NEW INVESTIGATION: Did Soros Foundation Money Travel Through Charities Into the 2024 Presidential Race? Full investigation with receipts 🔗whitecollarfraud.com/2026/06… Money you can deduct on your taxes is supposed to fund charity, not campaigns. Here's a trail that runs from a tax-deductible donation to a presidential super PAC — entirely on public IRS returns. The rule it tests is simple. A 501(c)(3) charity takes deductible dollars but can't spend on politics. A 501(c)(4) can spend on politics but offers no deduction. So when charitable money passes from a (c)(3), through intermediary charities, into a (c)(4) that spends it on campaigns, a tax-deductible dollar has been turned into political spending. That is the line §4955 of the tax code exists to police — and the intermediaries here are two charitable networks, Arabella and Tides. Here's where the returns say the money went. Two George Soros private foundations sent $92,465,850 to the Arabella charities — New Venture, Hopewell, and Windward. Those same charities moved $343,967,196 to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(c)(4) political arm. On a separate path, a Soros foundation routed money through the Tides Foundation, which sent $842,000 directly across the charitable-to-political line into that same fund. Two further routes added more: Open Society Policy Center, a Soros-affiliated 501(c)(4), gave $68,150,000 directly, and Tides Advocacy, another Soros-linked political fund, added $4,169,700. In all, $417,128,896 reached the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Now the last step. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and an affiliated political fund sent $13,739,642 to a federal super PAC — about 59% of its itemized receipts. The PAC spent $19,799,415 naming federal candidates, including $12,718,076 supporting the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. That closes the chain: charity → charity → political fund → super PAC → the presidential race. A tax-deductible foundation dollar at the top. Federal campaign spending at the bottom. Every rung on a public return. Every step is permissible in isolation. A foundation may grant to a charity; a charity may grant to a 501(c)(4); a 501(c)(4) may spend on politics. But assembled from the returns, the sequence shows tax-deductible foundation dollars moving step by step toward candidate-directed federal spending. The question the rules exist to answer: were charitable assets, in substance, converted into political campaign spending? Only the IRS can see the grant agreements and donor records that settle it — and the findings have been referred there. I'm a forensic accountant and a registered Democrat. I follow the documents, not the politics. Every figure here is from the organizations' own IRS returns. Full chain, line by line, with sources: 🔗whitecollarfraud.com/2026/06…

Chris Murphy says Elon Musk is spending $158 million to buy a Senate seat. Michael Bloomberg gave $2.5 million to a super PAC backing the same Democratic Senate candidate, James Talarico. Bloomberg is also directing roughly $80 million toward Democrats this election. Does Murphy consider Bloomberg’s money an attempt to buy elections too? Same election. Same candidate. Two billionaires. Apply the same standard.

Sen. @ElissaSlotkin, nobody is arguing that people who break the law shouldn’t be prosecuted. You said you wanted young people considering jobs in the Trump administration to fear getting themselves into legal trouble. You called it a “deterrence message.” Now you’re pretending you merely said people should follow the law. We heard what you said the first time. Your subsequent explanations don’t erase the record.

Hey Cenk, I don’t give a flying fuck who anyone sleeps with as long as it’s consensual.

. .@MicahLasher, in June you called yourself a “proud Zionist Jew” and warned that singling Israel out for standards applied to no other country is antisemitism. Now you’re celebrating @PramilaJayapal, who called Israel a “racist state” in 2023 (and later apologized), accused its government of genocide, and introduced legislation to block offensive weapons sales to Israel. You opposed efforts to block those weapons sales. You have every right to accept her political support. But don’t pretend these differences don’t exist.

California wants to impose a 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth, including assets accumulated outside the state. Now suppose 21 states adopt similar laws. Who gets to tax the same wealth? How do they divide it? What prevents multiple taxation? In Comptroller v. Wynne (2015), the Supreme Court struck down a state tax provision that discriminated against interstate commerce through double taxation. California’s wealth tax raises a serious constitutional question. Jensen Huang saying he’s willing to pay doesn’t answer it.

I reread Matthew Cole’s entire Vanity Fair article about Jared Kushner. Cole alleges that Dutch intelligence hacked Kushner’s phone and uncovered secret financial arrangements involving roughly $2 billion. But nowhere in the published article does Cole claim he personally obtained or examined the alleged intelligence screenshots, bank statements, wire transfers, or account agreements. He describes what confidential sources told him. That’s a significant distinction. We’re not just missing the underlying documents. The author doesn’t even tell readers whether he saw them. Kushner categorically denies the allegations. Extraordinary accusations require evidence that can be independently examined.

. @JBPritzker, your great-grandfather Nicholas Pritzker immigrated to America in 1881, when immigration laws were substantially different. You invoke his story to condemn ICE enforcement today. But immigrating to America and violating today’s immigration laws aren’t the same thing. You’re leaving out a rather important distinction.

. @rcbregman, another person celebrating Gabriel Zucman’s interpretation instead of reading the actual SEC filing. Zuckerberg was preparing to leave California over the proposed wealth tax. Meta negotiated a stock arrangement giving him liquidity without surrendering voting control. Read Section 6 of Annex C. His eight-year residency commitment depends on continued leadership, permits residence wherever Meta maintains its headquarters, and includes an exception for material unforeseen circumstances. No tax has been paid. No evidence that other billionaires won’t leave. You’re declaring two myths dead based on one conditional agreement.

. @RoKhanna, you reposted Gabriel Zucman’s interpretation of Meta’s SEC filing and called concerns about billionaires leaving California “fear-mongering.” Did you bother reading the filing and Annex C? Zuckerberg was preparing to leave California over Prop 40. Meta negotiated a new stock structure giving him substantial liquidity without surrendering voting control. His eight-year residency agreement is conditional. He can live wherever Meta moves its headquarters, and there are exceptions. One billionaire negotiating a special arrangement with his company doesn’t prove other billionaires won’t leave. Read the primary documents before drawing conclusions from somebody else’s interpretation.

Gabriel, did you read the SEC filing, including Annex C? Zuckerberg considered leaving California to avoid your proposed wealth tax. Meta created nonvoting shares that could let him raise billions without giving up voting control. His eight-year residency commitment applies only while he remains in a qualifying leadership role. It also allows him to relocate if Meta moves its headquarters or material unforeseen circumstances justify it. California voters haven’t approved your tax. Zuckerberg hasn’t paid it. What exactly are you celebrating?

Senator @ewarren, the 8.2% increase is real. Your explanation leaves out much of the evidence. Mercer’s survey identifies expensive drugs, new treatments, hospital consolidation, AI billing, and other cost pressures. It also says 2027 will be the FIFTH consecutive year of elevated increases. That includes the Biden administration. You took a multiyear problem with multiple causes and turned it into a campaign ad against Republicans. Your own source tells a much bigger story.

Only in New York City. Broadway and 31st Street. A guy riding a Citi Bike the wrong way in a bike lane with a giant flat-screen TV balanced on his head. What could possibly go wrong? I guess traffic laws are just suggestions now.

Comptroller @MarkLevineNYC, you pledged to restore NYC’s investment in Israel Bonds. You knew Israel’s credit rating then. It was investment grade. It still is. Now you’ve broken that promise, citing financial concerns. You speak about caring for Holocaust survivors. Israel was established as a Jewish state in the aftermath of the Holocaust and is home to Holocaust survivors today. You want credit for standing beside Holocaust survivors at a photo op while turning your back on your own commitment to invest in Israel. Your actions are part of the record, not just your speeches.

.@RoKhanna, the 1964 Free Speech Movement wasn’t about taxing billionaires, Iran, or Gaza. It was about protecting the right to political expression, including speech you disagree with. Having 500 students agree with your politics doesn’t make you a champion of free speech.

Governor Hochul is celebrating filling her ONE MILLIONTH pothole of 2026. Here’s what she isn’t celebrating. According to the NY State Comptroller’s latest report, highway conditions deteriorated sharply in 2025. State highway lane miles rated good to excellent fell from 61% in 2024 to just 51.6% in 2025. The number of lane miles rated fair or poor increased 25.5% in ONE YEAR. Meanwhile, her administration fills over a million potholes annually. Kathy, you declared war on potholes five years ago. According to your own State Comptroller, you’re losing. Source: NYS Comptroller, 2026 Financial Condition Report, page 13.

.@SenSanders, your own source tells a different story. In 2024, under Biden, 44% of working-age Americans were uninsured, underinsured, or experienced a gap in coverage. In 2026, it’s 46%. And the Commonwealth Fund explicitly says the major Medicaid cuts haven’t taken effect yet. Trump’s policies have contributed to coverage losses. But blaming the entire 92 million on Republicans is political spin, not what the survey establishes. You left out the Biden numbers for a reason. They undermine your argument.

Bernie Sanders founded Our Revolution, which accepted unlimited donations, including six-figure contributions, without fully disclosing its donors. The organization supported his 2020 presidential campaign. Bernie declined to demand full donor disclosure. Now he’s attacking AIPAC for spending money against his preferred Senate candidate. And he blames AIPAC for the war with Iran and the war in Gaza, without establishing that it caused either. Bernie, your own record makes your selective outrage pretty hard to swallow.