The Story Didn’t End With Mark Lynch

About six weeks ago Evan Mulch published “Pop-Up PACs and Political Power” to his substack, the South Carolina Republican Senate story was still unfolding.

In the article he focused heavily on Palmetto Action, a super PAC created during the 2026 election cycle that spent millions opposing Mark Lynch during his challenge to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. It raised larger questions about late-arriving political money, donor disclosure, Republican political networks and just how much influence outside organizations can exert over a compressed election.

At the time, Ralph Norman had only recently advanced to the special Republican runoff against Darline Graham.

We now know considerably more.

And whatever conclusions readers draw about the motives behind the spending, the financial record shows something worth examining: many of the same organizations that had already intervened in South Carolina's Senate politics turned their attention to Ralph Norman.

A Familiar Pattern Finds a New Target

Palmetto Action registered with the Federal Election Commission on May 13th, 2026. By the end of June, it had reported raising $4.7 million and making more than $3.6 million in independent expenditures.

During Lindsey Graham's earlier primary, Palmetto Action reported millions in expenditures opposing Mark Lynch.

Then came the special election.

FEC-derived expenditure records show Palmetto Action ultimately reported approximately $3.19 million opposing Ralph Norman, after previously reporting approximately $3.53 million opposing Lynch. It also reported more than $711,000 supporting Darline Graham.

That is not merely a similarity in political philosophy or donor preference.

It is literally the same super PAC appearing in two successive contests involving candidates challenging the Graham political establishment.

Another familiar organization followed.

Security Is Strength PAC, a super PAC that had long supported Lindsey Graham, moved quickly behind Darline Graham after her appointment and candidacy. Its own website announced a $900,000 investment supporting her shortly after she entered the race.

During the runoff, Security Is Strength went beyond promoting Graham and began attacking Norman directly.

On August 20, the PAC announced a statewide advertising campaign accusing Norman of having a “record of failure.” Its advertisements characterized him as a career politician and dishonestly attacked his record on military spending, immigration-related employment allegations and government subsidies.

By the end of the contest, expenditure records compiled from FEC filings showed Security Is Strength had reported about $1.58 million opposing Norman while spending more than $3.3 million supporting Darline Graham.

After the Votes Were Cast, the Money Came Into Focus

Immediately after the runoff, the South Carolina Daily Gazette examined the outside spending.

Its September 4 analysis found that outside organizations had spent at least $4.9 million opposing Norman, compared with approximately $517,000 supporting him.

Darline Graham, meanwhile, benefited from at least $5 million in outside spending supporting her while facing about $392,000 in opposition spending.

Most importantly for understanding the earlier reporting on PAC influence, the Gazette found that the bulk of this activity came from Palmetto Action and Security Is Strength, organizations it described as having previously spent almost exclusively supporting Lindsey Graham and opposing his political opponents.

That provides important context to the concerns raised weeks earlier in Pop-Up PACs and Political Power.

The players did not simply disappear once the Lindsey Graham primary ended.

The names on the ballot changed.

Much of the outside-spending infrastructure did not.

Then Came the Last-Minute Flood

Those two organizations were not alone.

On August 24th — the day before the runoff, MAGA Inc. entered the contest with more than $827,000 in spending supporting Darline Graham.

The Associated Press reported that Norman had already been criticizing the millions of dollars being spent against him, including money from a super PAC previously aligned with Lindsey Graham.

FEC-derived records ultimately identified numerous independent organizations active in the race. Palmetto Action, Security Is Strength, MAGA Inc., American Mission and other groups collectively put millions of dollars behind communications supporting Graham or opposing Norman.

Super PACs operate on an entirely different scale. Federal law allows independent-expenditure-only committees to accept unlimited contributions and spend without contribution limits advocating for or against federal candidates, provided those expenditures remain independent of the candidates and campaigns involved.

That distinction matters.

Connections among donors, consultants, vendors and political figures may be worth examining, but they are not by themselves evidence of prohibited coordination.

What they do reveal is the enormous institutional machinery that can surround a modern election: large donors, professional consultants, television buys, mail programs and millions of dollars deployed to shape what voters see and hear.

This grassroots write-in effort surrounding Ralph Norman presents a very different model of political participation. Write In Ralph is fully independent by the people, for the people.

Its significance, then, is not measured by whether it can match a super PAC dollar for dollar. The contrast is structural. On one side are organizations capable of putting millions of dollars into a race. On the other are individual voters organizing, sharing information, talking to neighbors and participating through their own time and resources.

Supporters of the write-in effort see that distinction as part of its appeal: less polished, less centralized and far removed from the professional political apparatus that dominated much of the primary.

The Architecture of Influence

One of the most interesting aspects of Mulch's original article was that it was not merely about one advertisement or even one candidate.

It was about timing and transparency.

Federal law requires independent expenditures to be disclosed quickly as Election Day approaches, 24 or 48 hour reports can reveal that money is being spent and identify the candidate being supported or opposed. But the underlying donor disclosures for newly created or strategically timed committees can arrive later under ordinary committee reporting schedules. The result can be an election in which voters know an organization is spending millions before they have the same level of information about where all of its money originated.

And South Carolina is not the only place where that issue has surfaced.

Interestingly, on September 18th, Reuters reported that newly created, Trump-linked “pop-up” PACs had spent more than $3 million in Ohio's Senate contest while operating under reporting schedules that meant their donors would not have to be disclosed until mid-October.

What the Record Looks Like in Hindsight

Two months of campaigning have turned some of the earlier questions into clearer financial facts.

Palmetto Action spent heavily opposing Mark Lynch.

It later spent heavily opposing Ralph Norman.

Security Is Strength supported Lindsey Graham and opposed his challengers.

It subsequently became one of the largest outside financial forces supporting Darline Graham and opposing Norman.

And millions of additional dollars flowed through other independent organizations during a Senate election conducted on an extraordinarily compressed timetable.

Again, none of those facts proves coordination between a candidate and an independent organization. Federal law expressly requires independence, and allegations of violations require evidence beyond parallel political interests or overlapping relationships.

But understanding political power does not begin and end with proving a crime.

Voters can also ask simpler questions.

Who paid for the messages filling their television screens, phones and mailboxes?

When did those organizations enter the race?

Who financed them?

Which candidates consistently benefited?

Which candidates consistently became their targets?

And how much of that information was available to South Carolinian's before they cast their ballots rather than afterward?

Those questions were worth asking when Pop-Up PACs and Political Power was first published.

The completed runoff spending records have made them more relevant than ever.