‘Exploited tax dollars’: Trial law firms donate almost exclusively to Democrats

By Tate Rosentreter
The Center Square

Two new reports from consumer advocacy group Alliance for Consumers show that what the group calls the “Shady Eight” trial law firms have donated almost exclusively to Democrats and liberal allies.

Executive director of Alliance for Consumers O.H. Skinner told The Center Square that his organization’s recent reports “reveal the left’s weaponization of the judicial system to further their woke agenda.”

“The combination of donating almost entirely to Democrats and their allies while pushing woke policies through the courts makes it clear that these trial law firms will do any means necessary to force their progressive lifestyle onto consumers,” Skinner said.

Skinner said “trial lawyers have exploited taxpayer dollars by profiting off of state contracts meant to help consumer protection.”

“Instead, trial lawyers use the funds from these contracts to fuel the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline which enriches almost exclusively left-wing activists and Democratic politicians,” Skinner said.

As explained in one of Alliance for Consumers’ (AFC) reports, the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline refers to “politicians handing out lucrative public contracts to trial lawyers who give millions of dollars to liberal political campaigns.”

“This is often done under the guise of consumer protection,” the report said. “But, while the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline helps politicians funnel public money toward left-wing politics, it leaves everyday consumers and taxpayers with a horrible deal.”

Alliance for Consumers’ reports specifically deal with eight law firms that are the Shady Trial Lawyer “posterchildren,” AFC’s report said.

These law firms are Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer. Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein, and Simmons Hanly Conroy.

Over four election cycles from 2017-2025, these firms “generated nearly $26 million in combined political donations … to committees and candidates in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) tracking system,” AFC’s report said.

“Of that, almost $1 million was generated by the firms during 2025 alone,” AFC’s report said.

The report showed that the firms “sent 96% of their combined federal donations in 2025 to Democratic campaigns and allied political committees.”

“This new data keeps their collective donation ratio at 99% over the full set of data from 2017 through 2025,” the report said.

Additionally, Lieff Cabraser and Baron & Budd “showed a 100% commitment to Democrats and their allies” and neither firm recorded “a single dollar of donations to Republican candidates or aligned committees during 2025.”

Top recipients of donations from the firms include Jon Ossoff (D–GA), Roy Cooper (D–NC), Cory Booker (D–NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D–IL), and Democratic House Candidate Nikki Budzinski (D-IL-13), the report showed.

AFC’s other report on the firms’ political action committees (PAC) explained how “Shady Trial Lawyer PACs have consistently put almost all of their money to work for Democrats.

For instance, “In 2023, 99% of their money supported Democratic candidates and aligned committees,” the report said, while “99% of their money went to support Democratic candidates and aligned committees during 2024.”

“The ratio was 93%” in 2025, the report said.

“Combined, the Shady Trial Lawyer PACs have put almost $31 million to work supporting Democratic candidates and aligned committees since the beginning of 2017, with around $2 million during 2025 alone,” the report said.

The top candidates that the PACs supported in 2025 were Jon Ossoff (D–GA) and Mark Warner (D–VA), while the top groups the PACs have given money to since 2017 include “organizations with aggressive progressive leanings” such as American Bridge, House Majority PAC, America Votes, National Democratic, Redistricting Committee, and Emily’s List, according to the report.

AFC’s report stated that the “partisan political giving” of the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline “is supported by money from lucrative public contracts signed by politicians and public officials, money that really belongs in the pockets of taxpayers and consumers.”

“These types of weak, under-protective, giveaway contracts make some sense if the goal is to fund left-wing campaigns, but they make no sense if your goal is to help consumers and protect taxpayers,” AFC said.