Big Money, Small Town
This article originally published by the Manhattan Uranus, July 29, 2026
We received a tip this week from a reader who received a suspicious mailer on behalf of—but not commissioned by— Pottawatomie County District 5 incumbent, Gary Yenzer.
The mailer was commissioned and sent by American Property Political Action Committee (that’s a PAC). American Property PAC is a Federal PAC established on May 18 of this year, just 12 days after Beltline Energy’s unfavorable reception at the Town Hall held at Ironclad Coworking.
The PAC’s Treasurer, Cabell Hobbs, is a host unto himself. Hobbs is the treasurer of no less than 85 PACs at the time of writing. One of his many Super PACs accepts millions in contributions from the wealthiest and most powerful figures in America and distributes that money to other PACs— of which Hobbs is also Treasurer. To map them comprehensively is beyond the Uranus’ resources.
Here’s what we do know:
The playbook is always the same. The super PAC accepts tens of millions of contributions from megadonors, then takes those funds and donates them to one or more of the other 84 PACs as need arises. PACs are not held to the same standard of reporting as political candidates and do not have to report as frequently as candidates. They can produce mailers, texts, and ads in support of a candidate or against one without actually donating to the candidate. Some candidates aren’t even aware that a PAC is promoting them until they receive a mailer or text themselves. The more PACs the money moves through, the harder it is to trace back to the original donor.
It’s 2023 in Halifax, Virginia and residents are choosing between a broad field of 11 candidates as their next Board of Elections Supervisor. A PAC comes out of nowhere and drops $12,500 each on two candidates: Mattie Cowan and Ronnie Duffey. Both candidates tell the media that they have no idea who the PAC is or why they took an interest in their respective campaigns. “I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth,” said Cowan to SoVa Now. “I appreciate it, because I want to win this election and I think I’m the best qualified person for the job.” Duffey echoed her response: “I haven’t spent anything on this campaign,” he said. “But if they’re going to spend $12,500 on me to get me re-elected ….”
The mailers endorsed these candidates based on, “their commitment to private property rights, fiscal responsibility and government transparency.”
Sound familiar? It’s the exact reasons the American Property PAC cited for endorsing Commissioner-incumbent Yenzer.
Hobbs’ primary Super PAC is Building America’s Future. In 2020, it collected less than a million in revenue. In 2021, $11 million. According to Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, Musk came on the scene in 2022, ballooning contributions after that, with 2022 revenue exceeding $53 million. We could not find data from 2023 but found that 2024 brought $99.8 million in revenue with “an individual” donating $74.5 million alone. In the 2024 election cycle, Musk spent $290,000,000 on campaigns: the equivalent the combined donations of 3 million “small donor” every day Americans.
With an understanding of the scale of these donations, let us turn to the methods those donations fund. Hobbs is no stranger to controversy—we found multiple complaints with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in multiple states. 2024 was notable however. During this time, the super PAC launched its “Progress 2028” campaign, which claimed to be then-Presidential-candidate Kamala Harris’ platform in response to Project 2025. In actuality, it was a false flag campaign funded by Building America’s Future.
The duplicitous nature of this campaign drew harsh criticism from across the political spectrum, which the super PAC acknowledged and brushed off in the same breath. In an interview with the Washington Post, strategist Andrew Romero stated, “People were upset on both sides of the aisle on it, said it was dishonest, disingenuous, we shouldn’t be running ads that look like Harris’s. But it worked and the numbers are undeniable."
The super PAC was also the sole revenue source of another Hobbs PAC, the now-infamous Future Coalition PAC. In 2024, this organization ran ads in rural red districts claiming Harris was pro-Palestine, and ads in urban blue districts claiming she was pro-Israel.
Based on his portfolio and spending habits, Hobbs’ activities seem to focus less on supporting candidates he and his donors like and more on undermining candidates who oppose his donors’ interests. And he is very successful: as of this publication, OpenSecrets ranks the Building America’s Future super PAC as #30 of 40,455 in terms of revenue. There is no data available for the total funds Hobbs wields across all 85 PACs.
So what does Hobbs have to do with Commissioner-incumbent Yenzer? Apparently as little as the Treasurer had to do with the candidates in Halifax.
The Uranus was able to reach Commissioner Yenzer for comment. He said, “Wheni filed I promise not to except money for my campaign, so I don't need to explain any wrong doing. […] I didn't know anything about this advertisement. I didn't ask for help. I only ask for votes and work for the taxpayers to prove myself as a good person.”
As we turn our attention to both Commissioner Yenzer’s platform and opponent Judd McCormack’s, similarities surface first. Both candidates refused to raise money for their campaigns, which is not uncommon in Pottawatomie County Commission races. Neither opponent are or identify as career politicians— just citizens trying to do right by their neighbors. Both believe strongly in transparency and treating tax dollars with respect. Both focus on issues the county is facing instead of partisan or identity politics. Both have identified the 24 corridor and a secondary access road to Manhattan as primary problems that they are eager to tackle. Both are, by anyone’s measure, strong candidates.
So why would this PAC inject $11,461.50 in an election where candidates have raised less than $1,000 and want most of the same things? The answer may lie in their differences, the keystone of which is their stance on Beltline’s proposed hyperscale data center.
According to candidate profiles published by the Pott County Times, Commissioner Yenzer’s stance is this, “I believe data centers have their place in this hectic, internet-crazed society. They have improved their operations over the years– like any business, they must improve their product if they want to sell it. As for Pottawatomie County, we need to write strict and resolute rules for the data centers so that if a data center is built in our county, we can regulate their impact. There will also need to be regular inspections to ensure they obey those regulations.”
Candidate McCormack does not leave the door even cracked. He writes, “I OPPOSE large or hyperscale data centers in Pottawatomie County, in Kansas, or anywhere else. […] Many citizens are concerned about power use, water use, as well as air, land, and groundwater contamination, these concerns cannot be directly regulated or enforced by local authorities. Locally we can only regulate things like light, sound, screening, zoning, and setbacks. Without the ability to locally regulate or enforce we have to rely on state agencies and legislatures to legally back and regulatorily support our county or we are stuck just hoping that data center owners comply instead of challenging or ignoring regulations all together, as has happened elsewhere. Plus, the potential tax revenue could all be gone with one piece of federal or state legislation, both of which are experiencing tax revenue shortages after other tax breaks for prominent data center owners. These concerns are only the beginning of why I oppose data centers.”
I’ll leave the core question up to our readers: why would a Musk-backed super PAC care about a rural commission race in a state they’ve only ever flown over, so much that they would bury an opponent in 11x as much funding as either candidate raised?
