Finance
In Virginia’s Democratic legislature, campaign finance reform bills languish without votes – Virginia Mercury
As it gets more and more expensive to win a seat in the Virginia General Assembly, the state legislature continues to find new ways to stifle efforts to put limits on the state’s wide-open campaign finance laws.
This year, several bills meant to slow the flow of money into Virginia politics have been blocked without lawmakers taking a recorded vote showing that’s what they’re doing.
For the last decade, proposals have been introduced to create stricter campaign finance limits in Virginia and boost public confidence that the legislature can’t be bought by special interests writing checks of unlimited size.
Some Democrats have been vocal about making campaign finance reform a priority, and many have accepted big checks from Clean Virginia, a well-funded advocacy group focused on energy and campaign finance reform that says its mission is to “fight corruption in Virginia politics.”
But the party’s retaking of full control of the General Assembly this year doesn’t appear to be producing any breakthroughs on campaign finance issues as Tuesday’s crossover deadline approaches. As the two chambers rush to finish work on their own bills, no major campaign finance legislation has made it through both sides of the Capitol. If those positions hold in the second half of the session, none of the bills will win final passage.
Instead, Democratic-sponsored campaign finance proposals are languishing in Democratic-controlled committees, where several bills have been allowed to expire without a hearing.
When Del. Josh Cole, D-Prince William, presented a bill that would prohibit candidates from accepting campaign money from public utilities like Dominion Energy, the proposal died without a vote when no one on the 22-member House Privileges and Elections Committee made a motion for or against it. A bill sponsored by Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, that would have set caps on donations from both corporations and individuals was never docketed by the same committee.
In an interview, Cole said he’ll keep fighting for campaign finance reform, despite his latest bill failing in an unusual fashion.
“Time will tell what will happen,” Cole said. “The appetite is definitely there for it.”
On the Senate side, another utility-focused campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Sen. Danica Roem, D-Prince William, made it out of the chamber’s elections committee, but stalled when it was sent to the Finance and Appropriations Committee. It never got a hearing there, despite being projected to have no impact on the state budget.
When asked why Roem’s bill wasn’t docketed, Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the bill itself instead of offering any procedural explanation.
“The people who are complaining about Dominion being a monopoly want to replace them,” Lucas said. “They want to be the monopoly. So what’s the difference?”
Clean Virginia’s critics have often accused the organization and its main funder, wealthy Charlottesville investor Michael Bills, of engaging in a new form of influence-peddling by offering substantial checks to lawmakers who vow to stop accepting money from Dominion.
In an interview, Roem didn’t sound disheartened over her bill’s fate.
“This is the first time we’ve ever gotten out of committee. This still marks progress,” Roem said. “Clearly we have more steps to go.”
Nancy Morgan, a campaign finance reform advocate with BigMoneyOutVA, said Democratic leaders appear to be “strong-arming the members to kill the bills in untransparent ways.”
“Not allowing bills to be voted on, or even heard by legislators, is anathema to our democratic process,” Morgan’s group said in a statement last week.
A seemingly less controversial proposal to prohibit spending campaign cash on personal uses unrelated to politics — something already banned at the federal level and in almost every other state — looked to be on track to pass this year after clearing the state Senate 35-4 and passing the House elections committee unanimously. But the House version was bottled up in the budget-writing committee after three state agencies estimated it would cost them more than $745,000 to add more staff to implement the law.
However, the legislature’s own fiscal analysts sharply disagreed with that figure, saying the law would create virtually no new costs and wouldn’t substantially add to anyone’s existing workload.
“It just seemed highly inflated,” said Del. Cia Price, D-Newport News, who chairs the House elections committee and formally requested a second opinion on the steep cost estimate.
In a written analysis attached to the personal use bill, staffers at the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission said they concluded the proposal wouldn’t substantially burden state agencies after looking at similar laws in Georgia and Tennessee. Both states already have systems for investigating complaints and issuing advisory opinions similar to what the Virginia proposal envisioned, JLARC found, and the strain on staff is minimal because there are usually just a few cases to handle per year.
“JLARC estimates the fiscal impact of the bill would be negligible,” the General Assembly’s analysts said in their rebuttal to the estimates from the Virginia Department of Elections and Virginia Department of Corrections.
The JLARC statement didn’t address an additional $429,426 estimate from the office of Attorney General Jason Miyares, which claimed it would need two additional attorneys and a paralegal to help implement the law.
Despite JLARC disputing the projected costs of the personal use bill, Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said its chances of passage are now “slim to none” after failing to pass the House. The House can still take up the Senate version of the bill, but Simon said it’s unlikely to be a priority for the body late in the session as lawmakers try to finalize more big-ticket items.
Despite Simon’s less-than-optimistic prediction about the fate of efforts to ban the personal use of campaign money, Clean Virginia said it still hopes a “commonsense ban” can pass this year after clearing the Senate with an “overwhelming bipartisan majority.”
“Passage of this bill would represent a strong first step towards comprehensive campaign finance and ethics reform in Virginia,” said Clean Virginia Legislative Director Dan Holmes.
General Assembly members and statewide officeholders are prohibited from raising campaign funds during legislative sessions, but the latest effort to extend that ban to special sessions also appears to be on track to die without lawmakers attaching their names to a vote.
A bipartisan bill banning fundraising during “active” special sessions made it to the Senate floor. But in an unrecorded voice vote last week, the Senate chose to send the bill back to its elections committee, a maneuver that killed the bill because the panel was already done with its work on Senate bills.
On the floor, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, said the bill “had a lot of issues.”
“It’s going to create more problems than it’s going to solve,” Surovell said.
Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke, the bill’s sponsor, objected to the move, saying his legislation appeared to be heading for the same death by unrecorded vote that often befalls bills to ban the personal use of campaign funds.
“Every year it found a different way to die on an unrecorded vote,” Suetterlein said.
Mercury reporters Nathaniel Cline and Charlie Paullin contributed to this story.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Finance
Goldman Sachs massively resets Snowflake stock price target for 2026
In February and March 2026, Snowflake was the stock Wall Street couldn’t quite figure out. The stock was down 50% from the early January high to early April 2026, according to TradingView data. Snowflake was caught between a decelerating core business and an AI narrative that kept getting pushed further into the future.
Then Snowflake reported earnings. And the stock jumped 37% in a single session. Goldman Sachs responded with one of its most dramatic price target increases on a major software stock this year, raising its Snowflake (SNOW) target in a note shared with me at TheStreet.
SNOW is now trading at $255.37, up 16.42% year-to-date after the post-earnings surge, according to Yahoo Finance.
The Goldman note identified two specific dynamics converging inside Snowflake’s business right now that the market had been underpricing. Once you understand both, the 37% single-day move starts to look less like euphoria and more like a rational repricing.
Goldman Sachs raises Snowflake price target to $278 from $216
Right after earnings, Goldman Sachs raised its Snowflake (SNOW) target to $278 from $216 in a note shared with me at TheStreet, while maintaining its Buy rating. The two AI inflections Goldman mentioned in the note are compounding simultaneously within Snowflake’s business.
The first is external: the proliferation of AI coding tools is making it dramatically easier for enterprises to migrate from legacy data platforms to modern ones like Snowflake. Migrations that previously required months of engineering work are being compressed.
More Wall Street:
The cost of switching has fallen. The urgency to switch has risen as companies need governed, structured data environments to run AI applications. Snowflake is the direct beneficiary of both forces.
The second is internal: Cortex Code. That’s Snowflake’s own AI coding product, launched in general availability in mid-February 2026, which embeds a context-aware AI coding agent directly into the development workflow.
It enables customers to build, deploy, and iterate on data pipelines, analytics, and AI agents faster while remaining fully governed within the Snowflake environment.
Related: Snowflake stock analyst reveals surprising stock forecast
Adoption has been the fastest of any Snowflake product in company history, with over 7,100 accounts already using it — approximately 50% penetration — according to the Q1 earnings release report and the note.
Finance
Bank Regulation and Risks to Financial Stability | The Regulatory Review
Scholars examine bank and cryptocurrency regulation and assess potential risks to financial stability and resilience.
Federal banking regulators recently proposed rules to implement the Basel III Endgame framework. Global banking regulators developed the Basel III framework after the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen bank regulation, supervision, and risk management through a set of international standards. The final set of rules to implement the framework has been dubbed “Basel III Endgame.”
Although regulators originally planned to finalize and implement the Basel III accord by the beginning of 2023, countries have repeatedly delayed implementation while tailoring the framework to national interests and as banks and policymakers around the world increasingly embrace a more deregulatory approach.
The updated proposal follows a 2023 proposal from the Biden Administration that drew criticism for threatening to impose burdensome capital requirements on U.S. banks that could reduce lending and credit availability. Regulators argued that strengthening risk-based capital requirements for large banks would promote financial stability and resilience, but critics contended that the proposal could instead restrict banks’ lending capacity and push lending and traditional bank activity into more lightly regulated shadow banking sectors, such as private credit.
The latest proposal departs significantly from the 2023 proposal and would reduce the regulatory burden on large banks. The banking industry has applauded the recent deregulatory push, but critics warn that this approach risks weakening bank regulatory infrastructure only a few years after several major bank failures revealed ongoing gaps in bank supervision. Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse in 2023 marked the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history and required major emergency intervention. Although U.S. bank regulators largely contained the fallout and prevented contagion risks, the episode highlighted ongoing systemic risks to financial stability.
Debate over U.S. banking regulation also coincides with financial innovation and the rise of cryptocurrency, which have upended traditional financial services. The proposal comes less than a year after Congress passed the GENIUS Act, which established a baseline framework for stablecoin issuance. The GENIUS Act represented a significant regulatory breakthrough in a rapidly developing industry but left open many questions about its implementation and the future of cryptocurrency and stablecoin regulation. Federal regulators recently proposed rules to begin implementing the GENIUS Act framework, which will take effect in January 2027.
In this week’s seminar, scholars explore and offer competing views on current risks to the banking system and financial stability and identify potential regulatory vulnerabilities, including new payment systems tied to cryptocurrency.
- In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Stephen Cecchetti and co-authors advocate implementation of the Basel III Endgame standards and higher U.S. capital requirements for large banks. They argue that criticisms of the 2023 proposed regulations are not supported by data and that heightened capital requirements do not reduce bank lending. The authors warn that failure to align U.S. regulations with the international Basel III standards could start a deregulatory race to the bottom that would undermine global banking stability.
- In an article in the University of Illinois Law Review, American University Washington College of Law Professor Hilary Allen explains that financial stability risks can arise from often-overlooked sources beyond the traditional banking sector, such as venture capital. Using the venture capital industry as a case study, Allen contends that speculative sectors such as cryptocurrency can pose risks when regulatory oversight is weak. She argues that effective banking regulation of emerging risks requires a more proactive, systemwide approach, including increased monitoring of risks arising from venture capital investment and more aggressive securities law enforcement against cryptocurrency activities.
- In a Stanford Law Review article that predates the GENIUS Act, Gabriel Rauterberg and Jeffrey Zhang argue that shadow banking, including stablecoin issuance, should fall under securities regulators’ oversight. Shadow banking covers a broad range of activities that resemble banking but fall outside the traditionally narrow bank regulatory perimeter and lack banking regulation. As a result, shadow banking receives significantly less regulatory oversight, creating vulnerability and instability in the financial system. The authors contend that many shadow banking activities fall within securities law’s purview and that securities regulation should promote systemic stability by working with traditional bank regulation.
- Financial regulation has not kept pace with the financial system’s rapid changes, University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School Assistant Professor of Finance Yao Zeng asserts in the International Monetary Fund’s Finance & Development quarterly publication. Zeng frames stablecoins as innovative in form but economically familiar in function and financial vulnerability. He argues that although stablecoins promise faster, cheaper, and more accessible payments, their bank-like economic functions and lack of protections such as deposit insurance and lender-of-last-resort support create familiar risks to financial stability. Zeng proposes that regulation should depend more on function than label: if stablecoins perform bank-like monetary functions, they should provide similar safeguards.
- In a Delaware Journal of Corporate Law article, Arthur E. Wilmarth argues that the GENIUS Act institutionalizes nonbank stablecoin issuance, a practice that carries severe economic risks and lacks offsetting benefits. Wilmarth contends that nonbank stablecoin issuance undermines traditional banking and allows nonbank entities, such as tech firms, to perform bank-like functions without proper regulatory safeguards. He argues that the resulting ecosystem carries significant risks for financial stability and maintains that stablecoin issuance should be limited to FDIC-insured banks to ensure that adequate protections safeguard depositors’ money.
- In a recent article in the Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Roanoke College’s Zane Mullins addresses common critiques of stablecoins and pushes back against the view that stablecoins pose risks to the financial system. Mullins proposes a narrow stablecoin framework that would allow stablecoin issuers to settle payments with common central bank reserves. He argues that this framework would mitigate credit and liquidity risk by giving all stablecoin issuers similar access to a common settlement medium. Mullins contends that the framework would also address interoperability concerns, promote a level playing field among issuers, and mitigate counterparty risk.
Finance
Evoke Entertainment Closes $35 Million Production Financing Facility Backed By Major Private Credit Fund
EXCLUSIVE: Evoke Entertainment has closed a senior secured production financing facility of up to $35 million backed by a multi-billion-dollar private credit fund.
While we verified the deal with the lender, they spoke with Deadline on the condition of anonymity, per company policy. The revolving production facility is designed to support Evoke’s expanding slate of independent features, television movies, streaming films, and series — significantly increasing the company’s already high-volume production output across major studios, networks, and streaming platforms.
More from Deadline
Structured around contracted revenue streams, distribution agreements, tax incentives, and the value of Evoke’s existing library and historical production performance, the facility provides the company with flexible, scalable production financing across multiple genres and platforms. Evoke’s lender comes to the partnership with extensive experience in structured finance, asset-backed lending, and entertainment-related investments.
The deal was spearheaded by Evoke Entertainment CEO Stan Spry, who told us, “This financing marks a transformative moment for Evoke. The backing of a major institutional private credit partner gives us the ability to substantially scale our production operations while continuing to focus on commercially driven, cost-efficient content for the global marketplace.”
The first projects to be financed under Evoke’s facility include a large slate of TV and streaming movies including a Christmas film for Hallmark, a survival thriller for Lifetime, alongside the independent feature films Suburban Kings, Homesick, and Bali Hai.
Founded in 2011, and formerly known as Cartel Entertainment, Evoke Entertainment is a full-service management, production, and finance company that produces more than 20 films and series annually across major platforms including Netflix, Hallmark, Lifetime, Tubi, NBC/Peacock, AMC, and Great American Media. Notable past projects include Creepshow (AMC), Day of the Dead (Syfy), Twelve Forever (Netflix), and the upcoming Breaking Bear for Tubi, to name a few.
Best of Deadline
Sign up for Deadline’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
-
Maine23 seconds agoWSJ: Maine Senate candidate’s wife says she found explicit texts on his phone
-
Maryland3 minutes agoSunny and breezy Saturday expected in Maryland
-
Michigan8 minutes agoMichigan State Hosts Elite 4-Star Recruit Gideon Gash for Official Visit
-
Massachusetts15 minutes agoMeteor over Massachusetts causes explosion reports, sightings from Delaware to Montreal
-
Minnesota18 minutes ago
If Nolan Teasley is the “primary football executive” in Minnesota, Seahawks will get compensatory picks
-
Mississippi23 minutes agoMississippi Miss Hospitality announces record scholarships for 2026 competition
-
Missouri30 minutes agoMissouri Walk of Neurofibromatosis brings awareness to Columbia
-
Montana33 minutes agoICE sued over “inhumane” conditions at Camp East Montana