Stockard on the Stump: Shelby senator helps Kelsey with amendment to pay legal fees
Sen. Brent Taylor is aiding his predecessor in adjusting Tennessee's campaign finance laws. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)
Former state Sen. Brian Kelsey is gaining some help from his successor in a quest to use state campaign funds to pay his legal fees after being pardoned for breaking federal campaign laws.
Republican Sen. Brent Taylor of Shelby County told the Lookout Thursday that he drafted an amendment for Kelsey but that the former Germantown lawmaker would have to get a bill sponsor to attach it because he didn't want to carry it through the legislature.
Taylor, who replaced Kelsey, said he did it as a 'courtesy to a former senator' so he could 'sell it to other people.' The amendment would go on Senate bill 229, according to Taylor.
Sen. Richard Briggs, a Knoxville Republican, is sponsoring that bill with Republican Rep. Tim Hicks of Washington County. SB229, a Registry of Election Finance bill, was recommended to the Senate finance committee way back in February, if anyone can remember. It uses part of the professional privilege tax paid by lobbyists to fund a Registry reporting system change.
Briggs said Kelsey called him twice about the matter, but he said he hadn't thought about the bill in two months.
The Hicks bill is to go before the House finance subcommittee Monday. Hicks, who also has been contacted by Kelsey, could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Democratic Rep. Caleb Hemmer of Nashville is co-sponsoring the bill to add a provision stemming from the Ethics Commission's decision requiring the governor to reimburse a group that paid for his travel to speak at a Florida event. He encourages lawmakers to take out liability insurance because of the potential for lawsuits after Republican Michelle Foreman sued him three years ago.
Hemmer said he could understand being allowed to use campaign funds for legal fees related to the legislature but not for federal criminal charges.
Briggs has another campaign finance bill he's carrying with Republican Rep. Tim Rudd of Murfreesboro that's to be heard by the Government Operations Committee Monday after the House suspended the rules Thursday to consider it. Rudd said Thursday via text he plans no amendment.
Taylor said the amendment adds language saying people who've been acquitted, had charges dropped or been pardoned could pay legal fees with state campaign funds.
The Registry of Election Finance told Kelsey he couldn't use his state account to pay attorneys in the federal case. He had $197,519 in his state account before transferring it to his Red State Political Action Committee in June 2023. The PAC has more than $180,300, according to the latest filing with the state.
Kelsey hired at least six lawyers after being indicted for violating federal campaign finance law by funneling more than $80,000 through two political action committees to the American Conservative Union, which paid for ads in his failed 2016 congressional race. It is illegal to use state campaign money to pay for a federal campaign because the funds are raised under different rules.
Kelsey pleaded guilty in 2022, then embarked on a three-year tour to get out of it. He was turned down by the courts at every level, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Ex-Sen. Brian Kelsey pleads guilty to two counts of federal campaign finance violations
Lawmakers such as House Republican Caucus Chairman Jeremy Faison defended Kelsey recently, saying Congress disallowed state funds for federal campaigns to eliminate competition.
Thanks to President Donald Trump, he served only two weeks of a 21-month sentence, likely after someone called in a favor.
Now, he's asking for another favor.
Said Taylor, though, 'In the abstract, if you take Kelsey out of it, and you're just looking at it objectively, I don't know that there's an issue. But what complicates this for me … you've got a person that fits the description that you're looking to amend the law to benefit, and the optics of it are not good when you can see a direct beneficiary.'
Sen. Bo Watson defended his bill to restrict immigrant education Thursday by throwing out the cost of $35 million to teach students whose second language is English.
Yet while he claimed to be defending fiscal responsibility in Tennessee, he provided no revenue figures from those darned, inescapable sales taxes and property taxes, both of which immigrant residents pay, regardless of legal documentation. As chairman of the Senate finance committee, Watson is typically measured in his approach, and in this vein he continued to paint the question as one designed to deal with financial burden, not social import.
Yet the Hixson/Chattanooga Republican (inadvertently?) omitted the critical part of the financial equation, leaving some to question his credibility.
Watson, who has been challenged by ministers and Chattanooga businesses, also failed to point out that the Hamilton County Principals Association 'strongly opposes' passage of Senate Bill 836, which escaped the full Senate on a 19-13 vote with the rarity of six Republicans opposing.
Hamilton County principals oppose bill to require immigration status checks on schoolchildren
'As leaders of public schools across Hamilton County, we stand firmly in the belief that every child and every community must be served,' says a release from the group headed by Greg Wilkey, principal of East Side Elementary School.
The letter goes on to say that efforts to exclude children from school based on their immigration status undermine principals' mission of 'creating safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments where all students can thrive.' (Here's a tip for the uninitiated: Don't use the word 'inclusive.' President Donald Trump and his minions hate it.)
Not that these folks don't count, but they might as well have been talking to the wind, even if Republican Sen. Todd Gardenhire of Chattanooga disagreed with his buddy and voted against the bill.
The Senate's Democrats balked at the bill, as expected, citing Bible verses to make the point that the 'least of those' among us deserve respect.
But lawmakers who would have us believe everything they do comes straight from God showed their true colors throughout the week, including Republican Rep. Monty Fritts of Kingston who said there is 'no greater act of rebellion in these United States than illegally coming across that border.'
Wrong again, Mr. Chemtrail.
Rep. Monty Fritts, a Kingston Republican, said there is 'no greater act of rebellion in these United States than illegally coming across that border,' but storming the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power is right up there.
Sitting around smoking meth all day and living off the government is worse than getting up every morning and doing jobs that are hard as hell. Fritts sponsored the infamous 'chemtrail' bill that prohibits the release of chemicals into the air, largely believed to target those streaks across the sky made by jet planes. (Incidentally, a separate 'kill my chemtrail' bill failed in a Senate committee a couple of weeks ago. Evidently, they couldn't figure out whom to charge with a crime.)
It must also be noted that 'rebellion' includes acts such as storming the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power, not sneaking into the country to climb around on roofs or cook so you don't have to. Of course, you can earn a pardon for insurrection if the president likes you.
Where this winds up is hard to tell.
Watson's bill differs from the House version in that it requires school districts to check students' immigration status before possibly charging tuition. The House bill, which hasn't gone to the floor for a final vote, gives school districts the option to check students' documents.
If the two measures don't match, they could wind up going through (conference committee) negotiations and then pass or fail on a final vote. Failure would mean the state can't challenge the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which would be a great disappointment to Watson and Co.
Once bound for House and Senate talks, a much ballyhooed hemp bill ran into an amendment Thursday expected to make versions from each chamber match.
The House gathered more than 50 votes to prohibit products with the hemp-derivative THCA from being sold in Tennessee stores, even though it meets guidelines lawmakers passed.
Hemp industry fears slate of restrictive bills could gut industry
The Senate bill also contains the THCA ban, likely enabling the two measures to avoid negotiations as the 2025 session hurtles toward an end in less than two weeks.
Republican Reps. Kevin Vaughan of Collierville and Ryan Williams argued in favor of leaving the THCA alone, along with Faison, who said removing it would affect only natural hemp products.
Vaughan acknowledged the hemp market has been the 'wild west' but said Wyatt Earp and his buddies will be riding herd on it soon enough when the Alcoholic Beverage Commission starts policing an industry being pulled from convenience and grocery stores and turned over to liquor and vape shops.
House Majority Leader William Lamberth of Portland and Republican lawmakers such as Rep. Sabi Kumar of Springfield supported the amendment to ban THCA, saying once people light the stuff it turns into marijuana.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Ray Clemmons of Nashville chastised the chamber for backing a move to penalize hemp farmers and killing the 'flour' part of hemp that goes into products, leaving only those tasty synthetics.
An Innocence Project bill that died in the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid-March, then re-emerged after an amendment, cleared the full Senate Thursday, akin to an inmate who turns up exonerating evidence.
In fact, the bill creates a process for district attorneys general to petition judges to take a new look at post-conviction relief cases. The District Attorneys Conference opposed the bill initially.
But the bill's sponsor, Gardenhire, wrangled it out of the depths of his own committee and pushed it to passage with only a handful of Republicans opposing it on the floor. By God, we wouldn't want to set up a method for innocent people to be freed.
The bill's House sponsor, Democratic state Rep. Bob Freeman of Nashville, did considerably better, winning passage 85-7 last week.
'It just creates a better, more efficient process to litigate innocence cases,' said Jason Gishner, with the Innocence Project. He added that people on both sides of the argument admitted the law has a 'hole' that needs to be closed.
The measure would enable people who entered guilty pleas before conviction to go back into court if non-scientific evidence surfaces showing someone else committed the crime.
A man who'd been in prison for more than three decades testified before the committee about the difficulty of getting out in spite of being innocent.
Gishner said it shouldn't take 31 years of prison time to make your case.
Gov. Bill Lee issued a letter — not a veto — to lawmakers a week ago notifying them he was letting a bill dealing with emergency powers take effect without his signature.
House Bill 324 by Republican Rep. Rusty Grills of Newbern and Republican Sen. Mark Pody of Lebanon allows the governor to maintain authority during emergencies as long as it doesn't usurp the legislature's power.
'This decision reflects my deep concern about bills that adversely impact the state's ability to protect the 7 million Tennesseans we serve,' Lee said in a letter to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally.
The governor added that returning the bill minus his signature was designed to 'caution strongly against legislation' that could affect the state's response during disasters such as Hurricane Helene. The Tennessee Journal reported on the letter initially.
Lee hasn't vetoed a bill since taking office more than six years ago. The only veto in recent memory came from former Gov. Bill Haslam, who nixed the bill making the Bible the official book of Tennessee. The legislature failed to override, even though it takes only a constitutional majority to do so.
Pody said this week he might write the same type of letter if he were in Lee's shoes but added that each branch of government should 'zealously protect' its power.
'I'm in the legislative branch, so I want to make sure that our legislative authority is protected and nobody takes it away and nobody oversteps what they're supposed to do,' Pody said.
The bill's impetus came from the COVID pandemic and events in other states dealing with vaccinations and mandates for churches to close. Lee didn't put those on Tennesseans, and Pody and Grills said they want to make sure no future governors can.
Grills declined to criticize the governor's stance on the matter and said they had talked about the bill.
'I just believe we have constitutional rights that were given to us because we were born in America and specifically in Tennessee, and I don't believe the governor, in a state of emergency, should ever have any ability to circumvent those rights just by the stroke of a pen,' Grills said.
For the trial that everyone is wishing would start on time April 22 and end quickly, U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson ruled against former House Speaker Glenn Casada and his ex-chief of staff Cade Cothren and decided prosecutors don't have to identify confidential informants who wore wires.
Speculation is that several people gathered information for federal attorneys. And in a March court filing, Cothren implied that House Speaker Cameron Sexton, or someone in his office, wore a wire.
Court filing: Sexton likely wore a wire for federal investigators
Sexton, who is cooperating with the prosecution, was among 20 lawmakers who received subpoenas early this year from defense lawyers.
The case centers on kickbacks Casada and former Rep. Robin Smith allegedly received from Cothren after he created a secret political consulting business called Phoenix Solutions to get paid once Casada stepped down as speaker. Smith resigned from the legislature, took a guilty plea and is cooperating with prosecutors.
Hallway talk at Cordell Hull is that dozens of people received subpoenas, and lawmakers want to adjourn and leave Nashville so they won't be called to testify while still in session and have to face those mean-spirited folks in the media.
'Are you gonna worry for the rest of your life? / Why you in such a hurry?'*
* The Doobie Brothers, 'It Keeps You Running'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

40 minutes ago
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.'


The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.


Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Ken Martin privately expressed doubt about ability to lead DNC, blaming David Hogg
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told party leaders in a recent private conversation that he's unsure about his ability to lead the party because of infighting created by Vice Chair David Hogg. 'I'll be very honest with you, for the first time in my 100 days on this job … the other night I said to myself for the first time, I don't know if I wanna do this anymore,' he said in a May 15 Zoom meeting of DNC officers, according to a recording obtained by POLITICO. In the recording, an emotional Martin describes being deeply frustrated by the fallout over Hogg, who has ignited a firestorm in the party by vowing to spend $20 million in safe-blue primaries to oust incumbent Democrats he believes are ineffective. Martin paused twice while appearing to choke up. The intraparty feud, Martin said on the recording, is making it more difficult for the party to do its work — and had ruined his ability to demonstrate leadership. 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win,' Martin said, addressing Hogg. 'And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to. So it's really frustrating.' It was an extraordinary admission from the chair of the Democratic Party, just a few months after being elected to lead the party through its post-2024 crisis. The nearly two-minute clip does not include the entire conversation, including how Hogg and others may have responded to Martin. Asked for an interview, Martin, 51, sent a statement through a spokesperson. In it, he said, 'I'm not going anywhere.' 'I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats,' he added. 'As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day.' Hogg, 25, did not respond to a request for comment. The Zoom meeting took place a few days after a DNC panel recommended holding new elections for the seats held by Hogg and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, on procedural grounds. DNC members will decide whether to do so in a vote set to begin on Monday. Roughly 10 people attended the May 15 Zoom meeting, including DNC officers and staff, according to two people familiar with the call who were granted anonymity to describe the private conversation. Asked for comment, party leaders rallied behind Martin, expressing confidence in his leadership. In a statement, DNC Associate Chair Shasti Conrad, who attended the Zoom meeting and was briefly mentioned on it, said Martin 'showed vulnerability in a private conversation' and 'stood up' for the Democratic Party. 'He shows up with authenticity. Always,' she said. 'That's what you'll hear on the tape.' Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees, was on the call and said she was 'proud of' Martin and the work the party is doing. Kenyatta, who was also at the meeting, similarly stood by Martin: 'Breaking news: a human being had a frustrating day at work. That's all Ken expressed on that call.' After POLITICO reached out to Martin and the DNC, three party officers who were on the call but not contacted by POLITICO sent statements of support for Martin: DNC Associate Chair Stuart Appelbaum, DNC Secretary Jason Rae and Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), a DNC associate chair and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Martin, who won a contested election to be DNC chair in February, formerly led the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party for about 14 years. He was also previously president of the Association of State Democratic Committees. When Martin campaigned for the DNC post, he called for a 'massive narrative and branding project' to boost the party's image. As chair, he has traveled the country for canvassing, fundraisers and other events to rally Democrats, including on Saturday in New Jersey. But that work has been overshadowed in recent months by the intraparty dispute that Hogg and Martin have been locked in. Many Democrats said party officers shouldn't take sides in primaries, and Martin proposed requiring party leaders to remain neutral in them. Hogg had pitched a compromise, suggesting an internal 'firewall' that would bar him from access to sensitive information in primaries his group, Leaders We Deserve, were involved with. But Martin rejected that deal. 'Party officers have one job: to be fair stewards of a process that invites every Democrat to the table — regardless of personal views or allegiances,' Martin said, urging Hogg to stay neutral. As the controversy played out, Hogg's position in the party was separately challenged by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who filed a complaint in February that Hogg's and Kenyatta's election in February didn't follow DNC rules and made it harder for a woman to be elected vice chair. After the DNC panel's vote in support of another election, Hogg said in a statement that it is 'impossible to ignore the broader context of my work to reform the party which loomed large over this vote' and that the 'DNC has pledged to remove me, and this vote has provided an avenue to fast-track that effort.' The tension within the DNC comes as Democrats grapple with the best way to regroup after devastating electoral losses in November. Hogg, a survivor of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, frames his efforts as a way to reinvigorate the party. Hogg previously told POLITICO 'we have a culture of seniority politics that has created a litmus test of who deserves to be here' and 'we need people, regardless of their age, that are here to fight.' He has won some influential supporters, including longtime Democratic strategist James Carville and radio host Charlamagne tha God. But an intense backlash from other Democrats has accused Hogg of hurting, not helping, the party. Several of the Democratic Party officers leveled that criticism at Hogg in their statements supporting Martin. 'Instead of helping to rebuild the party he's supposed to serve, he's attacking it for personal gain,' said Kleeb. 'That might boost his PAC's fundraising, but it erodes trust in the very institution we're trying to reform and strengthen.' Others emphasized that Hogg is an outlier among party officials, and both Appelbaum and Beatty used the word 'distraction' in their statements. 'The stakes are so high right now that we can't afford distractions like the ones that David is creating,' Appelbaum said. In the Zoom meeting, Martin appeared to acknowledge complaints some had with how the party had operated, but told Hogg the 'fight' was getting in the way. 'It has plenty of warts, and we're all trying to change those, for sure, but the longer we continue this fight, the harder it is for us to actually do what we all want to do, which is make a difference in this country again,' he said in the recording. 'I deeply respect you, David. I, too, was looking forward to working with you, but this has created a situation.'