Where’s the Money, Dorothy Moon? Eleven Years of Data Tell the Real Story

Hey Party Watch Fans,

We’ve just about had it. Sitting through the summer meeting and listening to Dorothy Moon and her crew’s self-aggrandizing speeches has been nothing short of exhausting. If we have to hear Dorothy tell us one more time about how much money they’ve raised and how amazing they are, we might just scream.

So, we decided to do something about it. Instead of taking her word for it, we went straight to the numbers. That’s right! We analyzed 11 years of party finances, covering the tenures of five different chairmen: Yates, Parker, Labrador, Luna, and now Moon. The dates of their leadership varied, of course, so we had to make a few adjustments to level the playing field.

Here’s how we did it:

1. We pulled all the data straight from the FEC and Idaho Secretary of State websites.

2. We cleaned it up, removing pass-through donations and corresponding expenses, duplicates (like transfers between state and federal accounts), and central committee contributions to IDGOP (because, as we’ve said before, those aren’t donations).

3. We removed the Presidential Caucus pay-to-play ballot access fees, again, those are not donated contributions. Just fyi, the FEC says so too.

4. We combined all the data from 2014-2024. We then assigned each transaction a “Chair” based on the date of the transaction and who was in charge at the time.

5. Of course, all chairs served different lengths of time, and some during election seasons and some not. Yates(2016), Luna(2020), and Moon(2024) all served during a general presidential election. Parker served during an Idaho officer’s election (2018). Being fair, Labrador only presided over the 2019 municipal elections and the GOP primary in 2020; his numbers don’t seem to represent his fundraising capability. Likely due to a lack of a major election. Therefore, to create an apples-to-apples comparison, we averaged actual contributions and expenditures by the number of days in office.

The results? Let’s just say, even we were shocked.

Now, we know we’ve thrown a lot of information your way in the past, so we’re going to take this slow and steady, breaking it down one subject at a time. Let’s start with the first and most obvious question:

1. Donations – How Much Did Each Chairman Raise?

And the results? Well, it’s probably no surprise to you that Dorothy Moon came in dead last. Apparently, Dorothy Moon hasn’t figured out that when you criticize fellow republicans, organizations, and businesses, they don’t tend to donate anymore.

2. No Contributions = No Operating cash.

The logical next question is, “If she is a horrid fundraiser, where does the money come from ?”

That’s where this starts to get pretty pathetic. During her nomination speech in 2022, Moon rebuffed her predecessor’s work saying:

“The reality is that Idaho Republican Party fundraising has stagnated”.

She went on to share her plans:

“I have committed to building a first rate fundraising billing apparatus, and that would draw national resources and set us up for success against the Democrat Party. That is our problem. They’re coming for us. But most importantly, I’m going to make sure our coffers are funded with Idaho donors and Idaho money.”

Question: Dorothy, do you know what stagnated means?

It’s a pretty fair assumption that the Idaho Republican Party is designed to help elect Republican candidates. To be fair, we imagine that donors expect that a portion of their money would be used for operational expenses, but the lion’s share would be meant for voter contact, get out the vote programs, independent expenditures for candidates, or even straight donations to candidates.

In her 2022 remarks mentioned above, she told us that she was going to build a “first-rate fundraising apparatus.” She didn’t.

Instead, she devised and executed a scheme reminiscent of organized crime, introducing play-for-pay initiatives alongside a newly enforced mandatory central committee conscription. All funds directed to the Idaho Republican Party. We’ll delve into this at a later time, but suffice it to say, it’s quite troubling.

3. The Expenses

Let’s discuss expenses. Remember, we’ve already excluded payments to central committees (such as caucus reimbursements) and removed direct candidate support (when the party sends money directly to candidates) for now. Don’t worry; we’ll cover those in a future email. For now, we’re focusing on straight expenses: rent, utilities, parking, events, and, of course, the infamous Dorothy Moon “travel/meals/office budget.”

To kick things off, let’s revisit something we mentioned in a previous email: the Bank of Idaho Visa card. That’s right, Dorothy’s trusty little Bank of Idaho Visa. We pulled the numbers, and guess what? Dorothy managed to charge over $187,000 on that card, categorized as travel, meals, and office expenses. Let that sink in for a second.

If the party isn’t helping Idaho’s Republican candidates, is the state GOP just raising money to fund Dorothy’s expenses?

But wait, there’s more.

We then applied the same formula for calculating spending as we used for fundraising: the total amount spent divided by the number of days in office. And once again, Dorothy Moon came out on top/ or bottom- by a mile. (see below)

Dorothy didn’t just spend the most—she spent at a ratio of more than 2:1 compared to the next closest chairman. That’s right, folks: Dorothy Moon outspent her nearest colleague by DOUBLE.

What exactly was all this money spent on? Maybe Dorothy will treat us to one of her self-congratulatory speeches at the next meeting to explain how spending at this level benefits the party. Or maybe she won’t, because the numbers speak for themselves.

If her office, travel, and meals budget are any indication, Dorothy Moon isn’t just breaking records- she’s breaking the bank. Next time, maybe we can dive into some of the transactions we can see. It’s laughable.

With such a lack of focus on candidate support, it’s hard not to feel concerned about the 2026 elections. The party’s resources should be going toward helping Republicans win, not toward endless committee meetings, bloated travel budgets, and self-serving PR stunts.

Dorothy and her team need to get serious about the elections and how they use donor funds. Just like in any campaign, the less money you waste on operational expenses, the more money you have for direct voter contact.

Our guess is that some of her teammates and pals are not oblivious to how this looks. It wouldn’t be too tough to clarify this, but who would dare ask?

Cheers-

Party Watch

Yours in transparency (because someone has to be)

ps. As a little side note, we noticed one odd transaction while we were looking through the finances. It was titled ” Southern States Event,” and it was a whopping $9,600. The transaction is here:

pps.

Ahh, Peanuts & Cracker Jacks

After some digging, we realized it was yet again another egregious RNC expense that Idaho donors got to cover for the “delegates.” We hope you had fun pretending to play baseball, Dorothy. Meanwhile, Annette Tipton in LD 15 lost to a Democrat by 227 votes, with $0 in support from the IDGOP.

For reference, it appears that Berch spent over $224,000 and Tipton $63,000.

Can you imagine the effect a postcard, a text message, targeted social media ads, or even an email to voters you might have had?

She was so close!

We all love stadium food, but not nearly as much as we would have loved to beat a 3-term democrat.

Priorities.

Disclaimer
This article is a news release from Party Watch. Gregory Graf and Political Potatoes are not involved or responsible for creating this well-researched and important content.

The following is intended to convey an opinion on newsworthy events of public concern regarding public figures and/or public officials in exercising their official duties. No implications or inferences—beyond those explicitly stated in the preceding— are intended to be conveyed or endorsed by the Author. Wherever available, hyperlinks have been provided to allow readers to directly access any underlying assertions of fact upon which this opinion is based.