Jordan Wood is running in the Maine Democratic Senate primary on a platform focused largely on fighting money in politics. Wood was chief of staff for then-Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), who rose to fame challenging rich executives with her whiteboard, a marker, her brain, and her staff.
Since the start of Wood’s campaign, however, it hasn’t been widely reported that Wood is also married to a co-founder and partner in Mothership Strategies, a controversial Democratic fundraising firm.
I was already scheduled to do a live chat with Wood earlier this month when I listened to a podcast in which he mentioned his husband, Jake Lipsett. A quick search turned up Lipsett’s work at Mothership, and then the critiques of Mothership.
Wood has for years been a foe of corporate political action committees (PACs) and their undemocratic influence on elections. In addition to serving at End Citizens United, he helped start DemocracyFirst, a bipartisan election-integrity advocacy group.
He didn’t seem to expect Mothership to come up when we spoke. But Wood stood by the company. When I asked about the recent criticisms, he said, “I would have to read more into this. I apologize for not being more prepared for it.”
Of course, Wood didn’t know I would ask about it. The recent Mothership critiques haven’t exactly been big news.
And, to be clear, even Mothership’s toughest critics haven’t claimed the company’s done anything illegal. The issue is the system, and how Mothership works the system. Mothership is one of the biggest and most aggressive Democratic fundraisers, a powerful engine in the political machinery that drives you crazy with emails and texts.
The messaging, critics say, is alarmist and misleading. There are also questions about how much of the money that Mothership takes in funds the work that wins campaigns. Those financial questions are tough to answer independently because campaign-finance disclosure laws don’t require Mothership to itemize every dollar of spending.
One past client, and a defender, is End Citizens United, which Mothership’s leaders, including Lipsett, helped start, before he knew Wood. And which Wood later served as assistant treasurer.
The money-in-politics news outlet Sludge, however, portrays End Citizens United as part of the problem. And that problem, according to Sludge, is virtually the entire Democratic Party fundraising ecosystem. Money goes to consultants, vendors, and centrist candidates opposed to real reform, Sludge charges.
One allegation specific to Mothership is that its founders stood up a network of PACs to raise money which then went to hire Mothership and enrich its founders. End Citizens United (ECU) is no longer affiliated with Mothership, Wood, or Lipsett, but still defends Mothership’s work and practices, differentiating it from so-called “scam PACs.”
Wood and his campaign say there were strict firewalls between him and Mothership when he was at ECU and that he disclosed his relationship with Lipsett to ECU’s leaders. Even today, Wood’s campaign says it isn’t using his husband’s fundraising firm.
That’s not due to concerns about Mothership, which Wood defends. Working with a Mothership rival, Sapphire Strategies, is the campaign’s effort to practice high ethical standards, avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Mothership has taken fire before. Sludge has knocked Mothership periodically since it took a critical look in 2018.
A 2021 New York Times article on deceptive fundraising included Mothership. A 2023 Politico headline read, “Democrats shunned a top firm over its controversial fundraising practices. It hasn’t gone away.”
Now, for reasons unrelated to Wood, it’s back.
Stanford University Political Science Professor Adam Bonica relit the fire under Mothership and the Democratic fundraising ecosphere generally. Early this month, Bonica published an analysis of publicly disclosed financial data on Mothership revenues and expenditures.
One eye-popping conclusion was Bonica’s finding that “for every dollar a grandmother in Iowa donates believing she's saving democracy, 98 cents goes to consultants and operational costs. Just pennies reach actual campaigns.” As sketchy as that sounds, there’s little basis for anyone to infer that none of that 98 cents benefited the campaigns.
Mothership has posted a response defending its practices, and gave a statement to The Nation, but there are a couple things to keep in mind here. Consultants and operational costs are legitimate expenses, at least ostensibly. And just because Mothership takes in a lot of money doesn’t mean it’s not spending that money on behalf of its clients.
The concern is that, without having Mothership’s books, relying solely on their own self-reporting, it’s impossible to know for sure how much of those consulting fees and operational costs represent exorbitant salaries or profit.
When I raised the critiques to Wood in our live chat, he said he would have to look into it more deeply. “I think some of it is not truly accurate in that a lot of this is passed through,” Wood said. “You know, the company pays other vendors for texting, the process of that, and you know, it’s not sort of the profit of a company.”
He also talked about the ECU firewall.
“One of my roles there was as national finance director, but I had a firewall up in terms of not being involved with contract negotiations or the business side of what, the work End Citizens United was doing with his [Lipsett’s] company. … Internally I just said, ‘We’re not, I don’t feel comfortable doing this.’”
I asked him to elaborate on the firewall. He stood by ECU’s practices and its expenditures to Mothership:
“Even though one of the [ECU] departments I oversaw was fundraising, I deferred up, to let that work be decided by somebody else. … I’m sure it was all done fair and above board.”
One factor that may be driving suspicion of Mothership Strategies and other fundraising firms is the nature of the fundraising emails, which range from alarmist to straight-up bullshit.
A 2019 Washington Post report sampled some of the flashing-siren messages used to motivate donations:
“We’re on the verge of BANKRUPTCY.”
“Our bank account is ALMOST EMPTY!”
“Trump is INCHES away from firing [then-special counsel] Robert Mueller.”
On this subject, Wood also defended Mothership. Its messaging, Wood suggested, is the nature of the beast.
“Nobody likes the emails, the text messages, the ads,” Wood said, “the tactics that we have to fundraise, to raise the resources needed to be successful.”
And, Wood said, it works. “These tactics are used by all campaigns. There are many digital firms that have the same models. Maybe they have not been as successful in scale as my husband’s company.”
And he championed what his husband’s work has accomplished. “I’m also really proud of what, these organizations that he’s helped create, just by his role in helping them fundraise. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Turnout Project, End Citizens United; you know, these groups are primarily grass-roots-funded work.”
Wood still has almost a year until the June 9, 2026, Democratic primary. As he told me, corruption, meaning money in politics, is his “central issue.”
Apparently, Wood’s done about all he could to silo himself from his husband’s business. That includes his internal disclosure and firewall years ago at ECU, and his campaign’s distance today from Mothership. But it may not insulate him entirely as the primary heats up.
Party leaders have sought to recruit Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) to challenge the vulnerable incumbent, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), but so far without luck. That’s left a field already teeming with Democratic hopefuls who may decide to make money in politics their central issue, too.
Related: You can watch my full discussion with Wood, including his thoughts on white Christian nationalism and his own religious faith, here.
I’m an independent journalist whose reporting is made possible by reader support. As a former executive producer at MSNBC, I helped create Up w/ Chris Hayes and previously was a senior producer on Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. Your paid subscription will help me keep digging where the corporate media don’t.
I've literally blocked several hundred phone numbers and emails for soliciting donations this year. It's insane. I've donated to worthy causes directly and through advocacy organizations, mostly environmental groups, for decades. I started donating to politicians in 2016. I've narrowed my political donations to only some democrats that are putting up a fight and donate directly to the person or through ActBlue. I still mostly donate to a few environmental advocacy groups and I'm OK with how they support candidates. The number of solicitations has dropped substantially recently, so the massive blocking of numbers and emails might be working. 🤞
I’m still rooting for Janet Mills. Or any of the other D women who have consistently held Susan Collins feet to the fire. Last race was a very close one and would re-run more successfully I feel sure. Collins has discredited herself repeatedly by falling in line for MAGAs.