» John Hawkins

The PJ Tatler

John Hawkins

John Hawkins is a professional writer who runs Right Wing News and Linkiest. He's also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon. Additionally, he does weekly appearances on the #1 in its market Jaz McKay show, writes a weekly column for Townhall and PJ Media, does YouTube videos, and his work has also been published at the Washington Examiner, The Hill, and at Human Events. He's also the blogosphere's premier interviewer and has interviewed conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Mark Levin, Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, G. Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Michael Steele, Milton Friedman, Jonah Goldberg, Jim DeMint, Walter Williams, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, & Michelle Malkin among others. Moreover, John Hawkins' work has been linked and discussed in numerous publications and on TV and radio shows including ABC News, BusinessWeek, C-Span, The Chicago Tribune, CNN, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Editor & Publisher, Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, The Laura Ingraham Show, Minneapolis Star Tribune, MSNBC, National Journal, National Post, Newsmax, Newsweek, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Tammy Bruce Show, Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Hugh Hewitt Show, The Washington Post, Salt Lake Tribune, Scarborough Country, U.S. News & World Report, and Human Events, where he had a weekly column. Right Wing News has been studied by college classes and even inspired an urban legend that was covered at Snopes. Last but not least, John Hawkins also founded and led the Rightroots group, a grassroots effort that collected almost $300,000 for Republican candidates in the last 3 months of the 2006 election cycle. In 2008, he consulted for Duncan Hunter's presidential campaign and was on the board of Slatecard, which raised more than $600,000 for Republican candidates in the 2008 election cycle. In 2011, he helped found Raising Red, although he left the organization the same year and went on to become one of the co-founders of Not Mitt Romney.com.
Follow John:

$50 Million Down the Tubes: How Conservative PACs Go Wrong

Friday, February 20th, 2015 - by John Hawkins

This is how I imagine it all starts.

You have an activist busting his behind to help conservatives and he thinks, “Wow, just think of what I could accomplish if I were able to do this full time!” Then, he manages to break the shackles of his day job and becomes a full-time activist running his own PAC. He’s living the dream! However, at that moment, he starts to realize that activism is now a job and his house payment, groceries and kids’ education all depend on it. Suddenly, his priorities start to change as an activist. It’s not just what’s best for the cause anymore; it is what’s the best thing he can do for the cause that gets him paid. It’s a subtle shift, a very defensible shift, but it sets the table for what comes next.

Soon, he starts to realize that beyond the FEC ensuring that he’s sticking to the letter of the law, no one is checking behind him. People on his side of the aisle are very reluctant to write stories that make conservative PACs look bad and if a liberal puts out a story that makes him look awful, he can always say, “What do you expect? Do you think he’d tell you I’m doing a great job?” Then he hears about other people in the movement, the type of money they’re making and some of the things they’re getting away with. That makes it easy to rationalize. He tells himself, “Everybody does it,” and how can people get mad at him for engaging in something that’s standard operating procedure in the business?

Next thing you know, an activist who started out with the best of intentions has begun looking at activism as just another job instead of a calling. As he becomes more cynical and jaded, maybe he raises money for candidates or events and never gives them any of it. Maybe his PAC makes millions and fills his pockets, but almost none of the money he raises goes to help conservative candidates and causes. Maybe he comes to look at activism as nothing more than another for-profit business.

Maybe, just maybe, that’s how you explain the sort of numbers that you’ll see in an article Right Wing News released earlier this week called “50 Million Down The Tubes: How 17 Conservative PACs Are Spending Their Money.”

How bad were the numbers for the 10 conservative PACs on the bottom?


The goal of our piece wasn’t to show that all conservative PACs are bad because we certainly don’t believe that. We just wanted to give people a chance to see how much of the money they were giving to these PACs was being spent on campaigns via independent expenditures and direct contributions. After all, when people give money to a conservative PAC, they’re typically doing it because they believe it will be used to help put more candidates they agree with into office. Electing candidates is also primarily what these PACs brag about. Yet, here are the numbers for the bottom 10 PACs researched in our report.

Screen Shot 2015-02-20 at 4.57.10 PM

Rooting through the finances of PACs is about two steps below quantum physics on the “complicated scale.” It means digging through complex reports, dealing with filing errors, and navigating grey areas in the law. That means smart and well-meaning people can sometimes disagree about how much of the money that a PAC collects should be eaten up in overhead. However, we should all be able to agree that any PAC spending a dime or less out of every dollar on its primary mission, which is electing Republican candidates, simply isn’t getting the job done.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “scam PACs” or that everybody that works there is a bad person. What it does mean is that conservatives shouldn’t send any PAC their money just because it happens to endorse candidates we like or takes positions we agree with. There is a myriad of conservative radio hosts and websites that do the exact same thing and they’re not asking for any money in return. For PACs to distinguish themselves, they need to make serious financial investments into getting candidates elected. If they’re not willing or able to do that, then they typically bring very little to the table for the donors that trust them with their money.

Until those of us on the Right stop turning a blind eye to PACs that are being just as irresponsible with donor money as the government is with our tax dollars, then conservatives will continue to be stuck fighting crucial political battles with one hand tied behind our backs.

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

The No Exit Primary

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012 - by John Hawkins

Sorry I didn’t get this in sooner, but Jean-Paul Sartre was calling me from beyond the grave. He dialed me up to say that he’s rewriting No Exit so that Hell is actually this primary season. It features a “front runner” who’s the least conservative candidate since Nixon, the least electable since Goldwater, and the least qualified since, well, Obama. He competes with two other underfunded conservative candidates who split the vote and make it impossible for the grassroots to consolidate around someone who doesn’t remind them of Charlie Crist. There’s also a weird little fellow in the back with a wacky laugh who goes on and on about the gold standard, non-interventionism, and fighting the system while he does everything he can to help the establishment candidate win. It’s a little more warped than the original, but it does have the advantage of being realistic, even if no one would have believed it before this year. It’s also running way, way too long and unless there are some plot rewrites to get rid of one of the characters, the audience may be too bored and discouraged to make it to the end of the showing.



Read bullet | Comments »

On Romney’s Florida Win

Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 - by John Hawkins

Mitt Romney has proven that he’s the most electable candidate in Florida — well, as long as he has a 5-to-1 money advantage, much of the conservative press shilling for him relentlessly, and three people splitting the vote against him. That being said, Florida will give him momentum, there are no scheduled debates for February, and the primary schedule works to his advantage because he’s likely to do well in states like Nevada (heavy Mormon population) and Michigan (his father was the governor there). Whether Santorum and Gingrich will have the money to continue to effectively compete or whether the conservative base will move towards Mitt to put an end to a damaging primary fight is still an open question. Still, there is many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip, so hopefully the other candidates will stay in, fight like hell, and try to spare us the least conservative GOP nominee since Nixon.

Read bullet | Comments »