Editorial Part II:  Who’s Behind the “Recall Charles Allen” Campaign?

Editorial Part II:  Who’s Behind the “Recall Charles Allen” Campaign?

by Larry Janezich

Posted March 21, 2024

Proponents of the “Recall Charles Allen” campaign characterize it as a grass roots effort.  The list of initial donors simply does not bear that out. 

As I discuss below, the list of major donors (defined as giving $100 or more) is overwhelmingly comprised of people who work professionally in national politics or who are identifiable Republicans, or both.  Many people in Ward 6 fall into one or both of these categories.  But the great many more Ward 6 residents who do not are simply just not on the list of $100+ donors.

What accounts for the heavy presence of political professionals and local Republicans on the donor list?  Are they concerned about, but unable to persuasively debate, crime policy in DC?  It’s possible.  But other possibilities exist as well, and I examined the list for indications of these. 

Who benefits or has a stake in recalling Allen?  The list includes congressional and other Republicans who want to show that blue cities can’t manage themselves effectively; Mayor Bowser, who desperately wants the new Commanders stadium that Allen opposes; the DC Police Union, members of which resent Allen’s police reforms; Eric Goulet –  Director of the DC Committee on Health and former Ward 3 City Council candidate who resents Allen’s endorsement of his then-opponent Matt Frumin, and who has been active on social media in support of the recall; the fossil fuel industry – including Washington Gas – which is intensely opposed to Allen’s Healthy Home Act; and lobbyists and political groups using private residences near the Capitol for corporate and/or fundraising receptions contrary to applicable zoning, something Allen has recently been more active in curbing.  

To explore each of these possibilities, CHC examined the initial donor filing.  DC Campaign Finance Law requires filing an initial list of donors by January 31st, but disclosure of additional donor info is not required until July 31st.  For the period from January 12 to January 31, the recall campaign raised $56,000 from 400 donors. 

Of the 400 names on the list, 205 people donated $100 or more, up to the maximum of $500.  Those donations account for 90 % of the $56,000 total, averaging $238 per donation.  The following analysis is confined to this influential group of “big” donors.  (A handful of donors contributed more than once, which explains why the following numbers total 209.)

• 22 were non-DC residents ($259 average donation)
• 75 were DC residents but not Ward 6 ($216 average donation)
• 112 were Ward 6 residents (average donation $250)

My first and most important observation about the big donor list is that the recall is thoroughly political.  That might sound like an obvious point, but in this case I’m not just characterizing the effort, I’m characterizing the donor list. 

The majority (72%) of the 205 in the $100 or more group work professionally in national politics:  lobbyists, consultants, fundraisers, congressional employees, etc.  I’ll call this subgroup the “professional pols.”  Notably, they averaged a substantially higher donation ($251).  It is no exaggeration to say that they are the initial contributors and driving force behind the recall effort. 

Professional pols in the $100 + group were soon joined by a second kind of donor in the $100 + group:  local (DC or Virginia) Republicans.  To some extent, the 41 identifiable Republicans overlapped with professional pols, but many did not.  As a group, identifiable local Republicans donated less money ($213 average).  A separate analysis https://bit.ly/4aoqD9n conducted by Alex Koma of the Washington City Paper found that “nearly half” of the entire list of initial donors could be identified as Republicans or tied to the Republican party.  Koma says the donor’s list includes current and former staff members for former Presidents Trump and G.W. Bush, former Speakers of the House Boehner, Hastert, and McCarthy, and current Senators Cotton, Grassley, Romney and Scott. 

The story that the data describe is a straightforward one:  the professional political class launched and largely funded the recall effort, then localRepublicans and others jumped in seeing an opportunity for advancing their own political message. 

It is easy to explain the political motivation oflocal Republicans looking to exploit the recall effort.  More difficult to assess is the motivation of the professional pol group.  The range of professional pols drawn to the recall effort defies any partisan, ideological, or interest group generalization. 

In fact, it is the sheer number and diversity of “lobbyists,” “consultants,” “fundraisers,” and “strategists” – and, likewise, the nearly total absence of people who are neither professional pols nor identifiable Republicans – that tells us something. 

One issue that many lobbyists, corporations, and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have in common: opposition to Allen’s attempt to crack down on corporate uses of Capitol Hill townhomes for fundraisers. 

Professional political fundraisers play an important role in the recall campaign.  Tonya Fulkerson, co-founder of Democratic fundraising powerhouse “FK& Company,” one of whose clients is the Senate Majority PAC, has been a vocal presence in the recall effort.  She is the first donor listed following the group’s leader, Jennifer Squires, and her son Alex.  Fulkerson, her partner Ashley Kennedy, and Kennedy’s husband Sean account for $1500 of the fundraising total. 

When discussing the recall effort, Fulkerson cites a shooting https://bit.ly/4cr976o  that took place on her block a year ago.  Police reportedly searched for four juvenile assailants.  But this leaves some questions unanswered, since nothing in Charles Allen’s record would interfere with the ability of police to apprehend those responsible for the shooting or the ability of prosecutors to charge them.  At most, if a judge decided that any of those offenders were eligible for the Youth Rehabilitation Act, then those able to seal their record after successful completion of a sentence would be far less likely to re-offend.

In terms of the political fundraiser explanation, it is also noteworthy that the employer that accounts for the most donations is “814 Consulting,” an equally high-profile Republican fundraising outfit based in Virginia, whose clients include Representative James Comer, (R-KY) who chairs the House DC Oversight Committee (which recently brokered legislation on RFK stadium) and Representative Brett Gutherie (R-KY) chair of the House Energy and Environment Committee. 

As for other possible explanations for the strangely political big donor list, I examined the pool of $100 plus donors for local DC powerbrokers, particularly anyone with connections to Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Federal City Council, and Opportunity DC.  A number of people who could not be categorized as professional pols or identifiable Republicans were local real estate developers with a record of donations to Mayor Bowser.  However, almost any local developer will have a record of donating to Mayor Bowser.  Interestingly, the developers who donated to the recall effort tended to be smaller in scale and known for remodeling residential properties, not the big-time developers who sit on the Federal City Council or donate to Opportunity DC.  I did not see any real connection between the recall effort and the bigger players in DC politics.

But there was one notable exception:  Russell “Rusty” Lindner, executive chair and CEO of The Forge Company, owner of Colonial Parking.  The Forge Company contributes heavily to Opportunity DC, most recently in the news as the Super PAC (or Independent Expenditure Committee) that helped Kenyan McDuffie defeat Councilmember-at-Large Elissa Silverman, and which late last year also launched a soft-on-crime mail campaign aimed at Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George.  Lindner also sits on the powerful and prestigious Federal City Council, despite his past involvement in the pay-to-play corruption investigation of former Councilmember Jack Evans. 

Lindner does not appear on the donor list, but two of his children contributed $500 each to the effort:  Blake Lindner (misspelled as “Linder” on the filing) of New York City, and Rebecca Lindner Clarkson (nee Lindner, listed as “Rebecca Clarkson” on the filing) of Atlantic Beach, Florida.  It seems obvious that two children of a DC power broker who live in New York City and Florida can only have a marginal interest in a recall effort.  These donations seem more likely to track back to “Rusty” Lindner himself.  If so, then it is also worth noting that Colonial Parking owns the parking around the DC Armory on the RFK campus. 

To date, Councilmember Allen has been adamant in opposing conversion of RFK to an NFL stadium for the Washington Commanders, as are several other Councilmembers, on the grounds that NFL stadiums cost a lot of money but deliver little in return.   On the other hand, Mayor Bowser strongly supports the move, as does much of the DC business establishment.  There seem to be clear indications that the possible selection of the RFK site for the Washington Commanders might benefit Colonial Parking.  It will be worth following subsequent donor lists for connections to Opportunity DC, the Federal City Council, and Mayor Bowser.  Equally, it is worth knowing more about the donors to the seemingly well-funded recall launched against Brianne Nadeau. 

Also relevant to the stadium explanation is the fact that, at a March 2 news conference, when the Mayor was asked to address the recall efforts aimed at both councilmembers, she replied, “I don’t have anything to say about that.” 

In all, the initial filing of the recall effort reveals an attempt to rough Allen up for political reasons, capitalizing on the growing neighborhood concern over crime without contributing anything constructive to the conversation of what to do about it. 

If recall proponents object to being second-guessed regarding their motivations, they should offer better reasoning for the recall.  As I showed in Part I of this editorial, that has just not happened yet.      

The city of Washington DC, and this neighborhood, continues to struggle with crime.  But if you’re not talking about evidence-based policies on crime, it’s just politics.  And that does not deserve my support or signature. 

If anyone wants to investigate other possible explanations for the recall, here’s a link to donor list:  https://bit.ly/3ISowPj