Dem candidate Scott Wallace funded population control groups fighting “irresponsible breeding” (#PA01)
Wallace also previously took a hit for his foundation’s funding of anti-Israel groups.
The campaign of Scott Wallace, the Democratic candidate in PA-01, took a big hit in May 2018, just after he won the primary, when it was revealed that the Wallace Foundation, which he headed, funded the worst-of-the-worst anti-Israel pro-BDS groups.
In early July, the Cook Political Report moved the race from toss-up to leans Republican. From the Cook ratings change:
…. Wallace’s general election efforts have gotten off to a very rocky start. The day after the primary, the Forward published a piece documenting that the Wallace Global Fund gave $300,000 to groups supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. Wallace says he didn’t control the expenditures and disavows BDS, but it took a month for one local Jewish Democratic group to reinstate its support for him.
On June 21, the Republican Jewish coalition began running a brutal ad attacking Wallace for owning “mansions in Maryland and South Africa” and “donating $300,000 to anti-Semitic organizations that promote boycotting Israel.” The final tag line? “At home in South Africa, too radical for us.” The ad forced Wallace to respond with an almost unheard-of June damage-control ad noting that he “lives in the house he was born in” and is a “strong supporter of Israel.”
…. But even in waves, candidates still matter, and there’s a wide path for Fitzpatrick and Republicans to disqualify Wallace as out of touch. The race moves from Toss Up to the Lean Republican column.
There seems to be little enthusiasm for Wallace’s campaign.
Wallace, a wealthy philanthropist, is self-funding his campaign:
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick outearned his Democratic challenger in contributions this reporting period, but another $2.3 million in loans to his own campaign helped Scott Wallace outraise the incumbent.
Numbers from the Federal Election Commission posted this week show Wallace entered July with $1.7 million on hand, bolstered by a $1.23 million loan to himself on June 29, the day before reporting closed. The boost helped Wallace squeak past Republican Fitzpatrick’s $1.65 million on-hand total at the reporting deadline.
Wallace’s deep pockets and willingness to self-fund made the longtime philanthropist an easy pick for the Bucks County Democratic Committee, which eagerly endorsed his bid to unseat Fitzpatrick after he announced early this year. The candidates are vying for the seat in Pennsylvania’s new 1st Congressional District, which is currently the 8th District seat held by Fitzpatrick.
In addition to the late-June loan, Wallace fed his campaign $1.1 million at the top of the reporting period with a loan on April 30. So far this year, FEC numbers show Wallace has provided $4.8 million of the $5.3 million the campaign has raised since January.
Wallace has taken other hits as well. The Free Beacon revealed that Wallace Never Voted in District He’s Seeking to Represent Until He Voted for Himself:
A Democratic candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania never voted in the district he is seeking to represent prior to voting for himself, despite claiming otherwise, and also has never voted in any municipal or odd-year elections while registered in another state, voting records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
Perhaps equally important is Wallace’s perception problem as an out-of-touch elitist. That perception was furthered when it was recently revealed that Wallace has an obsession with population control.
Matthew Walther writes at The Week, This gazillionaire Democrat is obsessed with population control:
If Democrat Scott Wallace beats Rep. Bryan Fitzpatrick (R.) in Pennsylvania’s 1st congressional district in November, he will become at least the third richest member of Congress, which is saying something: Nineteen of our legislators have net assets totaling more than $30 million. Wallace, a grandson of a vice president, is worth between $127 million and $309 million.
But Wallace isn’t just extremely wealthy. He is also apparently kept awake at night by the thought of the rest of us poor slobs breeding.
Wallace has for many years been at the helm of the Wallace Global Fund, his family’s nonprofit foundation, which has given more than $7 million in the last two decades to groups that advocate state-sponsored population control, including China-style limits on the number of children families are allowed to have.
One of these outfits, Population Connected, founded as Zero Population Growth in 1968, had this to say in a lovely brochure for new members:
We advocate: 1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population. 2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available — and at no cost in poverty cases. 3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding. [Population Connected]
Will Wallace claim he didn’t know about the donations to fight “irresponsible breeding” just like he denied knowing of the funding of some of the most vicious anti-Israel groups?
Fox New, which broke the story, reported, Top Dem candidate gave millions to groups advocating for taxing families ‘to the hilt’ for ‘irresponsible breeding’:
Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.
“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.
Anything can happen. But it seems that in PA-01, Scott Wallace’s money may not be able to buy him voter love.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.