More than half a dozen Trump campaign vendors received more than $ 7 million in coronavirus help for small businesses – despite raising more than $ 60 million from the campaign.
The Small Business Administration released undisclosed Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) data earlier this month, in response to lawsuits from multiple government news outlets and watchdogs. While the PPP was designed to help small businesses, more than half of the money went to larger companies, including some associated with President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The data also shows that at least seven Trump campaign vendors, more than previously reported, got $ 7.5 million, despite getting more than $ 68 million from the Trump committees.
“This program was meant to be a lifeline for small mom-and-pop businesses struggling to keep the lights on and meet payroll,” Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive government watchdog Accountable.US, said in a statement to Salon. “These companies have received millions in tax dollars, while filling their pockets with millions of extras with the Trump campaign. They used PPP as their pandemic piggy bank, while those who really needed it were lost.”
Harder LLP, the law firm of Charles Harder – who represented Trump in lawsuits filed by Stormy Daniels, the former adult film star who alleged an affair with Trump, and Alva Johnson, a former campaign advisor who accused Trump of kissing her with violence – received $ 214,000 under the PPP on April 9. A week later, the Harder firm received a payment of $ 226,972 from the Trump campaign, data from the FEC shows. The company has received nearly $ 3.7 million from Trump’s campaign since 2018.
“Harder LLP is a small business that was badly affected during the early stages of the pandemic,” Harder said in a statement to Salon. “Our revenues fell and we had to cut costs – but the PPP loan allowed us to keep everyone working at our company. That was the purpose of the PPP loan program. We have now earned back. We will pay back the loan. interest to the US taxpayer, as required by the loan terms. “
Harder claimed that much larger law firms that “likely worked for Democratic Party candidates and campaigns” have received larger PPP loans while laying off employees.
Cali-Fame, a company that produces ‘Make America Great Again’ hats, received $ 786,000 under the PPP on April 28, according to data from SBA. According to Federal Election Commission data, the aid was awarded a day before the Trump Make America Great Committee paid the company $ 30,000 in two payments. According to FEC records, the company has received $ 13,669,340 in payments from the Make America Great Committee and Trump’s campaign since 2015.
Jamestown Associates, a Philadelphia-based consulting and media company, received about $ 353,000 under the PPP on April 8, the same day Trump’s campaign paid it $ 29,000. FEC data shows that the company received $ 11,978,379 from Trump’s campaign and the Make America Great Again video production and media services committee.
Another communications consultancy, Proactive Communications of Virginia, received just under $ 20,000 under the PPP. The aid came about two weeks after the Trump campaign paid it more than $ 73,000 for advisory services. According to FEC records, the company has raised approximately $ 2.69 million from the campaign since 2017.
Some of the loans have been previously reported. Phunware, a Texas-based digital technology company that collects location data from smartphones, received an unusually large $ 2.85 million loan under the PPP, which CBS News noted was “nearly 14 times” larger than the average $ 206,000 loan. The company received the loan two days after filing the application, raising the question of why it was being processed so quickly. The loan was provided after the company received nearly $ 3 million from the Trump campaign last year. It previously made most of its $ 31 million in 2018 revenues from Fox Networks.
FLS Connect, a conservative communications company based in Minnesota, received a $ 1.67 PPP loan in April despite raising more than $ 5.5 million from the Trump campaign and the Make America Great Again committee since June, according to data from the FEC.
The Communications Corporation of America, a Virginia direct mail company, received a $ 1.59 million PPP loan on April 10, about a week before it received two payments from the Make America Great Again commission totaling more than $ 800,000 . According to FEC records, the company has raised $ 28,495,181 from Trump’s commission and campaign since July 2016.
While the PPP has received bipartisan support, the data released by the SBA has prompted calls to reform the program if Congress approves a new round of funding. An analysis of the data by Washington Post found that more than half of the funding for the program went to just 5% of recipients, mostly to large corporations and national chains. Meanwhile, smaller companies quickly ran out of money when their loans expired and were forced to lay off employees. Companies that received PPP loans cut an estimated 900,000 jobs when funding dried up, according to an analysis by payroll company Gusto.
An NBC News analysis of the SBA data showed that more than 25 PPP loans worth more than $ 3.65 million went to companies associated with Trump and Kushner, including 15 who reported that the loans were one job or saved no jobs – or reported no number at all.
“ Many months and broken promises later, the release of this crucial data by court order while the Trump administration is just a foot out is a disgraceful dereliction of duty and a blatant mismanagement of a program that affects millions of workers and small businesses. had to endure. this pandemic, ”Herrig told NBC News.
The SBA defended its handling of the program.
“SBA’s historically successful Covid loan programs have helped millions of small businesses and tens of millions of American workers when they needed them most,” a spokesman for the agency said in a statement.
But watchdog groups argued that the Trump administration chose to prioritize helping wealthy businesses over small businesses.
“The data shows that this program benefited the wealthy and gullible in the first place at the expense of the small businesses it was supposed to benefit from,” said Liz Hempowicz, director of public policy at the nonpartisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight. Post. “Companies in that top 5% probably have access to other capital. These are not the companies that you would traditionally think of as a small company. It really raises questions about what the priorities of this SBA are. … Is it to help small businesses, or is it to give money back to the top end of the economy? “
The program has been widely criticized from the outset by small business owners. A group of small business owners filed a lawsuit in the spring accusing banks of dividing the loans from larger existing corporate clients over the program’s intended recipients.
“This new data confirms what we have heard directly from our small business members – that the PPP program favors large businesses over small and prolonged inequalities in access to credit and capital for underbanking communities,” Amanda Ballantyne, executive director of Main Street Alliance, small business advocate, told the Post.
Ashley Harrington of the Center for Responsible Lending added that the program’s fees for banks “encouraged lending to larger companies because banks could collect higher fees from those companies. … Through the loans through existing SBA-approved lenders, banks. and credit unions color, which historically had no access to credit. “
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., And Senator Ben Cardin, D-Md., Have called for reforming the program in the next round of coronavirus relief to limit loans to $ 2 million instead of $ 10 million and loans to companies with a maximum of 300 employees, against 500 according to the Post. The next round of funding will also likely require companies to demonstrate that they have lost revenue to qualify.
Congress “is certainly in agreement that you want to limit the amount that can be given to these large organizations,” Cardin told the Post. “We learned that from the first round [the program] was very effective at pulling money quickly, but those with established banking relationships got up front, in some cases at the expense of disadvantaged businesses. “
Herrig urged lawmakers to ensure that the next round avoids the “maladministration” and “malpractice” of the first round.
“Only now – after his hand was forced, hundreds of thousands of small businesses went under and millions of taxpayers were wasted – has this government drawn the curtains to expose the malpractice behind the scenes,” he told NBC. News. “Americans deserved an open, transparent small business aid program when this pandemic started, and any new small business aid program must learn from the bitter failures of this program.”