC on Jan. 4 with an address in Bethlehem Township; its treasurer is William Hawach.
Integrity Leadership received most of its money from another Super PAC, PA Congressional Conservatives Fund (PCCC), which shares Integrity’s treasurer and address.
Integrity received a total of $1,010,000 from PCCC – $735,000 as a loan from Sid Hawach on Jan. 16 and $275,000 from Victoria Lahoud on Jan. 18. They are registered Republicans and are the parents of William Hawach.
The PAC also reported spending $933,650 on advertising in opposition to former President Donald Trump before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary and $59,750 to support three Republican U.S. House candidates, one each in New York, North Carolina and California. However, it’s unclear how much of that money was actually spent as the PAC’s campaign finance report indicated a total of $605,000 in refunds in January from two vendors after it canceled or modified contracts.
A third PAC, LV Strong, spent $2,250 in digital ads to support Mackenzie’s candidacy in the primary. The money went to Eagle Consulting Group of Harrisburg, whose founder, Christopher Nicholas, is the PAC’s treasurer and a longtime Republican political strategist.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
