Beyond Soros: The Syndicate Funding Violence and Candidates
Affinity cells may appear spontaneous, but their capacity for disruption is multiplied through institutional sponsorship. Unions, foundations, and donor consortia supply the resources, legitimacy, and cover that transform isolated groups into coordinated campaigns capable of national impact. These sponsors do not buy participants outright; they build the infrastructure that allows ideological zeal to scale. We are now entering a new age—the normalization of insurrectionary politics—where campaigns openly embrace unrest as both strategy and identity.
Historically, unions have been central to this process. The AFL-CIO, the AFGE, and the AFT positioned themselves as defenders of solidarity and worker rights, but in practice channeled that infrastructure into political agitation. A prime example is the AFGE’s October 2020 “No King” action, which, under the banner of protecting collective bargaining rights, dovetailed with anti-Trump agitation. The union provided legitimacy, coordinated communications, and framed the protest as civic duty rather than partisan mobilization, while echoing broader activist messaging.
The AFL-CIO’s own internal documentation underscores how unions serve as political force multipliers. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, a 23-page strategy guide titled Labor 2020 explicitly outlined a five-phase operational plan. The document framed the election not as a singular contest but as “50 state elections” that “must be defended, state by state”. PDF It called for mobilization, communications, and legal teams to coordinate post-election battles, explicitly noting that the lessons of Florida 2000 demonstrated these were “political battles”.PDF
The AFL-CIO’s roadmap included:
- Pre-emptive framing of Trump’s strategy, warning members to expect claims of fraud and early victory declarations, and instructing them to prepare narrative countermeasures. PDF
- Strategic considerations tied to mail-in ballots, safe harbor deadlines, and state legislatures’ role in certifying electors. PDF
- Contingencies envisioning Congress, the courts, and even the military as arenas where the outcome could be contested, with unions mobilized to “defend our victory”. PDF
The rhetoric was unmistakable: “After the election we will mobilize—to defend our victory, to advance the labor movement’s agenda” PDF This was not the language of neutral civic participation, but of a coordinated campaign to shape the post-election environment, regardless of immediate outcomes.
The historical precedent for this kind of sponsorship is extensive. During the civil rights era, unions like the United Auto Workers (UAW) provided material support to Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, offering money, printing presses, and venues that allowed grassroots protest to expand nationally. In Eastern Europe, Western-funded NGOs worked hand in glove with local activists, giving them media infrastructure and legal cover while presenting uprisings as entirely indigenous. In both cases, the pattern was identical: affinity groups supplied the people, but institutional sponsors supplied the tools and shield of legitimacy.
The AFL-CIO’s Labor 2020 guide demonstrates how this model persists today. By presenting its plan as “defending democracy” while explicitly preparing to manage narrative, legal, and mobilization battles, the union acted as both a shield and amplifier for decentralized agitation. Participants were volunteers driven by ideology and grievance; the AFL-CIO supplied the scaffolding that transformed their actions into a coordinated campaign.
In short, unions and their allied foundations are not incidental players. They are the operational backbone, embedding grassroots actions within a broader strategy and ensuring the results align with political objectives. Without that infrastructure, affinity cells would remain isolated. With it, they become engines of national disruption.
The role of foundations is no less critical. Open Societies and related philanthropic arms directed multimillion-dollar infusions into election-related activities in 2020, with earmarked grants for mobilization, media operations, and narrative control. These funds did not pay individuals to attend protests; rather, they built the scaffolding—namely, websites, digital communications systems, legal defense pipelines, and supply chains—that enabled ideological volunteers and affinity cells to appear seamless and coordinated. This is the hidden function of philanthropic capital: it creates the appearance of spontaneous mass action while ensuring the logistics are too polished to be improvised.
Narrative sponsorship provides the final layer of cover. Leaders like Richard Trumka, the late head of the AFL-CIO, routinely framed union-backed mobilizations as expressions of social justice, recasting political agitation as legitimate civic participation. This rhetorical reframing is critical: it cloaks destabilizing operations in the moral language of democracy and solidarity while deflecting scrutiny from the underlying coordination. To the public, it looks like a righteous protest; in reality, it is the deliberate activation of networks cultivated for years under the protection of institutional sponsors.
These sponsorships do not purchase participation. The people on the ground are volunteers, motivated by ideology, grievance, and identity. However, the sponsors weaponize those convictions by providing structure, including encrypted communication systems, legal defense funds, logistical pipelines, and media amplification. If ideology is the fire, institutional sponsorship is the accelerant. Together they transform localized anger into national—and often international—campaigns capable of bending political outcomes.
The funding landscape of media infrastructure is an equally important part of this system. Organizations like Media Matters for America (MMFA) function as the narrative engine that reinforces the legitimacy of mobilization campaigns and discredits opposing narratives. The leaked New Mexico Attorney General’s filing from November 2023 revealed the scale of backing behind MMFA, showing that its financial base is not just Soros-linked, but far broader. The real heavyweights are Herb and Marion Sandler (via the Sandler Foundation), the Gill Foundation, the Buffett Foundation, and James Simons’ Renaissance Technologies philanthropy. These donors provide recurring, institutionalized support that allows MMFA to operate continuously, not episodically.
Soros, through the Open Society Foundations, is frequently portrayed as the central figure—yet his contribution to MMFA was relatively modest, a $1 million grant in 2010. The narrative that “Soros runs Media Matters” persists because his name is synonymous with activist pipelines, while Simon, Gill, and Buffett are not household names. In practice, Soros acts as the lightning rod: the convenient villain who absorbs public attention and outrage. Meanwhile, the larger consortium of billionaire donors continues to sustain the infrastructure quietly, without the burden of public notoriety.
This model of pooled, institutional support is not isolated to unions, foundations, or media groups. At the highest tier sits SOLIDAIRE Network, whose FY24 Form 990 disclosed $39.5 million in revenue and $28.6 million distributed in grants to domestic and international partners. Unlike single-issue donors, SOLIDAIRE operates as a hub fund, channeling billionaire contributions into an ecosystem of aligned movements—racial justice coalitions, immigrant networks, climate campaigns, and global solidarity operations. Its function is to ensure the continuity of activism by distributing capital across multiple fronts simultaneously.
SOLIDAIRE’s grant-making exemplifies how pooled donor networks operate “above Soros.” Where Open Societies or Media Matters may target specific campaigns, SOLIDAIRE sustains the entire field of activism. Its grants cover everything from movement-building in U.S. cities to “democracy resilience” abroad. This structure allows billionaire backers to obscure accountability: Soros absorbs the spotlight while the collective sustains a global machine. The real head of the snake is not one man, but a consortium requiring no less than $3.8 billion annually to fund operations across continents, supplemented by corporate contributions, foundation pools, and government-aligned programs.
The net effect is clear. Unions supply legitimacy. Foundations like OSF and Ford supply infrastructure. Media outlets like MMFA supply narrative control. And pooled donor hubs like SOLIDAIRE supply the global operating budget. Together they create a multi-layered scaffolding where ideological volunteers appear spontaneous. Still, every step of their mobilization is supported by resources too vast and too coordinated to be anything but deliberate.
Media Matters, Narrative Control, and the Campaigning on Chaos Model
Media Matters for America (MMFA) is often described as a “watchdog” organization, but the reality is far more complex. It does not merely monitor conservative media; it shapes political narratives, steers public discourse, and increasingly operates as a pipeline to embed operatives into political campaigns. This is where narrative control evolves into political power: the same institutions that frame unrest as justice now place candidates on the ballot who embody that framing.
Campaigning on Chaos – The Troubling Ties of Kat Abughazaleh
A Candidate on the Front Lines of Unrest
Kat Abughazaleh, Democratic candidate for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District, is not running a conventional campaign. Rather than focusing solely on town halls, canvassing, and traditional policy platforms, she has intertwined her candidacy with civil unrest itself. Footage from the Broadview ICE facility protests shows Abughazaleh not only attending but actively promoting confrontations that escalated into violence. This is not an isolated appearance; it is increasingly presented as part of her public identity, a way of branding her candidacy through disruption.
Curtis Evans and the Beach Street Riots
Demonstrations at the Broadview ICE detention facility, located at 1930 Beach Street. These protests have repeatedly escalated into confrontations marked by tear gas, pepper spray, and arrests. While mainstream media typically frames them as demonstrations that “escalated,” some outlets and participants themselves acknowledge that the scenes often took on riot-like qualities.
Curtis Evans, identified in reports as an Evanston resident and U.S. Marine Corps veteran, is explicitly named as a participant in these protests. He was photographed carrying a U.S. flag through the clouds of tear gas, cementing his visible role in the clashes. His publicly viewable Facebook profile describes him as an “amateur naturalist” based in Evanston, though social media privacy restrictions limited deeper verification of posts. On social media, he is admitting an organizational role.
Abughazaleh’s own campaign materials reinforce this connection. On Instagram, she shared photos of her “favorite signs from our campaign protest” at 1930 Beach Street, framing the gathering explicitly as a campaign action. In another post, she lashed out at right-wing critics who called for her arrest over her ICE stance, tying their attacks directly to the Broadview demonstrations. These posts make it clear that her campaign was not merely attending protests passively, but actively promoting them as part of its political identity. In fact, she refers to him as her campaign’s super volunteers. These are novel and troubling times that a congressional campaign would elevate a figure with a record of violent mobilization to such a position, signaling a profound shift: the mainstreaming of riot organizers into the apparatus of electoral politics.
Media Matters Connection
Abughazaleh’s own ties to Media Matters for America are well-documented through her social media activity. MMFA is not simply a media nonprofit; institutional donors heavily back it and has long been accused of functioning as a partisan enforcement arm. The leaked New Mexico Attorney General filing (Nov. 2023) exposed that its true financial base is not Soros alone, but a syndicate: the Gill Foundation, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, Herb and Marion Sandler’s foundation, and James Simon’s philanthropic arms. Soros’ 2010 $1 million contribution made him the public villain, but the larger donor consortium quietly sustains MMFA at scale. This donor-backed infrastructure has a track record of seeding operatives into campaigns, ensuring that the same narrative control exercised through media channels also finds expression in congressional races. Abughazaleh appears to be the latest iteration of this strategy.
Abughazaleh’s ties to Media Matters for America (MMFA) are not speculative—they are explicitly documented. Her Instagram bio openly states “formerly @mediamatters”, and multiple posts reference her prior work at the organization. Her LinkedIn profile lists her as a former researcher at Media Matters, reflecting a transition from Washington, D.C. to Chicago. In addition, both Wikipedia entries and Media Matters’ own website credit her with articles and contributions, confirming her professional role within the group. Profiles describing her career trajectory consistently note that she “cut her teeth” at MMFA, where she monitored right-wing media and built the partisan credentials that now inform her congressional campaign. They planned this even before she moved to the district she is running in.
This establishes a direct and verifiable link between a donor-backed narrative-control hub and her current political candidacy.
Campaigning on Chaos — How Media Framing and Campaign Branding Converged Around the Broadview ICE Clash
What Newsweek’s framing leaves out.
Coverage has cast Kat Abughazaleh—now a Democratic candidate for Illinois’ 9th District—as a victim of overreach during a “peaceful protest” outside the Broadview ICE facility, emphasizing video where an armed, masked federal agent slams her to the ground. Major outlets documented the clash and the use of chemical agents as agents forced vehicles through the crowd; Abughazaleh was shoved or thrown down at least twice, and several people were arrested. WAPO
That portrayal centers on her quote—“This is what it looks like when ICE violates our First Amendment rights”—and presents the incident as an unprovoked assault on free speech. What this framing doesn’t meaningfully interrogate is the campaign’s role in promoting, amplifying, and integrating these confrontations into its brand in the days and weeks leading up to the forceful dispersal.
Documented campaign amplification vs. “spontaneous” protest.
Abughazaleh did not only attend demonstrations at Broadview; she promoted her presence and livestreamed from the scene days before and the day of the confrontation—explicitly tying the action to her candidacy. On Sept. 12, she posted on Bluesky: “I’m live on Instagram at the ICE protest at the Broadview facility,” linking her live stream. Her own campaign video the week prior celebrated returning to Broadview—“We sang, danced, and knit in the roadway of the detention center, preventing multiple ICE vehicles from entering the facility.” That is not incidental attendance; it is deliberate use of the protest as campaign content and identity. BLUESKY INSTAGRAM
Escalation and on-the-ground facts.
Independent reporting confirms the protest blocked or attempted to block ICE vehicles, that chemical agents (including pepper balls/tear gas) were deployed, and that arrests were made. The confrontation was not a single moment but part of a rolling series of actions at Broadview across September tied to stepped-up enforcement under “Operation Midway Blitz.” Local outlets documented earlier sit-ins at the same site in which demonstrators “stopped vehicles trying to come in and out of the facility.” Taken together, the public record shows a sustained campaign—not a one-off “peaceful protest gone wrong.” ARTICLE
From watchdog to pipeline: the Media Matters link.
Abughazaleh’s rise came through Media Matters for America (MMFA), where she gained national visibility before announcing her congressional run in March 2025. That résumé bullet matters for context: MMFA is not just a media “watchdog”—it functions as a narrative-shaping hub funded by major institutional donors, a structure that can (and often does) seed operatives directly into electoral politics. Abughazaleh is the canonical example of the pipeline: media operative → candidate who leverages confrontational street politics as brand. The Nation
What’s asserted vs. what’s provable.
It is accurate to say she promoted Broadview actions, folded them into her campaign identity, and was physically taken down during a forceful federal response. It is also precise that demonstrators obstructed vehicles and that the clash resulted in arrests and chemical agents being deployed. What is not established in the public record is the claim that she “organized a riot.” Suppose you want to argue coordination that crosses a legal line. In that case, the evidentiary threshold is higher: you would need documentary proof (internal comms, expenditure records, directive language) showing campaign resources were used to plan or materially support unlawful activity. Without that, the fair, evidence-based framing is that her campaign embraced, amplified, and benefited from confrontational protest actions—and then adopted the victim narrative when federal force escalated. AP News
Legal and ethical stakes (what actually triggers scrutiny).
Federal law does not allow campaign funds to be used for illegal activity. If a campaign pays for logistics that facilitate unlawful obstruction or assault, that could implicate FEC rules and criminal statutes. The right investigative asks are straightforward;
Did the campaign:
(a) spend money on transportation, equipment, staging, or security for actions that were planned to obstruct;
(b) coordinate with outside groups to time blockades around official ICE movements; or
(c) Reimburse staff/volunteers for activities that resulted in arrests tied to obstruction?
If the answer to any of those is yes, regulators have jurisdiction. But again, that requires verifiable documentation—not inference.
How the press normalized the tactic.
By emphasizing the “candidate thrown to the ground” frame and quoting rights-language without interrogating her own campaign’s promotion and celebratory documentation of vehicle obstruction at the same site, national coverage taught readers to see a martyr rather than a strategist of escalatory optics. That is media bias by omission—and it’s precisely how “campaigning on chaos” becomes viable. WAPO
Bottom line.
Abughazaleh’s campaign incorporated Broadview into its brand, promoted presence and live coverage, and celebrated tactics (blocking vehicles) that made a violent confrontation more likely. National outlets then framed the aftermath almost exclusively through the lens of state overreach. The facts support a more complete picture: a candidate who leveraged escalating protest as political identity, then pivoted to victimhood once the inevitable clash occurred.
The Weaponization of Chaos into Political Currency
The elevation of figures with records of violent mobilization into congressional campaigns is not an anomaly—it is a dangerous precedent. It signals a profound shift toward the normalization of riot organizers within the machinery of electoral politics. Equally troubling is the role of the press, which tempers violent and unlawful activity by reframing it as advocacy and by recasting agitators as victims. This laundering of reputations through sympathetic coverage does more than shape perception; it shields those who deliberately court chaos as a political tool. By softening the edges of disruption, the media lowers the threshold of public scrutiny and makes it easier for operatives to transition from orchestrating confrontation in the streets to wielding influence in the halls of Congress.
The legal frameworks already in place make such conduct more than ethically questionable. Federal campaign finance law under 52 U.S.C. § 30114 prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal benefit or illegal activity. Suppose campaign dollars are used to support demonstrations that obstruct federal officers or disrupt government operations. In that case, the conduct also implicates 18 U.S.C. § 371, which criminalizes conspiracies to defraud or impede the lawful functions of the United States. Where campaigns coordinate with others to physically block enforcement, they tread into 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (seditious conspiracy), which covers agreements to oppose by force the authority of the government or to obstruct the execution of its laws. Suppose campaign staff knowingly promote or provide resources for unlawful activity, particularly across state lines. In that case, liability extends further under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A, which prohibits providing material support for the commission of federal crimes. And when candidates or their campaigns frame violent resistance as legitimate opposition to government authority, they risk falling under 18 U.S.C. § 2385, which criminalizes advocating the overthrow of government by force.
The Broadview confrontation illustrates the gravity of this trajectory. Demonstrators did not limit themselves to chants or symbolic presence. They physically obstructed ICE vehicles, clashed with federal agents, endured and responded to crowd-control measures, and ultimately, the escalation culminated in a fatal shooting. When a congressional campaign not only participates in such actions but actively promotes them, amplifies them through social media, and brands itself around them, it is not engaging in civic dissent. It is leveraging insurrectionary behavior as electoral currency. This is not a contest of ideas through ballots; it is an alignment with the overthrow of lawful authority through force and disruption.
The fatality during that campaign, an MMFA-backed riot, indicates the stakes. It proves that the rhetoric of “resistance” has tangible and deadly consequences, shifting the nature of the conflict from political disagreement into insurrectionary activity. Campaigns that embrace this model are not just testing the limits of permissible protest; they are deliberately eroding the constitutional order by normalizing violence as a pathway to power.
Stopping this trend requires more than routine election monitoring. It demands that enforcement bodies such as the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice treat the use of unrest as a campaign asset with the same seriousness as financial corruption. State election boards must scrutinize expenditures tied to demonstrations, especially when they involve transportation, staging, or communications systems linked to unlawful activity. Watchdog organizations must investigate not only the candidates but the donor networks and media pipelines that sanitize their image and shield them from accountability. And perhaps most importantly, the culture must reject the manufactured martyrdom that allows agitators to be reborn as advocates.
The truth is stark: when political movements cloak themselves in the language of justice while obstructing lawful executive authority, and when campaigns transform those confrontations into political branding, the republic itself is put at risk. If this normalization continues, power will no longer be secured through votes, but through managed chaos and blood on the pavement.
The Legal Questions
Campaign Funds for Civil Unrest?
This convergence raises immediate legal concerns. Federal campaign finance law explicitly prohibits campaign funds from being used for illegal activities. If Abughazaleh’s campaign is directly or indirectly supporting protest actions that devolve into riots—whether by staff promoting, coordinating, or instigating them—this could constitute a misuse of funds. At minimum, it invites investigation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). At worst, it opens the door for Department of Justice intervention and potential disqualification from office.
A Candidate Who Profits from Chaos
The ethical implications are stark. A congressional candidate is using unrest not as a backdrop but as a campaign asset. Abughazaleh is not simply “marching with activists”; she is amplifying confrontations and marketing that amplification as proof of her authenticity. What should be treated as mob disruption is being rebranded as grassroots democracy, setting a precedent where political violence becomes an acceptable campaign platform.
Why This Matters
Congress is designed to be a chamber of lawmaking, not a staging ground for those who normalize lawbreaking. By embedding unrest into her campaign identity and employing a manager tied to riots, Abughazaleh’s candidacy tests whether chaos itself can be politicized. If successful, the precedent is devastating disruption becomes not a warning sign but a path to electoral power.
The Call for Accountability
The FEC, the Illinois election board, and independent watchdogs must investigate whether Abughazaleh’s campaign funds are being used to facilitate unlawful protest actions. Voters deserve clarity before being asked to entrust congressional authority to a candidate whose campaign appears to treat civil unrest as a viable strategy.
To see how today’s riots and unrest are not spontaneous outbursts, but the product of organized networks, donor syndicates, and campaigns that have learned to weaponize chaos as a political strategy, read this :
The Fourth Unelected Branch: Unmasking Chaos| PART I Beyond Linear Explanations
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
