EXCLUSIVE: ‘Shady trial lawyer pipeline' funneling millions to Democrats according to report
EXCLUSIVE — One of the country's leading consumer protection firms released a report today exposing a "shady lawyer pipeline" of politicians handing out lucrative public contracts to trial lawyers, who in turn contribute millions of dollars to liberal political campaigns, including $1.4 million to the Harris-Walz campaign in 2024.
The report – released by Alliance for Consumers (AFC) – highlights the deep Democratic ties of eight major consumer protection law firms - Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer, Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein and Simmons Hanly - which it dubs the "shady eight."
According to AFC, these firms hold profitable public contracts across the country and contributed around $25 million in political donations from 2017 through 2024.
In 2024 alone, the firms collectively donated $4 million to political campaigns, 99% of which were for Democrat candidates or Democrat-allied committees.
During the 2024 presidential election, the firms contributed $1.4 million to former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign.
The shady eight also prioritized midterm Senate races, the report found, with Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and former Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Bob Casey, D – Penn., and Jon Tester, D – Mont. receiving the largest contributions next to Harris.
Five of the firms — Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Grant & Eisenhofer, Simmons Hanly, and Baron & Budd – showed a 100% commitment to Democrats and their allies, generating more than $2.5 million in federal donations in 2024.
"The consumer should never be on the losing side of a left-wing political money game like what is on display in the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline," AFC says in its report. "This partisan political giving is supported by money from public contracts signed by politicians and public officials; money that belongs to the taxpayers and consumers."
AFC said "the 'Shady Eight' are stark examples—although far from the only ones—of how the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline works, with politicians feeding sweetheart contracts to trial lawyers who give 99% of their political donations to liberals and will happily turn around and pump millions of dollars into left-leaning candidates, committees, and allied organizations."
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told Fox News Digital the report "shows how left-wing trial lawyers have turned consumer protection efforts into a political game."
He urged states to move to end their contracts with these "shady" law firms.
"The contracts that states have with these firms make some sense if the goal is funding left-wing political campaigns, but, for many reasons, they are exactly the wrong way to protect consumers," he said. "Ending the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline is one of the strongest steps public officials can take to protect consumers and the rule of law."
This comes as Republicans in Congress move to rein in "out of control" rulings by activist judges that have inhibited some of the most highly-prioritized aspects of the Trump administration's agenda, such as immigration enforcement and the deportation of criminal migrant gang members.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Impeachment wars
Rep. Jasmine Crockett's mere mention of a possible impeachment inquiry into President Trump has touched off negative reactions from some colleagues. "I think she's going to turn off a lot more people than gain," a House Democrat told us. Why it matters: House Democratic leaders are staying neutral. But many Democrats are allergic to the word after they impeached Trump twice only for him to return to power with full control of the government. Crockett (D-Texas), asked in a local news interview if she would pursue impeachment if Democrats retook the House in 2026 and she became Oversight Committee chair, said she would "absolutely at least do an inquiry." The other three candidates for the ranking member job on Oversight, Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), told us they wouldn't go that far. 👿 "Turning this ranker race into a proxy for impeachment is unhelpful and unfair to her colleagues," said a House Democrat who predicted Republicans will "try to motivate their base by saying that a Democratic majority will inevitably lead to impeachment." Crockett told us the term "impeachment inquiry" would stress to the public the "next level of gravity" of the subject matter — such as Trump's pardons for big money allies and the Qatari jet scandal. "A lot of times we as Democrats can overthink stuff," Crockett said. "A lot of people ... felt like [Oversight Committee chair] James Comer was an embarrassment. But at the end of the day, who won the House?" The bottom line: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries deferred to House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), whose panel, he said, "has jurisdiction over impeachment."
