George Soros's financial influence in local district attorney elections has become a point of contention, especially among conservative and law enforcement groups who argue that his backing has led to a surge of progressive district attorneys across the United States. Soros, through various philanthropic initiatives, has supported candidates advocating for criminal justice reform, favoring policies that aim to address systemic inequalities within the legal system. His support typically targets district attorneys who emphasize alternatives to incarceration, seek to eliminate cash bail for non-violent offenses, and push for reducing disparities in sentencing.
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) contends that Soros-backed district attorneys often adopt policies that are lenient on crime. This critique generally includes the belief that these DAs deprioritize certain types of prosecutions, such as those for lower-level crimes or, in some cases, drug-related offenses. Critics argue that by reframing prosecutorial priorities in this way, these district attorneys may create environments where crime is more likely to thrive, leading to potential upticks in recidivism and a diminished sense of public safety.
A particularly sharp concern among groups like the FGA is that district attorneys supported by Soros might not prioritize the prosecution of election-related crimes, which they argue could jeopardize election integrity. In their view, underprosecuting election offenses—such as voter fraud, tampering, or other illegal activities that could sway election outcomes—has the potential to undermine the public’s trust in democratic institutions. The FGA fears that these DAs' focus on certain reforms over stringent enforcement could open vulnerabilities in the electoral process, leading to an erosion of public faith in fair elections.
In response, the FGA has proposed that state attorneys general (AGs) should be granted concurrent authority to prosecute election-related crimes. Currently, most election crimes are typically handled by local authorities, including district attorneys. However, with concurrent authority, state AGs would be empowered to take action in cases they believe local DAs might neglect. The FGA argues that allowing state-level oversight could counterbalance perceived leniency, ensuring that election laws are enforced rigorously regardless of the prosecutorial philosophy of any single district attorney.
This debate taps into broader concerns about the role and power of district attorneys in shaping local criminal justice policy. Progressive prosecutors, supported in part by Soros, argue that reforms are necessary to correct historical injustices and reduce mass incarceration, which they see as unsustainable and discriminatory. On the other hand, opponents argue that these reforms, though well-intentioned, have unintended consequences, particularly when they intersect with issues as sensitive as election integrity.
The influence of George Soros on district attorney elections and, by extension, on criminal justice reform and election integrity, has become a polarizing issue. Critics argue that Soros’s financial contributions to progressive DA candidates significantly shape policy outcomes in various jurisdictions, leading to a controversial transformation of the criminal justice landscape and potential vulnerabilities in electoral law enforcement.
Soros, with substantial contributions from his son, Alex, has reportedly invested over $117 million since 2016 to support progressive candidates in local DA races. Most of this funding is channeled through PACs and nonprofit organizations designed to support candidates who align with his vision for a reformed justice system. Often, activist attorney Whitney Tymas serves as a key intermediary in managing these efforts, further centralizing the strategy. By focusing on Democratic primaries—typically in urban centers where general election outcomes heavily favor Democrats—Soros’s strategy has been to shift local criminal justice policy leftward by supporting candidates willing to implement reformative measures such as ending cash bail, reducing prison populations, and prioritizing alternatives to prosecution for low-level offenses.
This approach, while praised by advocates of criminal justice reform, is viewed by opponents as exacerbating crime rates in jurisdictions where Soros-backed DAs hold office. Critics highlight increases in violent crimes, including homicides, in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, arguing that such spikes correlate with progressive prosecutorial policies that may deprioritize prosecution for certain crimes and seek rehabilitative over punitive measures. Proponents of these reforms argue that the data are complex, with crime increases being multifactorial and not exclusively attributable to DA policies. However, the perception that leniency contributes to crime has garnered support among some policymakers and segments of the public.
In addition to concerns about crime, Soros-backed DAs have faced criticism over their approach to election law enforcement. Organizations like the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) argue that the prosecutorial discretion exercised by these DAs includes an unwillingness to pursue cases of election fraud or related crimes. The FGA and similar groups claim that in areas where Soros-supported prosecutors hold office, election crimes may not be adequately prosecuted, thereby opening the door to potential fraud or misconduct that could erode public trust in election processes. The concern extends to roughly 15 million Americans who live in regions where Soros-backed district attorneys are solely responsible for enforcing election law.
In response to these concerns, the FGA has advocated for state-level attorneys general to be granted concurrent authority over election-related prosecutions. Currently, most election crime cases are handled locally, with district attorneys possessing significant discretion over whether and how to pursue these offenses. Granting state attorneys general concurrent jurisdiction would provide a higher level of oversight, according to proponents of the measure, creating a check on local DAs who might choose to deprioritize or dismiss election-related cases due to their prosecutorial philosophies.
Soros-backed reforms undeniably carry implications for criminal justice and election law enforcement, creating a stark divide between advocates of systemic reform and those concerned about its broader impacts. The discourse around Soros’s influence in DA races touches on fundamental debates about public safety, prosecutorial independence, and the balance of power in safeguarding democratic processes. For critics, the solution lies in recalibrating oversight, especially in sensitive areas like election integrity, to counterbalance what they perceive as an outsized and potentially risky influence. Advocates, however, contend that these prosecutorial shifts are necessary to advance fairness and equity, arguing that traditional practices have often failed marginalized communities.
Critics argue that George Soros's financial support of district attorneys in key jurisdictions presents a pressing threat to election integrity, with a particularly sharp focus on the selective prosecution, or lack thereof, of election-related crimes. Through targeted spending—estimated at $40 million to date—Soros has helped elect DAs with reformist agendas in cities that collectively encompass over 70 million Americans. His investments, often funneled through political action committees and nonprofits, have centered on candidates committed to reducing prosecution rates for certain nonviolent offenses, a shift that detractors claim has contributed to local crime surges. With similar prosecutorial discretion in election crime cases, critics worry that Soros-backed DAs may similarly deprioritize these offenses, resulting in insufficient enforcement and a lack of accountability.
Proponents of these concerns, including the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), argue that this prosecutorial model could theoretically be expanded to jurisdictions covering up to 145 million Americans across 22 states, amplifying the potential risk to election security. They emphasize that Soros’s investment in district attorney races has been comparatively inexpensive, costing less than a single Senate campaign and yet managing to influence the criminal justice approaches of DA offices nationwide. This discrepancy in campaign costs underscores the strategic efficacy of his investments in reshaping legal policy at the local level, particularly in Democratic strongholds, where primary victories frequently lead to general election success.
In regions where Soros-backed DAs already hold sway, the FGA claims that the prosecutorial discretion exercised by these officials could render recent election law changes ineffective. Since 2020, nearly half of U.S. states have implemented new election laws aimed at bolstering security measures, such as stricter voter identification requirements, adjustments to absentee ballot handling, and improvements in voter registration processes. These measures, aimed at reinforcing the procedural integrity of elections, would theoretically be undercut if local prosecutors opted not to pursue violations, thereby allowing election-related misconduct to go unchecked.
In response to this perceived threat, the FGA proposes that states should consider empowering attorneys general with concurrent jurisdiction over election crimes. Currently, district attorneys hold exclusive prosecutorial authority over these offenses in most jurisdictions, making them the final arbiters of which cases are pursued. By granting state attorneys general concurrent authority, this proposal would introduce a secondary layer of oversight, mitigating the risk of ideologically motivated inaction at the local level. Proponents argue that this would not only serve as a safeguard against prosecutorial inaction but also bolster DA offices that may lack the expertise or resources to address election-related violations adequately.
Supporters of this proposal view it as a necessary balance, allowing local prosecutors to maintain discretion over day-to-day criminal matters while entrusting state-level officials with oversight in cases where public trust in electoral integrity is at stake. This concurrent authority, they argue, could prevent election-related violations from being sidelined by ideological agendas, ensuring that election laws enacted to secure fair voting processes are enforced consistently. By dispersing prosecutorial power in this way, advocates believe that public confidence in the sanctity of elections can be preserved, even as broader debates about the role of district attorneys in criminal justice continue to unfold.
To address the concerns surrounding Soros-backed district attorneys’ potential to deprioritize or neglect election crime prosecution, advocates propose a notable shift in prosecutorial power: granting state attorneys general concurrent authority over election crimes. This change, they argue, would create a critical layer of accountability, preventing local DAs from selectively applying discretion in cases that could compromise election integrity. Currently, in many jurisdictions, local district attorneys hold exclusive prosecutorial discretion over election-related violations, making their decisions pivotal in cases that bear directly on the enforcement of election laws.
The proposed model of concurrent jurisdiction is intended not only to counteract perceived ideological biases but also to bolster prosecutorial support where resources are limited. Unlike violent crimes or traditional criminal cases, election crimes often require specialized investigative techniques and a nuanced understanding of election law, making them particularly challenging for DA offices with constrained resources or minimal experience in handling such cases. By introducing concurrent authority, states would empower attorneys general, with their often larger budgets and specialized staff, to provide additional oversight and support for prosecuting these offenses. Advocates of this proposal believe it could prevent gaps in enforcement that might arise due to inexperience or under-resourcing at the local level.
Legal clarity, however, is paramount for the success of this concurrent jurisdiction framework. Recent cases in Texas and Florida have underscored the need for well-defined statutory language when extending prosecutorial authority over election crimes. In both states, ambiguities in the law led to judicial dismissals of election-related prosecutions initiated by the attorneys general. These cases serve as cautionary examples, illustrating how imprecise language can lead to jurisdictional disputes, legal challenges, and ultimately, delays in prosecution. To prevent such setbacks, proponents emphasize the importance of drafting clear and specific legislative language that unequivocally grants attorneys general concurrent prosecutorial power alongside district attorneys.
This approach is ultimately presented as a means of restoring public trust in elections, especially in an era of heightened concern over election security and integrity. Proponents argue that when the public perceives election crimes to be prosecuted with rigor and impartiality, confidence in the electoral system is reinforced. Critics of Soros-backed DAs claim that these officials’ reform-oriented approaches may inadvertently erode this trust by fostering leniency in areas where the electorate demands stringent oversight. By distributing prosecutorial power across local and state levels, the concurrent authority model aims to create a more robust framework that both upholds election laws and mitigates potential for prosecutorial neglect.
In its essence, the proposal represents a balancing act between preserving the independence of local prosecutors and ensuring that election law enforcement is uniformly applied and adequately resourced. While advocates acknowledge that prosecutorial discretion remains a vital part of the judicial process, they argue that in cases involving election law, where public faith in democracy itself is at stake, the state must be empowered to act decisively. In their view, concurrent jurisdiction represents a pragmatic solution that could address the challenges posed by localized discretion, safeguarding the electoral process from potential gaps in enforcement.
Briefing Doc: George Soros and the Funding of Progressive District Attorneys
Main Theme: The provided sources allege that billionaire philanthropist George Soros is using his wealth to fund the election of progressive district attorneys (DAs) across the United States with the goal of implementing criminal justice reforms that are too radical to pass through traditional legislative means. This strategy is raising concerns about rising crime rates and potential threats to election integrity.
Key Points:
Funding Mechanism: Soros primarily channels funds through a complex network of political action committees (PACs) and non-profits, many of which are managed by criminal justice reform activist Whitney Tymas. This approach allows him to exert significant influence on local races while circumventing campaign finance restrictions.
"George Soros has quietly orchestrated the dark money political equivalent of ‘shock and awe,’ on local attorney races through the country, shattering records, flipping races and essentially making a mockery of campaign finance laws," - Paul Anderson, Integrity Project at the National Legal and Policy Center.
Progressive Agenda: Soros-backed DAs advocate for policies such as ending cash bail, reducing charges for certain crimes, and finding alternatives to incarceration. Critics argue that these policies are soft on crime and contribute to rising crime rates in the jurisdictions where they are implemented.
"The goal of the myriad PACs is focused on electing progressives to end tough policing and mass incarceration," - Whitney Tymas.
Impact on Crime: Sources cite FBI crime statistics and anecdotal evidence to argue that cities with Soros-backed DAs are experiencing higher crime rates, particularly violent crime.
"Everywhere Soros-backed prosecutors go, crime follows,” - Senator Tom Cotton.
Threat to Election Integrity: The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) raises concerns that Soros-backed DAs may choose not to prosecute election crimes, mirroring their alleged leniency towards other types of crime. FGA states that "Soros-backed district attorneys now represent 70 million Americans—and for 15 million people, they are the only prosecutors authorized to charge election crimes." They recommend granting state attorneys general concurrent authority to prosecute election crimes to address this potential issue.
"Just as these Soros-backed district attorneys have declined to prosecute or went lenient on crimes against people and property, they could just as easily turn a blind eye to violations of election law," - FGA paper "Soros District Attorneys Make Our Cities Unsafe."
Political Backlash: The sources highlight the increasing political pushback against Soros-backed DAs, with some facing removal from office or losing re-election bids due to public dissatisfaction with their policies.
"When the prosecutors follow the Soros groups’ directions, they are rewarded. When they choose the law over the Soros machine’s orders, they are removed.” - Media Research Center report.
Important Quotes:
"George Soros and his son, Alex, have spent at least $117 million since 2016 to reshape America’s justice system. They’ve been successful: three in 10 Americans now live under a Soros prosecutor." - Daily Wire
“Being a Soros prosecutor means extensive, free access to expert political consulting firms, complete with detailed polling and field-tested messaging strategies,” - Media Research Center
"These legal arsonists have abandoned their duty to public safety by pursuing leniency even for the most heinous crime, and they often flat-out refuse to charge criminals for shoplifting, vagrancy and entire categories of misdemeanors.” - Senator Tom Cotton
“The only good Soros prosecutor is a defeated Soros prosecutor,” - Senator Tom Cotton
Overall Impression: The sources present a highly critical perspective on George Soros and his funding of progressive DAs, portraying him as a powerful figure manipulating the justice system to advance a radical agenda. The sources raise serious concerns about the potential consequences of his influence, particularly regarding rising crime rates and threats to election integrity.
Note: It is important to acknowledge that these sources represent a particular viewpoint and may not present a balanced view of Soros's activities and their impact. Further research from a variety of sources is recommended to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this complex issue.Timeline of Events
Pre-2016:
George Soros and his Open Society Foundations begin supporting criminal justice reform initiatives.
2016:
Soros begins heavily funding progressive candidates in District Attorney races across the US, marking the beginning of his focused effort to reshape the criminal justice system.
Kim Foxx is elected as Cook County State's Attorney with significant financial support from Soros.
2019:
Controversy arises when Foxx's office drops all charges against actor Jussie Smollett in a staged hate crime case, drawing criticism about the influence of Soros's funding.
2020:
Soros funnels over $2.5 million to support George Gascon in his successful bid for Los Angeles District Attorney.
Chesa Boudin is elected District Attorney of San Francisco with Soros' backing.
A wave of looting and violent crimes occur in Los Angeles, prompting criticism of Gascon's criminal justice reform policies.
FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows a 30% increase in homicides nationwide, the biggest spike in 60 years.
San Francisco experiences a surge in gun violence and fentanyl overdoses, leading Mayor London Breed to declare a state of emergency.
2021:
Soros' Open Society Policy Center donates $500,000 to Equity PAC in Texas, opposing a proposition to increase police funding in Austin.
Soros-backed Jose Garza takes office as Travis County DA in Austin.
Numerous attorneys resign from the San Francisco District Attorney's office under Boudin's leadership, citing concerns about his policies.
Publication of articles by the New York Post and the Media Research Center exposing Soros' funding of progressive DAs and its alleged impact on crime rates.
2022:
Multiple Soros-backed DAs face criticism and political backlash for their policies, with some losing their positions.
Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) publishes papers outlining Soros' influence on DA races and raising concerns about potential impacts on election integrity.
FGA calls for legislative action to grant state Attorneys General concurrent authority to prosecute election crimes, aiming to limit the influence of Soros-backed DAs.
2024:
Media Research Center publishes an investigative report claiming to provide evidence of Soros’ continued control over elected DAs through Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), outlining pledges signed by prosecutors and mandatory meetings where they received instructions.
Cast of Characters
George Soros: Hungarian-American billionaire philanthropist and financier. Major funder of progressive causes, including criminal justice reform initiatives. He is the central figure in the allegations of influencing DA races and policies.
Alex Soros: Son of George Soros, involved in Open Society Foundations and progressive activism.
Whitney Tymas: Attorney and criminal justice reform activist, serves as treasurer for multiple political action committees supported by Soros. Plays a key role in directing funding toward progressive DA candidates.
Kim Foxx: Cook County State’s Attorney in Illinois, elected in 2016 and re-elected in 2020 with Soros' backing. Faced controversy over her handling of the Jussie Smollett case and criticized for rising crime rates in Chicago.
George Gascon: Los Angeles District Attorney, elected in 2020 with significant financial support from Soros. Faced criticism for his lenient policies and their alleged contribution to an increase in crime.
Chesa Boudin: Former San Francisco District Attorney, elected in 2020 with Soros' support. Advocated for ending mass incarceration and cash bail. Faced backlash over rising crime and resigned amidst criticism.
Larry Krasner: Philadelphia District Attorney, elected with support from Soros. Witnessed record homicide rates in the city, drawing criticism about his policies.
Alvin Bragg: Manhattan District Attorney, elected in 2021 with a $1 million donation from Soros through the Color of Change PAC. Has implemented progressive policies, including declining to seek prison sentences in certain criminal cases.
Buta Biberaj: Former Loudoun County, Virginia attorney, elected with significant spending from Soros. Lost her re-election bid in 2024 after controversies, including attempting to jail a father who criticized the school district for covering up his daughter's rape.
Ron DeSantis: Governor of Florida, removed Andrew Warren, a Soros-backed state attorney, from office for refusing to enforce certain laws. Represents the political pushback against Soros-funded DAs.
Andrew Warren: Former state attorney in Florida, removed from office by Governor DeSantis for pledging not to enforce certain laws, highlighting the conflict between Soros-backed prosecutors and conservative lawmakers.
Mark Gonzalez: Nueces County, Texas DA, elected with support from Soros. Faced criticism for his policies and a judge found evidence of "gross incompetence" in his handling of cases.
Miriam Krinsky: Director of Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), a Soros-funded organization that allegedly provides guidance and instructions to elected DAs.
Theron Pride: Former Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Biden administration, attended FJP meetings and later went on to lead a Soros-funded group. This connection raises concerns about potential coordination between the Soros network and the federal government.
Kristen Mahoney: Former leader of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, met with FJP and oversaw the distribution of federal grants, some of which went to Soros-backed DAs, raising concerns about potential favoritism.
Madeline Malisa & Michael Greibrok: Senior fellows at the Foundation for Government Accountability, authors of papers criticizing Soros' influence on DA races and advocating for granting Attorneys General more power to prosecute election crimes. Represent the opposition to Soros' efforts from a conservative think tank.
The Threat to Election Integrity: How Soros-Backed District Attorneys and Progressive Agendas Could Undermine U.S. Democracy