Axiom Strategies Scores a Hat-Track in Virginia U.S. Senate Primary
Do Scott Parkinson, Eddie Garcia, and Kimberly Lowe know they are sharing campaign consultants?
For our ongoing report into Axiom Strategies, a Republican consulting firm, we spoke with more than fifteen current and former employees, a range of industry experts, and election lawyers who say they are stunned by revelations that one company is pitting their own clients against each other. Our investigation has revealed this pattern of behavior appears to be a larger, more deliberate effort to increase profits, pad a paltry win-record, and hide campaign expenses.
For the next phase of our investigation, we headed to Virginia where there is a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate taking place on June 18th. Once again, Axiom appears to have pulled off a hat-trick by signing up three competing Republican primary campaigns. Kimberly Lowe, Scott Parkinson, and Eddie Garcia all show Axiom or Axiom-affiliated entities listed as consultants or vendors in their financial reports filed with the FEC. As stated in our previous report, political insiders say this is highly unusual and that no other firm they know of has engaged in this sort of tactic. According to multiple GOP consultants, this sort of arrangement is unheard of and they suspect many of the candidates involved have no idea their campaigns are being run by the same team.
The latest round of reports we reviewed show that Axiom has once again used a shell company in an apparent effort to hide their involvement with at least one Virginia senate campaign. Candidate Eddie Garcia lists Catamaran Consulting, which has a California address according to reports filed with the FEC, as his campaign consultant. But records show that Catamaran Consulting was actually formed in September of 2018 as a Delaware corporation before being used as a pass through for direct mail and digital advertising for Club for Growth’s Missouri-based subsidiary “CFG Missouri”. Since then, Catamaran has been one of Club for Growth’s biggest vendors. In many instances, Catamaran provided services for Club for Growth on behalf of Axiom candidates for federal office. This sort of practice blurs the lines of what legal experts tell us are very strict laws regarding coordination between campaigns and outside groups.
Catamaran Consulting also appears as the consultant or advertising agency almost exclusively for PACs supporting Axiom clients. This includes Truth and Courage, a Ted Cruz-aligned Super PAC and Morning In America, an Adam Laxalt-aligned Super PAC – both Axiom clients. Catamaran’s client list also includes numerous Missouri-based independent expenditure groups, where Axiom headquarters are also located. While not available publicly, we filed open records requests with the Secretary of States in Delaware and California that show at least one Axiom officer on registration documents for Catamaran Consulting.
Sources within multiple Axiom subsidiaries confirmed Catamaran has been used as a pass through in situations where Axiom needed the appearance of a firewall between a campaign and PAC for federal races. In reality, those sources say that while FEC reports may show different companies, the same teams were often in charge of preparing ads, budgets, and other items for both campaigns and affiliated PACs. We consulted a DC-based election law expert who specializes in federal election law. They told us Axiom’s use of a shell company to serve both candidates and their affiliated PACs is at best a gray area in federal election law. Federal law strictly prohibits direct coordination between candidates and outside groups supporting them. Although other agencies confirmed they use methods to firewall parts of their team in this way, none said they had used this tactic to work with opposing campaigns. The expert we consulted said he was unaware of any laws preventing Axiom from working on behalf of candidates opposing each other and that it is an unprecedented situation.
Scott Parkinson is the only candidate who openly lists Axiom Strategies as a consultant for his campaign.
Our sources within Axiom have told us that some within the organization have raised concerns about data security and the potential for leaks when working with competing campaigns. Some believe there are major vulnerabilities related to Axiom’s offshore database security that potential leaves AxCapital and Garrison Management Group, the holding company for all Axiom entities, at risk. At least two campaigns mentioned in this article have used AxCapital. This means that one team within the company has a real-time view into each campaign’s donors, expenses, cash reserves, and other valuable data which could give insights into campaigns’ strategy. In one example, a former AxCapital employee, whom we spoke with on the condition of anonymity, told us they would routinely see invoices for attack ads against candidates that were clients of the firm. This former employee emphasized firewall procedures were said to be in place, but described those measures as paper thin and lacking any real oversight or enforcement.
Across the company, each department has its own version of rules and procedures to follow in the case of so-called firewalls. The firewall process is commonly established to divide work between campaigns and PACs, but there has been confusion within Axiom about how to handle firewalls in relation to competing campaigns. That’s because no federal law prohibits a vendor from working with multiple candidates in the same race. There is a general belief by company leadership that firewalls are not legally necessary in situations where Axiom’s teams are working for multiple campaigns. One source we spoke with that has worked directly for Axiom as well as an Axiom subsidiary told us firewall policies are often lax and can be easily overlooked with so many campaigns going on at the same time. That same source tells us that while many employees try their best to respect firewalls, at busy times during an election year, work is often shared across firewall teams in order to meet deadlines and ensure sales targets are met. Additionally, many of the same databases are shared across teams and employees can access materials for any Axiom candidate if they wish.
Eddie Garcia and Kimberly Lowe have put their campaign’s most valuable asset - privacy - at risk of exposure to their main opponent. The team at AxCapital would see all expenses and donations for both campaigns, while others within the company are working on behalf of a third candidate, Mr. Parkinson. When reached for comment, a representative for Lowe indicated they had no idea Axiom was contracted to work for two of her opponents. Mr. Garcia and Mr. Parkinson have yet to comment on what they knew about Axiom’s role in working with their opposition.
No one we spoke with at Axiom or its affiliated companies indicated there was any coordinated effort to help one candidate over another. But they did indicate there were concerns about the potential for rogue employees or contractors who could easily access and share information across campaigns.
Over the course of our investigation, we have found multiple instances in at least four states where Axiom has used shell companies to bill competing campaigns for various services. This story is developing and we will be publishing additional information in subsequent articles.
Have a story you think we should investigate? Drop us a line at our anonymous tipline: politicalbriefdc@proton.me.
Contact me for a statement.
Eddie@eddiegarciava.com
-Eddie Garcia