SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
abundance
WelcomeFest’s Billionaire Backers Reveal Its True Mission
Like Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council before it, Welcome is yet another donor- and elite-driven operation seeking to drag the Democratic Party rightward on economic policy.
Jun 04, 2025
If the Abundance universe is to be believed, the hottest ticket this summer is WelcomeFest.
Wednesday’s confab is the second such annual gathering organized by the centrist group Welcome Party and its political action committee WelcomePAC, with this year’s event touting a distinct abundance flair. The conference boasts a rogues’ gallery of corporate-friendly cosponsors, including Third Way, the New Democratic Coalition, Inclusive Abundance, and the Blue Dog Caucus. A sizzle reel from last year’s event paints WelcomeFest as an Internet Hippo tweet come to life, complete with cameos from A-listers like ex-CNN anchor John Avlon and Democratic influencer Olivia Julianna.
Taken together, WelcomePAC’s leadership and funding are at odds with their claimed opposition to the “buttoned-up [politics] of Washington elites.”
This year’s “Responsibility to Win” session (misspelled on the event’s official poster) has drawn viral attention online—both for its bizarre AI Ghibli promos and stacked lineup of neoliberal pundits, conservative Democratic lawmakers, and wunderkind pollsters serving up Dick Morris’ reheated leftovers.
Speakers include:
- Derek Thompson, co-author of Abundance.
- Matt Yglesias, confidently-wrong pundit and, per Thompson, the “OG grandfather of Abundance.”
- Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who doesn’t think Democrats should use the term “oligarchy.”
- Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Abundance champion and darling of AIPAC and crypto lobbyists.
- Reps. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), and Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.),founding members of the Abundance-themed Build America Caucus.
- Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash). and Jared Golden (D-Maine), current and former co-chairs of the conservative Blue Dog Caucus.
- Adam Jentleson, anti-”Groups” crusader currently distancing himself from his 14-month stint as Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) chief of staff.
- David Shor, pollster and prolific party animal.
WelcomePAC’s Donors
Campaign finance records reveal that WelcomePAC, the primary organizers of WelcomeFest, has raked in sizable contributions from billionaires and corporate oligarchs:
- Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman has given over $1.8 million to WelcomePAC since 2021. A major donor to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign and the pro-Harris SuperPAC Future Forward, Hoffman strongly opposed the Biden administration’s anti-monopoly policies and publicly demanded that Harris fire Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan if she won the election. Hoffman has also bankrolled the Mainstream Democrats super PAC, which spent heavily in Democratic primaries in 2022 and 2024 to defend conservative Democrats like Kurt Schrader and Henry Cuellar and defeat progressives like Cori Bush and Nina Turner.
- Walton family: WelcomePAC has received over $1.1 million from relatives and heirs of Walmart founder Sam Walton—the richest family in America.
- S. Robson (Rob) Walton: Rob Walton, the eldest son of Walmart founder Sam Walton, has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since 2024.
- Samuel R. Walton: Samuel R. Walton, grandson of Sam Walton and owner of a natural resources holding company, has given $625,000 to WelcomePAC since 2024.
- Christy Walton: Christy Walton, widow of one of Sam Walton’s sons, has given $125,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022.
- Alice Walton: Alice Walton, daughter of Sam Walton, has given $25,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022.
- Carrie Walton Penner: Walton Penner, daughter of Rob Walton, has given $150,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022. She is also a prolific donor to the anti-public education charter school movement.
- Greg Penner: Penner, the husband of Carrie Walton and son-in-law of Rob, has given $150,000 to WelcomePAC since 2022. Penner is also Chairman of Walmart’s Board of Directors and a managing partner for the Walton family’s private equity firm.
- Bekenstein family: Bain Capital co-chairman Joshua Bekenstein and his wife Anita have given a combined $375,000 to WelcomePAC since October 2024.
- Michael Bloomberg: Billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since August 2024. Bloomberg is best known for his controversial mayoralty (which saw the expansion of racist “stop-and-frisk” policing tactics and anti-Muslim surveillance) and his expensive, widely-mocked 2020 presidential campaign.
- James & Kathryn Murdoch: James Murdoch—the estranged younger son of News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch—and his wife Kathryn have given a combined $2.5 million to WelcomePAC since April 2024.
- Rob Granieri: Granieri, the co-founder of Wall Street quantitative trading firm Jane Street, has given $100,000 to WelcomePAC since June 2024.
- Edward Fishman: Fishman, a managing director at hedge fund D.E. Shaw, has given $200,000 to WelcomePAC since February 2022.
- Mark Heising: Heising, the founder of private equity firm Medley Partners, has given $250,000 to WelcomePAC since June 2024.
- David Nierenberg: Nierenberg, an investment manager and former national finance co-chair for Mitt Romney’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, and his wife Patricia have given a combined $726,600 to WelcomePAC since March 2024.
- Americans Together Inc: Americans Together Inc, a centrist group founded by former Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) daughter Heather Manchin Bresch, has given over $1 million to WelcomePAC since February 2024. A core plank of Americans Together’s policy platform is opposing any repeal or reform of the Senate filibuster (the goal, ironically, of a 2021 book by WelcomeFest speaker Adam Jentleson).
- Bresch, the former CEO of pharma company Mylan, attracted national attention in 2016 for defending Mylan’s EpiPen price-gouging.
Who’s Actually Welcome to the Party?
While WelcomePAC’s donor roster makes clear who the group wants to welcome into the Democratic tent, its website is quite explicit about who they wish to exclude. WelcomePAC blames the Democratic Party’s woes on an “extreme right and socialist left […] conspiring with conflict-driven media to trash the Democratic brand.” In a poorly-aged 2021 Substack post calling for a “Jim Clyburn Day,” Welcome co-founder Lauren Harper celebrated Clyburn’s 2020 endorsement of Biden for “steering the party away from further polarization that would have led to a second Trump term.”
WelcomeFest organizers have explicitly juxtaposed their event with the purportedly left-wing Democratic National Committee, offering a refuge to those put off by the Democratic Party’s current leadership. They firmly reject unspecified “progressive purity tests” (read: having values), but lack a compelling explanation for why swing and red state voters are flocking to the progressive-populist fight against oligarchy.
Bafflingly, for a group that promises to offer “a vision for a depolarized United States,” WelcomeFest only features Democrats speaking about the need to moderate. The group, which proudly touts the label of “centrist insurgency,” has seemingly little to offer a polarized Republican Party—which is perhaps why their previous campaign to convince five House Republicans to caucus with Democrats failed so spectacularly. This has hardly hampered their push for moderation at all costs. In pursuit of this end, the group has even invented a metric that claims safe blue congressional seats are undemocratic, encouraging Republican challengers to pursue previously uncontested blue seats.
Some of WelcomePAC’s top staff have also spent their careers working to move the Democratic Party to the right. Co-founder Liam Kerr previously spent 10 years working for Democrats for Education Reform, a charter school advocacy organization founded and funded by hedge fund managers. Welcome Party board member Catharine Bellinger has also spent her career working for the same pro-charter school groups as Kerr. WelcomePAC’s political director, Daniel Conway, spent nearly six years working for No Labels, the centrist dark money group co-founded by the late Joe Lieberman that repeatedly attempted to recruit a third party candidate to run for president in 2024.
Taken together, WelcomePAC’s leadership and funding are at odds with their claimed opposition to the “buttoned-up [politics] of Washington elites.” Like Third Way and the Democratic Leadership Council before it, Welcome is yet another donor- and elite-driven operation seeking to drag the Democratic Party rightward on economic policy. That “rebranded neoliberalism” approach risks further alienating the very constituencies that Democrats lost in 2016 and 2024, and ceding further ground to right-wing faux-populists like Vice President JD Vance.
Given the WelcomeFest lineup, it’s clear that the donor class views Abundance as key to carrying out this self-serving crusade against populism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Billionaires Backing the Neoliberal 'Abundance Coachella' Gathering Draw Ire From Progressives
"Given the WelcomeFest lineup, it's clear that the donor class views Abundance as key to carrying out this self-serving crusade against populism."
Jun 03, 2025
Days after a national poll showed that the vast majority of Democratic voters want their party to focus on fighting corporate power and promoting policies that help working people instead of adopting the "Abundance" agenda pushed by centrist pundits and conservative Democrats, a watchdog revealed a new reason many voters may be unconvinced by the "Abundance universe."
According to an analysis by Revolving Door Project, the Abundance movement's political action committee counts a number of conservative, corporate-friendly billionaires among its funders, including members of the Walton family, former New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg, and Wall Street executives Rob Granieri and Mark Heising.
The analysis was released the day before the centrist Welcome Party is set to host its annual event, WelcomeFest, featuring a lineup of speakers including U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who has slammed progressives' use of the term "oligarchy," conservative Blue Dog Caucus chair Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Derek Thompson, co-author of the book Abundance, which has been adopted in recent months a seminal text for politicians and commentators who reject progressives' demands for a true populist agenda.
The book argues partially that regulations and other bureaucratic "bottlenecks" make it harder to produce new housing and infrastructure.
"Given the WelcomeFest lineup, it's clear that the donor class views Abundance as key to carrying out this self-serving crusade against populism," said Henry Burke and Vishal Shankar of the Revolving Door Project.
Even more telling, said the group, is the list of donors to WelcomePAC, the Welcome Party's political action committee.
The PAC has received:
- More than $1.8 million since 2021 from LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who opposed the Biden administration's antitrust policies and bankrolled campaigns to defeat progressives including former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner;
- $625,000 from Samuel R. Walton, grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton and owner of natural resources holding company;
- $150,000 from Carrie Walton Penner, granddaughter of Sam Walton and a donor to the anti-public education charter school movement; and
- $2.5 million from James Murdoch, estranged son of News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch, and his wife Kathryn.
"The 'Abundance' movement is funded by GOP mega-donors," said Turner.
As Burke and Shankar wrote, organizers of WelcomeFest—or "Abundance Coachella"—are seeking to juxtapose their event with "the purportedly left-wing" Democratic National Convention, rejecting so-called "purity tests" but failing to offer "a compelling explanation for why swing and red state voters are flocking to the progressive-populist fight against oligarchy."
As it promises to offer "a vision for a depolarized United States, WelcomeFest "proudly touts the label of 'centrist insurgency.'"
The Welcome Party attempted to convince five House Republicans to caucus with Democrats in its push for depolarization, but "failed spectacularly," wrote Burke and Shankar—suggesting that the party and its agenda are now really focused only on moderation in one of the major political parties.
In a column at Common Dreams on Sunday, Aaron Regunberg of Public Citizen noted that proponents of the Abundance agenda like Adam Jentleson, former chief of staff to Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.), have taken pains to dismiss comparisons between "populist and abundance messaging."
The recent poll by Demand Progress made the comparisons impossible to ignore, Regunberg argued, showing that 81.6% of respondents said they'd be much more likely to vote for a candidate who wanted to "get money out of politics, break up corporate monopolies, and fight corruption."
Just 47.7% said they would prefer a candidate who promised to reduce "regulations that hold back the government and private sector from taking action" for working and middle-class Americans.
"At a moment when Democrats' efficacy in defeating Trumpism carries such existential stakes, these survey results demonstrate why many of us on the left have found the campaign to make abundance the new face of the Democratic Party so deeply concerning," wrote Regunberg. "If abundance isn't going to help Democrats defeat MAGA, then abundance advocates—or at least the ones who care about ending Trumpism—should stop trying to 'define the future of the Democratic Party.' Let's leave that work to the Democrats who are trying to orient our party around a vision that voters actually do find compelling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economic Populism, Not Neoliberal Abundance, Is the Best Path to Defeating Trumpism
At a moment when Democrats’ efficacy in defeating Trumpism carries such existential stakes, new survey results demonstrate why many of us on the left have found the campaign to make abundance the new face of the Democratic Party so deeply concerning.
Jun 01, 2025
If you follow intra-Democratic discourse on social media, then you probably saw the frenzy that erupted this week following Axios’ coverage of a poll by Demand Progress that found populist messaging far outperforms the messaging being pushed by proponents of the “abundance” movement.
When asked about a candidate who wanted to “get money out of politics, break up corporate monopolies, and fight corruption,” 48.5% of respondents said they’d be much more likely to vote for that candidate and 33.1% said they’d be somewhat more likely, for a total of 81.6%. When asked about a candidate who wanted to “make the government and economy do a better job of serving working and middle-class Americans” by reducing “regulations that hold back the government and private sector from taking action,” 18.8% said they’d be much more likely to vote for that candidate and 28.9% said they’d be somewhat more likely, for a total of 47.7%. (The massive gap between the two options is actually slightly larger among independent voters, with 84.8% more likely to support the populist candidate versus 44.9% for abundance.)
At a moment when Democrats’ efficacy in defeating Trumpism carries such existential stakes, these survey results demonstrate why many of us on the left have found the campaign to make abundance the new face of the Democratic Party so deeply concerning. In the fight against authoritarianism, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistake Kamala Harris made in 2024, when her shift away from an initially populist message to an abundance-adjacent strategy coincided with a significant drop-off in popular support – a disastrous approach that abundance advocates are working to recreate (or, perhaps more appropriately, maintain) within the Democratic Party, with the aid of millions of dollars from their crypto, AI, Big Tech, and fossil fuel backers.
In the fight against authoritarianism, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistake Kamala Harris made in 2024...
Perhaps more revealing than the actual poll, however, have been the responses to it from the abundance camp. Abundance proponents immediately lashed out to try to dismiss the survey, cast doubt on its methodology, and explain away the obvious conclusions that Democrats should draw from its results. But each of their arguments is so profoundly weak, if not outright disingenuous, that reviewing them one by one calls into question nearly every aspect of the abundance program.
Abundance proponents’ first strategy was to attack the poll’s wording. For example, The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait immediately sprung into action after the results were published to claim that the poll “is literally worthless, because the language is crafted to yield the desired outcome.”
Here’s how the poll described the abundance argument:
The big problem is ‘bottlenecks’ that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges. Frequently these bottlenecks take the form of well-intended regulations meant to give people a voice or to protect the environment - but these regulations are exploited by organized interest groups and community groups to slow things down. This increases costs and makes it harder for us to provide for everybody’s needs. We need to push back against these groups so the government and economy can work better for working and middle-class Americans.
I don’t know how anyone could read this language and not think it’s an accurate articulation of the abundance agenda. Maybe abundance advocates could come up with a more generous framing of their argument, but if so, they haven’t provided it.
The one specific criticism I have seen came from Adam Jentleson, self-appointed warrior against “the groups,” who wrote, “This is a good example of how groups cook polls. Candidates typically say ‘cut red tape,’ which probably performs better than just ‘bottlenecks.’ But the group massages the question wording [to] get the outcome they want.” But that’s just not how abundance proponents frame their program. In Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s agenda-defining book, "Abundance," the word “bottleneck” is used over a dozen times. The phrase “red tape” does not appear once. Bottleneck also frequently appears throughout the authors’ other writings on this subject, and in the materials of the institutions backing the abundance campaign. If this isn’t a compelling message, that’s not an issue of unfair wording – it’s a problem with the abundance message, as pushed by abundance’s top messengers.
The reason I’m advocating for Democrats to campaign as economic populists – and then govern as such – is because all evidence indicates that this strategy gives us our best chance of beating fascism, before it’s too late.
The next move from the abundance camp was to attack the very idea of comparing populist and abundance messaging, given that it’s possible for Democrats to embrace both programs. As Jentleson put it, “This binary is silly and it’s a structural problem to have foundations pumping millions into calcifying it. The top Dem electoral performers talk about breaking up concentrated corporate power AND cutting gov’t red tape.” There are two big problems with this argument. First, the poll actually tested this point directly. One of the survey’s questions combined populist and abundance messaging to see how a both/and approach performed. Lo and behold, while the combined message did much better than the plain-abundance option, it did significantly worse than the plain-populist one.
But even more importantly, this “we can do both” line completely sidesteps the reality that most of abundance’s top backers have spent the last six months actively fighting to stop Democrats from embracing populism. Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a centrist think tank that has been a major booster of the Abundance agenda, recently complained that “demanding economic populism is its own form of purity test” and argued that Democrats should stop using a “fighting the oligarchs” message. Jonathan Chait just published a piece about abundance titled “The Coming Democratic Civil War” which stated with admirable honesty that “progressives are not wrong to see the abundance agenda as a broader attack on their movement.” At one Abundance promotion event, Derek Thompson said, “What is ‘oligarchy’ doing for you? The tool they have used to explain the world fails to do so.” In another interview he said, “On the Democratic side, there is a fight, and it’s happening right now, and our book is trying to win a certain intra-left coalitional fight about defining the future of liberalism in the Democratic Party.”
For the abundance camp to contend that they never claimed their program could help Democrats win elections is gaslighting, pure and simple.
In reality, there are pieces of the abundance program that could fit in with a populist agenda. For example, it’s often been progressives who have led the fight against exclusionary zoning. But the abundance movement – its top proponents, the institutions behind them, and the interest groups that are, to use Jentleson’s words, “pumping millions into” standing them up – have generally presented abundance as either in conflict with economic populism or, as Thompson put it, as an alternative that must displace progressivism in “defining the future” of the Democratic Party. Given the battle lines they have drawn, information about which framework voters respond best to seems extremely important. And let the record be clear: The idea of merging populism with abundance is a concession they are making only now that it’s clear that abundance alone could spell disaster for Democrats at the polls.
But it is the final argument from the abundance camp that is both the most disingenuous and the most telling. Many abundance proponents responded to the poll’s evidence that abundance offers Democrats a weak message to run on by arguing that their framework was never meant to be an electoral program. As Vox’s Eric Levitz argued, “[T]he point of abundance reforms is to govern well, not win elections.”
The idea of merging populism with abundance is a concession they are making only now that it’s clear that abundance alone could spell disaster for Democrats at the polls.
Of course, this claim is patently false. Abundance proponents have, beyond any shred of a doubt, been pitching their program as the electoral strategy that will give Democrats their best shot at defeating Trumpism. In his keynote description of abundance in The Atlantic this March, Thompson could not have been more explicit on this point, writing, “If Trump’s opponents are going to win at the polls, they will need to construct a new political movement, one that aims for abundance instead of scarcity.” For the abundance camp to contend that they never claimed their program could help Democrats win elections is gaslighting, pure and simple.
And yet, accepting this claim entails accepting an even more devastating indictment of the abundance movement. Because in the midst of Trump’s ongoing authoritarian takeover of our country, winning elections is the number one existential goal we must achieve. Yes, I am a progressive, so I want to see economically populist governance because I believe it will improve Americans’ lives and strengthen the prospects of our shared future. But I believe the same about maximalist policies on a number of social issues that I’m not advocating for Democrats to campaign on. The reason I’m advocating for Democrats to campaign as economic populists – and then govern as such – is because all evidence indicates that this strategy gives us our best chance of beating fascism, before it’s too late.
This debate matters greatly, because the stakes are so high. If abundance isn’t going to help Democrats defeat MAGA, then abundance advocates – or at least the ones who care about ending Trumpism – should stop trying to “define the future of the Democratic Party.” Let’s leave that work to the Democrats who are trying to orient our party around a vision that voters actually do find compelling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular