One Senator's $700k Afterparty

Kyrsten Sinema left the Senate, then appears to have treated her campaign account as a luxury slush fund. She's not alone, as far too many politicians treat grassroots donations as retirement bonuses.

Kyrsten Sinema, the former U.S. Senator for Arizona, left the Senate in January 2025 with $4.2 million in her campaign account. Donors gave that money to support her candidacy, and federal law lays out a few options for how she can spend leftover funds (besides return it to donors): 1) wind down the campaign office, 2) donate to other candidates, or 3) give it to charity. Sounds fair, enough, right? After all, the funds contributed to politicians is not THEIR money.

Who would think they could bankroll their post-political life with campaign cash? Oh wait.

That’s exactly what appears to have happened with Sinema — though she certainly wouldn’t be the first or only one to abuse the system. This week, our strategic litigation partner Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an FEC complaint alleging Sinema converted more than $700,000 in campaign funds to personal expenses in the twelve months after she left office. Beyond spending lavishly on airfare, car services, luxury international resorts, music festivals, and Michelin-starred restaurants, her campaign [without a campaign] committee also paid six former staffers a combined $379,398 — some of whom had already taken private sector jobs. All while Sinema was working at a lobbying firm.

All told, $3 million of her remaining funds went to create the Spark Center for Innovation Learning at Arizona State. Which is fine. The rest? Not fine.

CLC has been tracking campaign fund abuse since 2018. The pattern isn’t unique to one party. Republican and Democratic former officeholders have both treated leftover campaign accounts like personal slush funds — cell phone bills, family salaries, computers, travel, years after leaving office. A Tampa Bay Times investigation found hundreds of thousands in dubious spending across 102 former campaign committees (and there are many thousands of such committees).

Congress saw this coming. In 1989, lawmakers repealed a grandfather clause that let sitting members pocket leftover cash. The FEC followed with regulations in 1995 covering any present or former candidate. The law exists. Enforcement is another story.

CLC picks its targets based on evidence, not party. In this case, Sinema is a former Democrat turned Independent, but CLC calls out Republicans and Democrats doing the same thing. And while some may think such work seems small given the unprecedented corruption swirling through the Executive Branch (which this movement is helping to illuminate and tackle, too), we MUST hold to account anyone abusing the power and privilege entrusted to them. Because all too often, corruption starts small before it snowballs.

Campaign donations belong to the democratic process. Not to the person whose name was on the yard sign. When a former senator is spending donor money at Michelin-starred restaurants after leaving office, something is broken.

The FEC has the complaint now, and key vacancies are being filled that will give the commission the quorum necessary to take up the matter. There will be two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, which often leads to deadlock and nothing getting done (regardless of which party controls the Administration). What’s unique here is Sinema is an Independent, and without partisan protection, perhaps we’ll finally get a precedent that scares more politicians into compliance.

Regardless, the filing creates a public record, puts future officeholders on notice, and reinforces a standard that shouldn’t need reinforcing: The money isn’t theirs; they aren’t entitled to live the high life off it.