A House in Fort Wayne
On Fort Wayne's northeast side, there is a single-family home. It has a front door, a mailbox, presumably a lawn. It is also, according to IRS records, the registered address of Hoosier Leadership for America -- a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that plans to spend $3 million to reshape Indiana's state senate. [1] [2]
The person listed as treasurer in FCC advertising purchase records is not from Indiana. Charles Gantt works for Bulldog Compliance, a political advisory firm based in Massachusetts. [2]
This is the entry point into a financial operation that, by the time Indiana's May 2026 Republican primaries arrive, will have flooded state legislative races with more outside money than most of these districts have ever seen -- and voters will not be able to trace most of it to its source.
The Players
At least four national organizations are spending money to unseat Republican state senators who voted against Trump's mid-decade redistricting plan on December 11, 2025. They are not hiding the effort. They are hiding who pays for it.
Hoosier Leadership for America is the largest single player. Run by Andrew Surabian -- a longtime Trump operative and close adviser to JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr. -- on behalf of U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, the group has committed $3 million across seven state senate races. [1] As a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization, it is legally exempt from disclosing its donors. [2]
By March 2026, Hoosier Leadership for America had purchased television and radio advertising in at least four Indiana markets -- Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and Terre Haute -- plus digital ads on YouTube and other platforms, according to FCC records. The targets: Sens. Jim Buck of Kokomo (SD-21), Spencer Deery of West Lafayette (SD-23), Greg Goode of Terre Haute (SD-40), Travis Holdman of Markle (SD-19), and Greg Walker of Columbus (SD-41). [3] All five voted against the redistricting bill.
Club for Growth, led by former Indiana Congressman David McIntosh, spent approximately $425,000 on pro-redistricting advertising and phone campaigns before the December vote. [4] McIntosh told Fox News the group launched a seven-figure national investment in redistricting and that spending in Indiana could reach $3 million. In November 2025, the Club ran a one-week broadcast ad buy in the Indianapolis television market -- which covers roughly 40-45% of the state's Republican primary voters -- on broadcast networks and Fox News. [5] After the vote failed, the Club for Growth Action super PAC began sending mailers for Trump-endorsed challengers, including mailers for Tracey Powell against Sen. Jim Buck highlighting Trump's endorsement. [4]
McIntosh's position was blunt: "Basically we're going to spend what it takes to get the bill passed." [5]
Fair Maps Indiana operates through a dual structure that is worth understanding precisely, because the structure is the strategy. Fair Maps Indiana Action is a super PAC -- it must disclose its donors. It is chaired by Marty Obst, founder of MO Strategies and a senior operative in Trump's 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns and adviser to former VP Mike Pence. Its treasurer is Carlin Yoder, a former state senator who chaired the Trump-Vance 2024 Indiana campaign. The team also includes national campaign strategist Chris LaCivita (Trump 2024 senior adviser) and consultants Chip Englander and John Brabender. [6]
Fair Maps Indiana Action pledged to spend "seven figures" in Indiana state senate and house primaries. [7]
But here is the thing: Fair Maps Indiana Action reported no fundraising activity for 2025. [7] Zero. Despite a seven-figure pledge. The money appears to be flowing instead through the affiliated entity -- Fair Maps Indiana, Inc., a 501(c)(4) that is a project of the nonprofit Defending America's Comeback. Through this dark-money arm, the group spent over $250,000 on voter engagement before the December vote and over $500,000 total. Obst said so himself, and he was explicit about the structure: nonprofit funding "is not disclosed for reporting purposes." [7]
A super PAC that pledges seven figures. A 501(c)(4) that spends the actual money. One must disclose donors. The other does not. The one that does not is doing the spending. This is not an accident of paperwork.
Turning Point Action pledged what it called "congressional-level spending" against anti-redistricting senators. Before the December 2025 vote, the organization stated: "If it does not pass, Turning Point Action is willing to throw more money and resources into these primary races than some Congressional races." [8]
And these four are not operating in isolation. Obst explicitly acknowledged coordination: "Our team will work closely with aligned efforts such as Club For Growth and multiple political committees supporting the president's priorities." [9] Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith promoted the Hoosier Leadership for America summit on social media, signaling alignment between state executive branch officials and the outside spending groups. [8]
The Ad Campaign
The ads themselves reveal a carefully constructed messaging strategy. Rather than running purely on redistricting -- which polls showed 53% of Hoosier voters opposed -- the campaigns broaden the attack surface. The ads frame senators as having "opposed President Trump's plan to remove liberal Democrats from Congress," but then layer on unrelated votes: gasoline taxes, property taxes (Senate Bill 1), foreign land ownership (House Bill 1183). [10]
This creates the appearance of broad policy disagreement. It is not. The targeting criterion is a single vote: the December 11, 2025 redistricting roll call. Every targeted senator voted against the map. No senator who voted for it is being targeted.
Sen. Spencer Deery responded directly: "But these groups don't want you to know that... They just want to distort, and they want to lie to you." [10]
Follow the Money (If You Can)
Adding up the commitments that have been publicly stated -- not confirmed expenditures, but what the groups themselves have said they intend to spend -- the numbers are striking.
Hoosier Leadership for America: $3 million across seven races. [1] Club for Growth: $425,000 confirmed, with McIntosh stating it could reach $3 million. [4] [5] Fair Maps Indiana: over $500,000 confirmed through the 501(c)(4), with seven figures pledged for primaries. [7] Turning Point Action: "congressional-level" spending, unquantified. [8]
The combined total likely exceeds $4 million and could approach $7 million or more if each group delivers on its stated commitments. [11] And this does not include potential spending by Gov. Mike Braun's campaign apparatus -- Braun holds $2.3 million in campaign cash and has vowed to back primary challengers. [12] The Senate Republican Campaign Committee raised $1.3 million in 2025 and held $2.3 million cash on hand at year's end. Senate Pro Tem Rodric Bray -- singled out by Trump but not up for re-election until 2028 -- raised roughly $335,000 and held over $1 million in cash. [12]
To grasp the scale: Indiana state senate campaigns typically operate on budgets of $50,000 to $200,000 for an entire primary cycle. Even a single group's spending -- $3 million across seven races, averaging over $400,000 per race -- exceeds what most candidates raise and spend. The combined outside spending could exceed candidate spending by 10:1 or more in individual districts. [13]
Despite all of this, the targeted senators hold fundraising advantages over their challengers in direct contributions. All of them except Greg Walker -- who reported raising $0 in 2025 before reversing his retirement decision -- outpaced their primary opponents in donor-sourced fundraising. [14] But direct fundraising is a different currency than outside spending. The challengers do not need to raise the money. The money flows around them, through national organizations that operate at a scale these candidates cannot match and cannot even see.
The Architecture of Opacity
The financial architecture is as significant as the dollar amounts. The two largest players -- Hoosier Leadership for America and Fair Maps Indiana, Inc. (via Defending America's Comeback) -- are structured as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations. This is not incidental. The choice of this vehicle, with compliance handled by out-of-state firms like Bulldog Compliance in Massachusetts, reflects a sophisticated understanding of campaign finance law and an intentional decision to prevent voter scrutiny of funding sources. [15]
Fair Maps Indiana's dual structure is the clearest illustration. The super PAC arm -- which would have to disclose donors -- reported no fundraising. The 501(c)(4) arm -- which does not disclose donors -- is where the actual spending is happening. [7] [16] The practical effect is that a spending operation advertised as a super PAC operates with the opacity of dark money.
Voters in these districts cannot know who is funding the campaigns for or against their state senators. The senators being attacked cannot see who is funding the attacks. The total spending figure is necessarily an estimate, because the 501(c)(4) structure means there is no public accounting of actual expenditures.
What These Races Have Become
Whatever Indiana's 2026 Republican state senate primaries were before -- local contests decided by local dynamics -- they are now something else entirely. At least four coordinated national organizations, directed by Trump campaign veterans (Surabian, Obst, LaCivita), funded through legal architectures that shield donor identity, are waging campaigns to enforce loyalty to a single legislative vote. The spending is aimed at state legislators whose typical campaign budgets are a fraction of what is being spent against them.
The operation is real, documented, and massive relative to the races. Combined spending from at least four coordinated national organizations likely exceeds $4 million and could reach $7 million or more. The groups are openly coordinating. Two of the largest are structured as dark-money nonprofits that do not disclose their funders. The money flows through a house in Fort Wayne, a compliance firm in Massachusetts, a dual PAC-nonprofit structure designed to absorb public scrutiny while deflecting it from the people who write the checks.
The candidates' names are on the ballot. The voters' names are on the rolls. The donors' names are nowhere to be found.