This is in addition to these miscreants. And in addition to the Speaker’s $50 K (so far) slush fund. Oh, and in addition to the individual bribes paid to Krista Griffith by Richards Layton & Finger. Tell me again, Krista, how many of Elon Musk’s corporate attorneys does it take to change a lightbulb? But, I digress. Sorta.
Kids, have you ever heard of the First State Future PAC? I hadn’t. But I bet you’ve heard of these corporate law firms:
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
Potter Anderson & Corroon
Richards, Layton & Finger
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
The lawyers from these firms essentially craft all the changes to Delaware’s Corporate Code every year, and then present it to the General Assembly as if they are some sort of neutral update of the Code to keep the Delaware Court of Chancery in a preeminent national position. More on that later.
Here’s the story–these five law firms have pooled their resources to create the First State Future PAC and are already spending it to defend some of the worst Democratic incumbents in Dover. Each of the five law firms have ponied up $190,000 to fund the PAC. Meaning, they’ve raised $950,000. That’s serious money.
Here’s how they’re spending it, according to their own Campaign Finance Report:
$46,500 for research and polling
$13,000 for focus group
$9771.78 for Digital Advertising Opposing Shane Nicole Darby (to be fair, it’s difficult to find something positive to say on behalf of Nnamdi)
$6486.07 for Digital Advertising Supporting Ed Mulvihill (the liquor store guy running to replace Deb Heffernan)
$9771.79 for Digital Advertising Supporting Krista Griffith
$6321.79 for Digital Advertising Supporting Frank Cooke
$6790.93 for Digital Advertising Supporting Kim Williams
$5226.64 for Digital Advertising Support Kerri Harris
$12,771.79 for Digital Advertising Supporting Dan Cruce
$7236.07 for Digital Advertising Supporting Ray Seigfried (now, that’s money pissed down the drain, right there)
$8486.07 for Digital Advertising Supporting Nicole Poore
$7236.07 for Digital Advertising Supporting Kyra Hoffner
I invite you to see for yourselves. Here’s how:
Go to this website:
https://elections.delaware.gov/index.html
Click on the Campaign Finance Reporting icon
Click On ‘View Filed Reports’
Click on ‘Continue’
In the Committee Name box, type in ‘First State Future PAC’, then hit ‘Search’
Then click on ‘Original Financial Statement’. It’s all right there.
The PAC was formed in April, and here we are.
With that out of the way, let’s state the obvious–This PAC is supporting people that it has in its pocket. Meaning, not to put too fine a face on it, they can always count on Nnamdi Chukwuocha, Ed Mulvihill, Krista Griffith, Frank Cooke, Kim Williams, Kerri Harris, Dan Cruce, Ray Seigfried, Nicole Poore and Kyra Hoffner to consistently and enthusiastically do whatever they want them to do.
Among those items, in addition to distorting Delaware corporate law on behalf of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, is the rubber-stamping of the annual package of corporate law bills.
The Corporate Law section of the Delaware Bar doesn’t want people asking questions about those bills. That’s why they’re all virtually inscrutable, are presented merely as appropriate updates to the Code, and are rushed through with no meaningful questions being asked year after year.
Here, kids, are but a few of the corporate clients and individuals these firms represent:
The Weinstein Company (as in Harvey): Richards, Layton & Finger
Insys Therapeutics: Richards, Layton & Finger
Fox Corporation/Rupert Murdoch: Richards, Layton & Finger
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company: Richards, Layton & Finger
Elon Musk/Tesla: Richards Layton & Finger, and Morris Nichols
Larry Ellison: Young, Conaway
Mark Zuckerberg: Potter Anderson
Peter Thiel: Potter Anderson
Palantir: Wilson Sonsini
Candace Owens: Richards Layton
Vince McMahon: Potter Anderson
United Health: Morris Nichols
Howard Lutnick: Young Conaway
Amerisource Bergen: Potter Anderson
Walmart: Wilson Sonsini
Live Nation: Wilson Sonsini
Now, we have an intelligent readership. The same attorneys representing this Rogue’s Gallery of Undesirables are the same attorneys who annually revise Delaware’s Corporate Code. Do any of you really think that they’re representing the public interest as opposed to their clients’ interest?
For the first time, these and the other Delaware Way denizens have woken up to at least the possibility that their free ride is over due to a slate of outstanding challengers.
That is why they’re throwing so much money at some of Delaware’s worst public officials. They’ve always owned them, but now the bribes must increase exponentially.
I think this is a news story, and an important one. Will anybody from the press follow up on this?
Kim Williams doesn’t need digital ads, she needs an afternoon with a stylist to fix whatever is going on with that hair helmet. Maybe getting all the weight off and the improved airflow will help her make better choices.
Jesus! Agree or disagree with a legislator, I get that. But to be a complete a-hole about how someone looks just shows what you are.
this isn’t petty thing over bland policy. This is a person who is fundamentally rotten to their core. Their appearance reflects who they are on the inside. If Kim sees this and feels bad about herself, mission accomplished. She should. I was one of those kids that skipped meals in elementary school, and she gave hungry kids the finger.
Virtue signaling much??? I’m here to confiscate your man card.
“$7236.07 for Digital Advertising Supporting Ray Seigfried (now, that’s money pissed down the drain, right there).”
Are you kidding? At corporate law rates, it’s about two days’ worth of lawyering.
This explains a lot….. like why when someone mentioned to Ed M. that they had been seeing tons of sponsored ads for his campaign coming up on their social media, he told them he had no idea the ads were even running. He’s already just following instructions.
Hand-picked by Deb Heffernan.
By and large, the challengers to these incumbents will support amendments to Delaware business laws – but only if they come through the appropriate channels. Unlike past legislative proposals, SB 21 did not arise from a consensus among corporate law practitioners, from plaintiff, defendant and public interest advocates. The bill was bludgeoned into law. The House proceedings were an embarrassment. These are the features to which the challengers object.
The donors to this fund continue to panic, and are doing themselves no favors in the 154th General Assembly.
The challengers would not reflexively oppose business legislation. From my discussions with them, they were outraged at how SB 21 was bludgeoned into law. Unlike other corporate bills, it did not result from a consensus of plaintiff, defense and public interest advocates, which is how past legislative proposals have been developed. The House proceedings were ugly. The challengers insist that this sort of process should not be repeated.
They’re not monoliths. I’m sure their opinions vary.
You’re right, of course, that SB 21 is a real sticking point. Which, more than any other reason, is why these firms are ponying up a bleepload of money. They want to leave nothing to chance.
However, I’m not ready to buy your statement that ‘…(u)nlike other corporate bills, it did not result from a consensus of plaintiff, defense and public interest advocates.’
I remain a skeptic until someone can demonstrate that these laws drafted annually by the Corporate Section of the Delaware Bar are somehow neutral in substance.
Let’s not forget they also employ Delaware’s leaders… Kyle Evans Gay, Bryan Townsend, many an elected come from these law firms.
Pingback: Delaware Political Weekly: Week(s) Ending July 2, 2026 – Delaware Liberal
Of course ALL of these PACs are going to throw a fortune behind Krista Griffith. She was the prime sponsor of SB 21 from the House. I expect the PACs to spend the lion’s share on her TBH.
It’s one thing to capitulate under pressure or get suckered by Townsend. It’s an entirely different thing altogether to proactively animate oligarchy in Delaware.
It’s almost impossible to go online and NOT hear their propaganda on behalf of Dan Cruce.
I’ve seen a few on Ray Seigfried praising him for healthcare reform. Ironic, of course, when you realize that, as a bean counter for ChristianaCare, his job was to fatten the corporate bottom line at the expense of healthcare consumers. Kids, you’re NOT a healthcare advocate when you advocate for the corporate bottom line of a healthcare monolith.
It depends on your district. I get Griffith.
I get the jackpot I live in RD 1 two blocks from RD 12 and SD 1 I get generous portions on my phone and I stream YouTube tv for my tv. The Shane’ attack ad is not the flex they think it is. Attacking a black single mom for dealing with financial struggles is not landing well.