Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
New Hampshire
A new campaign finance law is allowing record-breaking spending in NH governor’s race • New Hampshire Bulletin
In her quest for the New Hampshire governor’s office, Kelly Ayotte is breaking financial records. As of Oct. 30, the Republican nominee and former U.S. senator has raised $21 million since running for the office and spent nearly $19 million of it.
The amount far surpasses the funds raised by Ayotte’s Democratic opponent, former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig, who brought in $7.3 million as of that same deadline. And it dwarfs the $1.7 million raised by Gov. Chris Sununu during his entire 2022 re-election effort.
But the money is unusual for other reasons: A majority of it – 70 percent – comes from a single political action committee. And none of those transactions can be traced to individual donors.
The strategy is the direct result of a 2023 campaign finance law that removes limits on donations to candidates from political action committees. And after recent validation from the Attorney General’s Office, the Ayotte campaign’s application of the law could become common practice in future elections.
In an Oct. 10 opinion, the office’s Election Law Unit wrote that Ayotte’s practice of accepting millions of dollars from a political action committee supplied by the Republican Governor’s Association is legal, rebuffing a complaint by Democrats.
Since then, Democrats have followed the RGA’s lead and embraced the technique on their own, pouring larger sums of money to Craig.
The little-noticed law – added to last year’s state budget – allows New Hampshire candidates to accept an unlimited number of contributions from “political advocacy organizations,” without those organizations needing to disclose their donors.
The maneuver has another benefit: Candidates can use that money to buy cheaper ads. Federal law requires that television stations give political candidates a cheaper rate to buy ads than political organizations in the 60 days ahead of an election. That incentivizes PACs to transfer funds directly to candidates in the final stretch.
Campaign finance reform advocates have objected to the state law, arguing the removal of the limits has diminished transparency and accountability for candidates. But the new tool has proven attractive for some campaigns this year.
The state’s online campaign finance system shows that the Republican Governors Association contributed a total of $21.3 million to a political action committee named the Live Free PAC this campaign cycle. That “political advocacy organization” has sent much of that money – $14.7 million – on to the Ayotte campaign, and $6 million to the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.
Democrats challenged that set-up, arguing the Live Free PAC had wrongfully registered as a “political advocacy organization,” which allows it to accept unlimited donations from the RGA. The New Hampshire Democratic Party said it should have registered as a “political committee,” which would cap the number of donations it could receive from the RGA to $30,000 for the entire election season.
But the Attorney General’s Office response this month asserts that the Live Free PAC is a validly registered political advocacy organization, and is thus able to raise unlimited amounts and transfer unlimited amounts to candidates.
‘Political committee’ vs. ‘political advocacy organization’
The 2023 law allows unlimited donations to candidates in many – but not all – cases.
Individual donors and corporations are still capped at donating $15,000 in total to a candidate, per the law, RSA 664:4. Wealthier individuals often skirt this cap by registering multiple limited liability corporations and donating the $15,000 maximum from each corporation.
And individuals and businesses are still prevented from donating more than $30,000 in one election cycle to a “political committee” or “political party.”
But individuals are not capped in how much they may donate to a “political advocacy organization.” And after the 2023 change, a political advocacy organization can now pass on an unlimited amount of funds directly to a candidate.
That change means individuals or large party organizations like the RGA and DGA can pass major donations on to candidates – as long as they send those donations through a political advocacy organization.
And it raises a legal question: What is the difference between a political committee, which is capped, and a political advocacy organization, which is not?
The statute is less than clear. A political committee is defined as any organization that “promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures.” And a political advocacy organization is any organization that spends at least $2,500 for communication that is “functionally equivalent” to advocacy for a candidate or measure, even if that is not the organization’s primary role.
In Ayotte’s case, Live Free PAC has registered as a political advocacy organization in the 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 election cycles, campaign finance records show. And after the passage of the 2023 law, the PAC has taken advantage of the new unlimited powers, transferring large amounts to the Ayotte campaign, usually in tranches of $1.5 million at a time. All of Live Free PAC’s money comes from the RGA.
The fundraising strategies are a major difference between the two gubernatorial campaigns. Craig has raised $4.4 million from individual donors, or 65 percent of her funds overall. Ayotte has raised $3.7 million from individual donors, but that comprises just 18 percent of her total haul. The other $17 million comes from the $14.7 million in Live Free PAC transfers and money transfers from other organizations and PACs.
If you can’t beat ‘em …
In its Sept. 18 complaint to the Attorney General’s Office, the New Hampshire Democratic Party alleged that the Live Free PAC had wrongly registered as a political advocacy organization, when it really met the definition of a political committee.
But Richard Lehmann, an attorney representing the Live Free PAC, disputed that argument. In an Oct. 8 letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Lehmann wrote that Live Free PAC met the definitions of a political advocacy organization, or PAO, and argued that neither the Legislature nor the Attorney General’s Office had issued guidelines that would prevent that registration.
“If the Legislature intended to restrict the ability of organizations to register and conduct themselves as PAOs, it would have imposed additional conditions or restricted the ability of organizations to qualify,” Lehmann wrote. “It did not do that.”
Assistant Attorney General Brendan O’Donnell, chief of the Election Law Unit, sided with the PAC, writing in response to the NHDP that the PAC “registered as a PAO and met the statutory definition of a PAO.” O’Donnell added that just because Live Free PAC also met the statutory definitions of a political committee did not mean it needed to follow those contribution limits, since it didn’t register as one.
Following the advisory opinion, the Democrats changed tack. After months of running a political committee titled “Democratic Governors Association – New Hampshire” and adhering to the $30,000 limits on individual receipts, the Democratic Governors Association registered its own political advocacy organization on Oct. 11, a day after the Attorney General’s Office opinion, campaign records show.
That entity, named “DGA New Hampshire PAO,” has accepted a number of funds, including a $3.2 million transfer from the Democratic Governors Association, and has transferred $800,000 to the Craig campaign and $3.1 million to the New Hampshire Democratic Party, as of the latest filings.
Blessing or a curse?
When the 2023 law passed, some welcomed it, arguing that New Hampshire has always had loopholes allowing large transfers of wealth to candidates. The new law, they argued, simply eased the process for major campaigns.
“I believe that money is speech, and so I’m opposed to placing limits on that,” said Rep. Joe Sweeney, an original sponsor of the legislation, in an interview last year.
Others, like Olivia Zink, were appalled. Zink, executive director of Open Democracy, an advocacy group that pushes to reduce money in political campaigns, says she worried last year that the law would bring in vast and unaccountable sums of money to the state.
This year, Zink feels she was proven right. And she argues lawmakers should return donation limits to campaigns.
“I think candidates need to answer who they’re getting their campaign cash from,” she said. “Voters are being flooded with ads, and if they’re being paid for by nondisclosed, out-of-state donors, is that how they’re going to run our state?”
Local News
Investigators partnered with a nonprofit genetic genealogy analysis organization to identify the man who the remains belonged to.
After nearly four decades, a man whose skull was discovered in the New Hampshire woods has been identified.
Warren Kuchinsky was born in 1952 and was last known to be alive in the mid-1970s, New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and New Hampshire State Police Colonel Mark Hall said in a statement. In 1986, his skull was found in a wooded area in the town of Bristol.
At the time, investigators weren’t able to identify whose skull it was, according to officials. Last year, however, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner partnered with the DNA Doe Project, a nonprofit organization, to solve the case using forensic genetic genealogy techniques.
Kuchinsky’s identity was confirmed through DNA testing of a surviving family member, according to officials. There is no evidence that his death was caused by foul play, according to the statement.
Founded in 2017, the DNA Doe Project partners with law enforcement, medical examiners, and volunteer genealogists to apply investigative genealogy to John and Jane Doe cases. By analyzing DNA profiles and building family trees from publicly available genetic databases and historical records, the organization has helped solve more than 250 cases nationwide.
“We are honored to have partnered with the State of New Hampshire on this case,” DNA Doe Project Team Leader Lisa Ivany said in the statement. “Through the power of investigative genetic genealogy and the dedication of our volunteer genealogists, we were able to develop a critical lead in less than 24 hours. We truly hope that this identification brings long-awaited answers to Mr. Kuchinsky’s family.”
Initial DNA testing turned up only distant matches, so the DNA Doe Project selected the case to be worked on at a virtual retreat in May 2025, according to the organization’s case profile. Over the course of a weekend, more than 40 genealogists from the U.S., Canada, England, and Scotland collaborated virtually to work on the case.
Within hours, the team discovered that the unidentified man had roots in New Hampshire and Quebec, according to the profile. They later zeroed in on Kuchinsky, who had attended school in Plymouth, N.H., but had no official proof of life past 1970.
“This identification reflects the power of partnership and scientific advancement,” Formella said in the statement. “The dedication of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the investigative support of the New Hampshire State Police, and the extraordinary work of the DNA Doe Project have restored a name to an individual who had been unidentified for nearly 40 years. We are grateful for their professionalism and commitment.”
New Hampshire
New Hampshire House Advances One of The Nation’s Most Extreme Transgender Bathroom Bans
The proposal would fine transgender people up to $5,000 for using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity.
Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.
Bathroom bans targeting transgender people have been spreading rapidly across the United States. In previous years, adult bathroom bans in public buildings were limited to a handful of states with extreme laws. This year, they have become one of the primary vehicles for anti-trans legislation nationwide. Kansas was the first to act, passing a bathroom bounty hunter system and invalidating transgender people’s IDs. Idaho and Missouri began advancing their own bills. Now, the New Hampshire House of Representatives has passed its own version — one of the most extreme in the United States, which states that a trans person using the bathroom of their gender identity is a crime under the state civil rights act, violations of which carries hefty penalties. The bill passed 181-164 on Wednesday night, just weeks after Governor Kelly Ayotte vetoed a separate bathroom ban. Republicans are now sending her something far more aggressive — raising the question of whether they are trying to move the goalposts or simply daring her to veto again.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with the exception of RSA 21:3, RSA 21:54, and paragraph II below, all multi-user facilities, including bathrooms, restrooms, and locker rooms located in buildings owned, leased, or operated by any municipality shall be used based on the individual’s biological sex,” reads the new bill. This prohibition is expansive: it applies to parks, rest stops, airports, civic buildings, and more, and could leave transgender people struggling to find a public place to use the restroom across the state.
The bill contains a novel enforcement mechanism not seen in any other state. It declares that a transgender person “asserting” that their gender identity allows them to use the bathroom is against the law under the state civil rights act, turning civil rights protections that were meant to be protective of transgender people into a weapon against them. “It shall be unlawful for any person to assert that their gender identity is a sex other than that defined in RSA 21:3 for the purposes of accessing places or services restricted on the basis of sex,” reads the bill. Such violations could result in fines of up to $5,000 per incident and even jail time if a person violates a resulting court injunction by continuing to use the restroom.
The bill also contains provisions for private businesses. It permits any owner or operator of a “place of public accommodation” — a category that under New Hampshire law includes hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, bars, and concert venues — to restrict bathrooms by assigned sex at birth. The bill then immunizes those businesses from discrimination claims: “Adoption or enforcement of a policy pursuant to this section shall not be deemed discrimination under RSA 354-A or any other state law,” it reads.
A separate bill, HB 1217, also passed on Wednesday. That bill permits governmental buildings and businesses to classify bathrooms and locker rooms by assigned sex at birth — similar to the bathroom bans Ayotte has already vetoed. It passed by an even wider margin, 187-163. It contains no enforcement mechanism, but rather, states that bathroom bans and sports bans are not discriminatory towards transgender people under New Hampshire law.
The bills are part of a larger movement towards bathroom bans for transgender people. Just last month, Kansas passed a bathroom ban that allows every citizen in the state to become a bounty hunter, where reporting transgender people in bathrooms can net them $1,000 per trans person caught. This law also invalidated trans people’s drivers licenses in the state. Meanwhile, Idaho and Missouri are both advancing extreme anti-trans bathroom bans of their own, with Idaho’s ban even applying to private businesses, making it against the law for a private business to allow a trans person to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.
The bills are substantially more extreme than the one vetoed by Governor Ayotte just weeks ago. In a veto statement of a bathroom ban last month, Ayotte stated, “I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities… At the same time, I see that House Bill 148 is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”
It remains unclear why Republicans are pushing an even more extreme version of a bill their own governor has already vetoed three times. The bill still needs to pass the New Hampshire Senate and be signed by Ayotte to become law. One possibility is that the more extreme HB 1442 is designed as cover for HB 1217 — making that bill appear moderate by comparison and improving its chances of earning a signature. Another is that Republicans believe they can pressure Ayotte into signing, or are simply laying the groundwork for an override attempt down the line. Regardless, HB 1442 is one of the most extreme bathroom bans moving through any state legislature in the country, and transgender people across New England will be watching closely as it advances to the Senate.
Media that fights fascism
Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers — that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump.
We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation.
South Dakota6 minutes ago
These 15 South Dakota counties will see DUI checkpoints this month
Tennessee12 minutes ago
Titans free agency: Tennessee signing offensive weapons to help QB Cam Ward, bolstering coach Robert Saleh’s defense, reports say
Texas18 minutes ago
Texas Officials Unveil Amended Hemp Rules With Strict ‘Total THC’ Limits But Lower Licensing Fee Than Previously Floated – Marijuana Moment
Utah24 minutes ago
Widow of protester killed files lawsuit against organizers of Utah ‘No Kings’ rally
Vermont30 minutes ago
COMMENTARY: Vermont: The Beckoning Country
Florida1 year ago
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Connecticut2 years ago
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
Oregon2 years ago
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Virginia2 years ago
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana2 years ago
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Politics3 hours ago
China-linked birth tourism under scrutiny as GOP lawmakers press Trump admin for answers
World4 hours ago
What defence support could Ukraine offer Middle East states amid Iran war?
News4 hours ago
Warrants served in New Jersey, Pennsylvania as feds look into possible NYC terrorism
News14 hours ago
Video: Airports Struggle to Staff T.S.A. During Partial Government Shutdown
Politics15 hours ago
Before-and-after satellite imagery offers a rare look at damage inside Iran
-
Wisconsin1 week agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Maryland1 week agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida1 week agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoPa. man found guilty of raping teen girl who he took to Mexico
-
News1 week ago2 Survivors Describe the Terror and Tragedy of the Tahoe Avalanche
-
Sports5 days agoKeith Olbermann under fire for calling Lou Holtz a ‘scumbag’ after legendary coach’s death
-
Virginia5 days agoGiants will hold 2026 training camp in West Virginia