'Parallel Shadows' by Steve

The Secretary of State Project (SoSP), launched in 2006, was a formal, targeted initiative founded by progressive activists with significant backing from George Soros and the Democracy Alliance. It operated as a 527 political action committee explicitly aimed at electing Democratic secretaries of state in battleground states to influence election administration and prevent perceived Republican biases, as seen after the 2000 Florida recount. The project focused on a handful of swing states, pouring funds into low-visibility races where secretaries oversee voter rolls, ballot certification, and dispute resolution.

In contrast, Soros' involvement in district attorney (DA) races lacks a single, named "District Attorney Project." Instead, it has been a decentralized, multi-year effort starting around 2015-2016, channeled through super PACs like Safety and Justice committees, Justice and Public Safety PACs, and state-specific groups. These often receive direct or indirect funding from Soros' Open Society Foundations or his personal contributions. Reports estimate Soros has spent over $40-50 million (some sources claim up to $117 million including family funds) electing 75 or more progressive prosecutors across dozens of jurisdictions, representing over 70 million Americans—far exceeding SoSP's scale in both dollars and geographic reach.

Both efforts exploit low-profile offices: SoSP targeted election overseers, while DA funding focuses on chief local prosecutors who wield enormous discretion in charging, plea deals, and enforcement priorities.

SoSP's funding was concentrated, with Soros contributing hundreds of thousands directly, amplified by allied donors. It ran coordinated campaigns in specific cycles (2006-2010), achieving successes like electing Mark Ritchie in Minnesota and Jennifer Brunner in Ohio.

DA efforts are more sustained and opportunistic. Soros often becomes the dominant donor in primaries, sometimes providing 90% of a candidate's funds. Examples include $4.7 million for George Gascón in Los Angeles, over $1 million each for Larry Krasner (Philadelphia) and Kim Foxx (Chicago), and millions more across states like Virginia, Texas, and Illinois. Tactics mirror SoSP: overwhelming underfunded opponents in overlooked races, using independent expenditures for ads, and leveraging networks like the ACLU or Fair and Just Prosecution for training and support.

A key similarity is the use of proxy organizations to obscure direct ties, allowing unlimited dark money flows.

Both projects stem from progressive critiques of the status quo. SoSP framed its work as protecting democracy from partisan interference, promoting "fair elections" through expanded access and challenging restrictive rules.

Soros-backed DAs pursue "criminal justice reform": reducing incarceration, eliminating cash bail, declining to prosecute low-level offenses, addressing police misconduct, and prioritizing equity over traditional law-and-order approaches. Proponents argue this corrects systemic biases, especially racial disparities.
Critics view both as partisan power grabs. SoSP was accused of embedding bias to favor Democrats in close races (e.g., aiding Al Franken's 2008 Senate win via recount oversight). Similarly, DA funding is lambasted for installing "rogue prosecutors" who selectively enforce laws, contributing to crime spikes in cities like Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles—where homicides and shootings rose dramatically under Krasner and Gascón.

SoSP dissolved around 2010 after mixed results but left a legacy: alumni influenced rules in key states, fueling allegations of enabling irregularities in later elections. Detractors called it corrupt for turning neutral administrators into ideological actors.

The DA initiative has been more enduring and controversial. Many funded prosecutors implemented sweeping policies—downgrading felonies, firing experienced staff, and releasing suspects without bail—correlating with crime surges in their jurisdictions. Backlash led to recalls (e.g., Chesa Boudin in San Francisco) and defeats in some reelections, but dozens remain in office. Conservative groups like the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund and Foundation for Government Accountability accuse Soros of buying influence to undermine public safety and even election integrity, noting DAs' power to prosecute (or ignore) voter fraud cases.

Both face claims of corruption: billionaire money distorting democracy by capturing key levers of power—elections for SoSP, justice enforcement for DAs. However, SoSP's impact was narrower (election processes), while DA funding affects daily life more viscerally through crime policy.
 

Aspect	Secretary of State Project (SoSP)	Soros-Funded DA Campaigns
Timeframe	2006-2010 (short-lived)	2015-present (ongoing)
Scale	~6-10 states, millions in funding	30+ states, $40-117M+, 75+ prosecutors
Formal Structure	Explicit project with website and founders	Informal network of PACs, no central "project"
Primary Goal	Influence election oversight and rules	Reform prosecution (reduce incarceration, equity)
Criticisms	Partisan election manipulation	Rising crime, selective prosecution
Legacy	Influenced 2008-2020 election debates	Ongoing crime waves, policy shifts in major cities

In essence, both represent Soros-backed strategies to reshape American institutions from the bottom up by targeting obscure but powerful offices. SoSP was a prototype—focused on elections as democracy's gatekeepers—while the DA efforts are an evolution: broader, longer-lasting, and tied to social justice movements. Critics argue they erode impartiality, whether in certifying votes or enforcing laws, prioritizing ideology over neutrality. Proponents see them as necessary corrections to entrenched inequities.

As of late 2025, with crime and election trust remaining flashpoints, these parallel campaigns highlight how concentrated wealth can profoundly influence governance, sparking debates over donor influence in democracy.

Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.