NOTUS0%

Karoline Leavitt’s Old Campaign Remains Awash in Red Ink 26%

By Taylor Giorno0%

7/1/2026, 4:25:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41.6% saturation with 180 hits. Analysis detected 1,028 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38% and a BS Rank of 26% (15,698 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.10% of the article peer group.

Karoline Leavitt can’t seem to shake her old campaign debt. 
The White House press secretary’s 2022 congressional campaign still owes creditors more than $326,000, according to its most recent financial report, filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. 
Most of that debt  more than $210,000  is attributable to unpaid refunds to donors who made excessive contributions to Leavitt’s campaign, in violation of federal limits. 
Leavitt’s old campaign first disclosed the debt  first reported by NOTUS  in January 2025, more than two years after she lost her congressional race in New Hampshire in November 2022. 
Plenty of political campaigns carry hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in debt for years after the election has ended. 
While federal law requires the campaigns to stay open and continue to file public reports disclosing the debt, there is often little chance that they actually make their creditors whole. 
But the Leavitt campaign debt is different, since a significant portion requires refunds for contributions that exceeded the legal limit by hundreds or thousands of dollars. 
When a congressional campaign receives an excessive contribution, the FEC guidelines state “the committee must not spend the funds,” which should be refunded or redistributed. 
The Leavitt campaign report says it has no cash on hand, meaning there is no money in the bank to issue refunds. 
Leavitt could still legally raise money for the purpose of retiring the debts but has made no financial progress toward doing so, her committee’s filing indicates. 
The White House did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment from Leavitt. 
End Citizens United, a liberal watchdog group, filed a complaint with the FEC in November 2022 alleging Leavitt had accepted and failed to refund the excessive contributions. 
An FEC spokesperson previously declined to provide an update on the complaint, which the agency declined to comment on. 
But the FEC has been unable to take enforcement action of any sort since May 1, 2025, when the campaign finance regulator entered a de facto shutdown after losing the minimum number of commissioners to perform such high level duties. 
President Donald Trump nominated two Republican commissioners in February. 
If confirmed, the addition of the new commissioners would restore a quorum on the commission. 
But their Senate confirmation hearings have not yet been announced, and it’s not clear if a quorum will be restored before the 2026 midterm election. 
The agency also has a backlog of more than 250 enforcement cases whenever it does reopen, Democratic FEC Chair Shana Broussard wrote on BlueSky last month. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Taylor Giorno: 2.8%NOTUS: 2.2%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 5.1%Taylor Giorno: 1.3%NOTUS: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%Taylor Giorno: 4.7%NOTUS: 6.6%Framing Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%Taylor Giorno: 1.7%NOTUS: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Taylor Giorno: 0.9%NOTUS: 3.3%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 30.3%Taylor Giorno: 11.0%NOTUS: 3.0%Pessimism Bias30.3%This article: 41.6%Taylor Giorno: 13.5%NOTUS: 10.5%Negativity Bias41.6%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.6%Taylor Giorno: 1.9%NOTUS: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias7.6%This article: 6.2%Taylor Giorno: 3.1%NOTUS: 2.1%In-Group Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.4%Taylor Giorno: 5.2%NOTUS: 1.2%Recency Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.5%Taylor Giorno: 3.1%NOTUS: 4.7%Appeal to Authority12.5%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.0%Taylor Giorno: 3.0%NOTUS: 4.9%Hasty Generalization12.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.2%Taylor Giorno: 1.6%NOTUS: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion6.2%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.6%Taylor Giorno: 4.2%NOTUS: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.6%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.0%Taylor Giorno: 1.5%NOTUS: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Taylor Giorno: 1.3%NOTUS: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.5%Taylor Giorno: 3.1%NOTUS: 2.2%Unattributed Quote12.5%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.8%NOTUS: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.4%Taylor Giorno: 2.2%NOTUS: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice4.4%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 18.7%Taylor Giorno: 6.2%NOTUS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias18.7%This article: 9.5%Taylor Giorno: 2.4%NOTUS: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Taylor Giorno: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

433 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers51%attributed speech213writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageNOTUS • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 14 words • 0.0% coverageEnd Citizens United • 27 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 19 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageShana Broussard • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shana Broussard

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words12% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shana Broussard: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+86.9 ptsWriter: 13.1%Shana Broussard: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Shana Broussard: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.