The Conley Dossier
Buy me a coffee

Read me first

An investigation you don't have to trust.

This is a fully-sourced investigation into who funds Cait Conley (NY-17) and the interests her record sits closest to, built entirely from her own public records. Every claim links to a primary source you can check yourself. Here is what's here and where to start.

Built from her OGE Form 278e, FEC filings, federal contract records, voter-registration records, and named reporting. Nothing here alleges a crime, and nothing here questions her military service; where money and message diverge, it is shown as documented record, not proof of an exchange. Who made this, and why →

A fully-sourced investigation · 2026-06-10

Who would Cait Conley
actually represent?

The money and the disclosures, read together in her own records.

OGE Form 278e · FEC filings · federal contract records · voter registration · named reporting

The thesis

She runs against the surveillance state she was just paid by — and on populism her donors never feel.

Funded overwhelmingly from outside the district. Paid ~$328,000 by two defense-AI firms after leaving CISA, then kept it off her own website behind NDAs. A "crack down on Wall Street" message bankrolled by the people it names.

The case, in eight parts

  1. IThe Manufactured Candidate
  2. IIThe Out-of-District Money
  3. IIIThe Super PAC Behind Her
  4. IVThe SALT-First Tax Plan
  5. VThe Surveillance-AI Paycheck
  6. VIThe Thiel-Palantir Orbit
  7. VIIThe Residency Question
  8. VIIIThe Federal Contract Record
  9. IXThe Company She Keeps
  10. XCompliance, Conflicts & the Uniparty Tell
  11. XIThe Bottom Line

Press O for every slide · ←/→ to navigate · P to print.

The credibility floor

Every number here is her own.

  • Sourced, on every slide: her OGE Form 278e, FEC filings, USASpending / FPDS contract records, Westchester County voter records, and named reporting (The Intercept, lohud / David McKay Wilson).
  • This briefing does not question her military service — her record is confirmed. Where something is legal, it says so. Where the record clears her, it says that too: CISA bought nothing from these firms, and she denies working for Palantir or ICE.
  • The full evidence ledger, including what's confirmed and what's still open, is at /findings.

Part I

The Manufactured Candidate

The thesis

She runs against the surveillance state she was just paid by — and on populism her donors never feel.

Funded overwhelmingly from outside the district. Paid ~$328,000 by two defense-AI firms after leaving CISA, then kept it off her own website behind NDAs. A "crack down on Wall Street" message bankrolled by the people it names.

I · The Manufactured Candidate

The slate has its own pooled fundraising committees, and they carry a name

Three Arizona-registered joint-fundraising committees and the recruitment PACs moved roughly $64,000 straight into Conley from the apparatus that built her candidacy.

New Politics Next Mission Fund$31,078slate joint-fundraising committee
VoteVets HELLCAT Victory Fund$17,906registered in Arizona, home of fellow Hell Cat JoAnna Mendoza
New Politics Hellcats$5,118slate joint-fundraising committee
VoteVets + Serve America PAC$10,000direct checks from the recruitment apparatus
Total from the machine~$64,101into Cait for New York
  • A committee literally named 'VoteVets HELLCAT Victory Fund,' registered in Arizona rather than New York, is documentary proof of shared slate fundraising infrastructure (FEC)
  • The four candidates branded themselves the 'Hell Cats' in a mid-2025 Signal chat, a name Mendoza chose after the first women Marines of WWI (Salon)
  • Seth Moulton's Serve America PAC features Conley's record and lists notable alumni including Sherrill, Spanberger, and Gina Ortiz Jones (serveamericapac.com)

Joint-fundraising committees are a legal, common mechanism; the point is that the structure documents a coordinated slate, not any violation.

FEC committee C00900431; The Nation; Salon; serveamericapac.com

I · The Manufactured Candidate

The super PAC ad echoes her own campaign bio, almost word for word

New Politics writes her story; the VoteVets ad repeats it. A centrally produced message, illustrated.

New Politics candidate bio

'From combat zones to the Situation Room, Cait has always answered the call to lead.' (newpolitics.org)

vs
VoteVets $1M ad

'From combat zones to the Situation Room, she knows where she comes from.' (City & State NY, on the $1M cable buy)

  • Her military service is confirmed and not in dispute: an NPRC record confirms 16 years, six deployments, three Bronze Stars, and a Presidential Unit Citation
  • The point is the messaging pipeline, not the resume: introduce, endorse, fund, message, all from the same network (newpolitics.org; City & State NY)
  • A super PAC echoing a candidate's public bio is a vivid illustration of a produced message; it is not, by itself, evidence of illegal coordination, which is not alleged

Her service record is treated here only as confirmed, neutral background; the comparison is about a manufactured message and its funders, never about her record in uniform.

newpolitics.org; City & State NY; NPRC service record

I · The Manufactured Candidate

The model is self-conscious: a 2018 cohort funding its 2026 successors

The slate says it was inspired by the 2018 class of women veterans and national-security officials, and that cohort now writes the checks.

  • Hell Cat Rebecca Bennett said the slate was inspired by Slotkin, Spanberger, Houlahan, Sherrill, and Luria, who ran in 2018 (Salon)
  • Conley's filings show $2,500 from Houlahan's leadership PAC (HOULAPAC) and $2,000 from Chrissy Houlahan for Congress (FEC)
  • To be precise: Slotkin and Spanberger are genuinely ex-CIA, while Conley and the other Hell Cats are national-security and military, not CIA (Salon)
  • Her most co-funded fellow candidate, Rep. Pat Ryan, and Conley are both New Politics recruits (NBC News)

Recruitment, endorsement, and successor funding are all legal and ordinary in party politics; the finding is the apparatus, not any impropriety.

Salon; FEC; NBC News

Part II

The Out-of-District Money

II · The Out-of-District Money

She runs as the local choice. About 8% of her money is local.

Half of her itemized individual dollars come from outside New York entirely; Manhattan rivals the whole district.

~8% share of Conley's about $2.65M in receipts that came from inside NY-17; roughly half her itemized individual money is out-of-state
  • Of her itemized money, only 48.9% of donors and 50.4% of dollars are inside New York State (computation from committee contributor records, C00900431)
  • Her single richest in-district town is affluent Chappaqua at about $51,543, and she raises about as much from Manhattan as from the entire district (FEC)
  • Total receipts of $2,645,257.86 reconcile to the FEC, with $1,901,117.92 in itemized individual contributions (FEC committee C00900431, through 3/31/2026)

Out-of-district fundraising is legal and routine; the figure describes where the money originates, against an 'of the district' brand, not any violation.

FEC committee C00900431 (through 3/31/2026); committee contributor records

II · The Out-of-District Money

The donors she vows to 'crack down on' are the donors funding her

Her policy page pledges to rein in corporate landlords and Wall Street hedge funds. Her FEC file names them, maxed out.

Steve Mandel (Lone Pine Capital)$7,000founder of one of the largest hedge funds in the country
Joshua Bekenstein (Bain Capital)$7,000Bain co-chairman; $14,000 as a household with Anita
Michael Eisenson (Charlesbank)$7,000Charlesbank co-founder, ex-Harvard Management
Jonathan Rose / Kristel / Blumenstein$7,000 eachnamed real-estate developers
Real estate + finance bloc~$180K-$204Kacross ~60-78 donors (classification-dependent)
  • Her policy page states the goal verbatim: 'Cracking down on corporate landlords and Wall Street hedge funds that are buying up properties and pricing out working families' (caitconley.com/policy)
  • Every named donor above is verified in the committee's filings (FEC, C00900431, through 3/31/2026)
  • The aggregate real-estate-plus-finance figure is classification-dependent, but the named max-out checks need no aggregation to make the point (FEC; INFERENCE on the totals only)

These are legal individual contributions, and plenty of Democrats who back reform take this money; the contrast is the pledge against the named donor list, not a purchased position.

caitconley.com/policy; FEC committee C00900431 (through 3/31/2026)

II · The Out-of-District Money

The finance principals stack across every legal channel at once

The same names max out to her, fund the bundling PAC, and fund the super PAC airing her ads. The signature is concentration, not coordination.

Joshua Bekenstein (Bain)$7,000 + $375,000direct, then to VoteVets — its largest gift after Simon
The Mandels (Lone Pine)$14,000 + $300,000direct + VoteVets; Sue Mandel +$3.63M to Majority Democrats PAC
Mark Heising (Renaissance/Simons)$7,000 + $1,005,000direct + to the same Majority Democrats PAC
Majority Democrats PAC → Conley$112,150≈ half her entire in-district haul
  • Bekenstein gave $7,000 direct, then $375,000 to VoteVets, the largest individual VoteVets gift after Deborah Simon's $1.5M (FEC)
  • The Mandels gave $14,000 direct and $300,000 to VoteVets, and Sue Mandel put $3.63M into Majority Democrats PAC, which bundled $112,150 into Conley (FEC)
  • Mark Heising gave $7,000 direct and $1,005,000 to the same Majority Democrats PAC; his fortune traces to the Renaissance Technologies / Simons family (FEC; Wealth Management)
  • This one out-of-state, finance-seeded hybrid PAC's $112,150 alone equals about half her entire in-district haul (FEC)

Parallel giving across separate committees is legal and uncoordinated by law; no quid pro quo is alleged, and the documented point is the overlap of donors across channels.

FEC Schedule A and independent-expenditure records; committees C00900431, VoteVets C00418897, Majority Democrats PAC; Wealth Management

Part III

The Super PAC Behind Her

III · The Super PAC Behind Her

An $826,000 air war, seeded by one mall-REIT heiress

VoteVets is Conley's single largest outside backer, and its single largest individual funder gave $1.5 million.

$826,880 VoteVets independent expenditures supporting Conley (FEC Schedule E, live 6/12/2026), $0 against; atop a separately announced $1M cable buy
  • VoteVets reported $826,879.67 in independent expenditures supporting Conley across eight TV-ad buys (FEC Schedule E, as of 6/12/2026) - up from $508,591.99 at the June 5 reporting - and announced a $1M cable buy on ESPN, HGTV, Lifetime, and Hallmark (City & State NY, 5/28/2026)
  • Its single largest individual funder is Deborah J. Simon, the Simon Property Group mall-REIT heiress, who gave $1,500,000: $1M on 2025-03-03 and $500K on 2025-11-05 (FEC donor file)
  • Simon also maxed out to Conley directly and is a $2M backer of DMFI PAC (FEC)

Independent expenditures are legally uncoordinated with the candidate; this documents who financed the air war, not any exchange with Conley.

FEC Schedule E, committee C00418897; City & State NY (5/28/2026); FEC donor file

III · The Super PAC Behind Her

The 'in it for themselves' message, financed by a megadonor and big labor

The ad attacks self-interested politicians. The funding is establishment money, not a grassroots veterans drive.

What the ad says

The VoteVets spot backing Conley attacks politicians who are 'in it for themselves.'

vs

  • A Washington Examiner investigation found VoteVets raised about $31M in 2024 with at least about $10M from non-veterans, its single largest contributor being House Majority PAC (about $2.7M) (Washington Examiner)
  • It is largely funded by labor unions, plumbers, pipefitters, AFT, and operating engineers, plus large Democratic PACs (Washington Examiner)
  • To keep this honest: VoteVets is overwhelmingly labor-funded, with only about $20K of corporate-PAC money; it is an establishment and big-donor vehicle, not a corporate one (Washington Examiner)

Independent spending and union funding are both legal; the contrast is the populist message against the establishment money behind it, and no coordination is alleged.

Washington Examiner investigation; FEC committee C00418897

III · The Super PAC Behind Her

Max out the candidate, then fund the air war: the documented loop

The same households appear on both sides of the ledger, every dollar legal and disclosed.

Bekenstein$14,000 → $375,000household direct → VoteVets, which spent $826,880 boosting her
The Mandels$14,000 → $412,150$300K VoteVets + $112,150 bundled back via Majority Democrats PAC
Deborah Simonmax + $1,500,000VoteVets' top individual funder for the cycle
  • Bekenstein: $7,000 direct ($14,000 household) plus $375,000 to VoteVets, which then spent $826,880 boosting her (FEC)
  • The Mandels: $14,000 direct, $300,000 to VoteVets, and $3.63M into Majority Democrats PAC, which bundled $112,150 back into her campaign (FEC)
  • Deborah Simon: maxed out direct plus $1.5M to VoteVets, its top individual funder for the cycle (FEC)
  • That a candidate's largest 'independent' backers are also her maxed-out personal donors is the structural signature of a manufactured candidacy (INFERENCE), but it is concentration, not coordination

Every transaction is legal and FEC-disclosed, and giving to other committees is not coordination with the candidate; the documented fact is the same names recurring across channels.

FEC Schedule A and Schedule E; committees C00900431, C00418897, Majority Democrats PAC

Part IV

The SALT-First Tax Plan

IV · The SALT-First Tax Plan

'Bring down costs for working families,' led by a giveaway to the top

Her economic agenda leads with full SALT-cap repeal, which independent analysts find overwhelmingly benefits the highest earners.

96% share of a SALT-cap repeal's benefit going to the highest-income 20% of households, per the Tax Policy Center
  • Her agenda leads with 'Ending entirely the Trump and Lawler-imposed SALT tax cap,' with a standalone SALT page (caitconley.com/policy; caitconley.com/salt)
  • The Tax Policy Center finds more than 96% of the cut goes to the top 20%, households making $430,000-plus get nearly three-quarters of the benefit, and a middle-income household's average cut is about $30 (TPC)
  • By contrast, her message frames the plan as relief for working families in the Hudson Valley (caitconley.com/policy)

SALT-cap repeal is a legitimate and locally popular position in a high-tax district; the finding is the gap between a 'working families' frame and the distributional analysis, not a hidden agenda.

caitconley.com/policy; caitconley.com/salt; Tax Policy Center

IV · The SALT-First Tax Plan

The loopholes her own donors use are absent from her plan

A live read of her policy page turns up zero mentions of the tax preferences the landlords and financiers funding her actually rely on.

  • Zero mentions of carried interest, REITs, capital gains, the private-equity or hedge-fund tax preference, 1031 exchanges, depreciation, pass-through income, a billionaire tax, a wealth tax, or the corporate rate (live read of caitconley.com/policy)
  • The carried-interest preference alone lets fund managers pay a 20% top capital-gains rate (23.8% with NIIT) on what functions as compensation, versus ordinary rates up to 37% (Tax Policy Center)
  • A 2026 Wyden-Whitehouse-King bill to close it is scored at $63.1B over ten years; narrower historical bills scored about $15.6B (Senate Finance; TPC)

The silence is a verified fact about her published platform; that the silence is bought is a label, not a proof, and she is a challenger with no voting record.

caitconley.com/policy; Tax Policy Center; Senate Finance Committee

Part V

The Surveillance-AI Paycheck

V · The Surveillance-AI Paycheck

She ran 'Defending Digital Democracy,' then went on the surveillance-AI payroll

Her own financial disclosure reports about $328,283 from two Palantir-orbit defense-AI vendors, omitted from her campaign site behind NDAs.

$328,283 post-government income on Conley's OGE Form 278e (#10076406) from Hidden Level and Primer, two surveillance-AI vendors
  • Her OGE Form 278e (#10076406, period 1/1/2025-4/30/2026) reports Hidden Level salary $152,743.07 plus consulting $92,500 current and $48,040.08 preceding, and Primer $10,000 current plus $25,000 preceding (OGE 278e #10076406)
  • The components reconcile: $152,743.07 + $92,500 + $48,040.08 + $10,000 + $25,000 = $328,283.15 across the full reporting window (OGE 278e)
  • She confirmed she signed NDAs with both clients and could not elaborate, and omitted all of it from caitconley.com (NY-17 coverage, Feb. 2026; The Intercept, 2/9/2026)
  • Her CISA bio lists her as the senior executive overseeing election-infrastructure security, the role her campaign foregrounds (cisa.gov)

The income is documented and the concealment is her own choice; the defensible charge is adjacency plus concealment, not contract-steering. The figure is sourced to the OGE form itself, not to The Intercept's narrower partial-period number.

OGE Form 278e #10076406; The Intercept (2/9/2026); cisa.gov

V · The Surveillance-AI Paycheck

'Reining in ICE,' while paid by DHS-mission, Palantir-partner firms

Her platform promises to constrain the surveillance state. Her paycheck came from the industry that builds it.

What she campaigns on

Her policy page promises, in substance, 'Reining in ICE,' prohibiting masked agents, and revoking 287g agreements (caitconley.com/policy; phrasing is time-sensitive, confirm against a current snapshot).

vs
Who paid her

Hidden Level builds passive-RF airspace and counter-drone surveillance; Primer is a defense AI and NLP shop that advertises support for DHS missions. The Intercept reports Hidden Level's data is used in Palantir's Maven platform (The Intercept, 2/9/2026).

  • Hidden Level's flagship deployment at Stewart Air National Guard Base streams live airspace data, including a feed routed to law enforcement over the Hudson corridor (hiddenlevel.com)
  • Her platform takes no public position on AI surveillance, facial recognition, or biometric data collection, the exact field she was paid to work in (caitconley.com/policy)
  • Both Hidden Level and Primer partner with Palantir to help government agencies use AI (The Intercept, 2/9/2026)

The contrast is between her stated agenda and her disclosed income; the policy-page wording is time-sensitive and should be confirmed against a live snapshot before publication.

caitconley.com/policy; The Intercept (2/9/2026); hiddenlevel.com

V · The Surveillance-AI Paycheck

What the record does not show, stated plainly

Fairness requires carrying the exculpatory facts. The honest charge is adjacency and concealment, not procurement.

  • CISA, the mission she led election security for, bought $0 from both Hidden Level and Primer; an exhaustive CISA-funded census of 1,351 contracts plus 36 IDVs returns zero for both (USASpending / FPDS)
  • Primer holds zero DHS, CBP, or ICE contracts across every route checked; every Primer award is Department of Defense (USASpending + FPDS-NG)
  • She denies working for Palantir or ICE, and there is no evidence she did; the GOP mailer branding her a 'Palantir operative' is an overreach (Yonkers Times; her own denial)
  • The 'Hidden Level feeds Maven' link is asserted by The Intercept but is contested on a deeper documentary pass; treat it as a reported, not a contractually confirmed, relationship

These exculpatory findings are load-bearing: the record does not support that she steered any contract, that an agency she ran bought from a firm that paid her, or that she worked for Palantir or ICE. Anything stronger than adjacency-plus-concealment is unsupported.

USASpending and FPDS-NG; Yonkers Times; The Intercept (2/9/2026)

V · The Surveillance-AI Paycheck

The one served-entity buy pre-dates her CISA role and her paycheck

The closest true link runs the wrong way in time, which is why steering cannot be alleged.

  1. 2022USSOCOM buys Primer social-media monitoring (H9240122C0002, $2.996M), before her CISA role and before Primer paid her (USASpending)
  2. Mar 2023Conley becomes CISA senior advisor / election-security lead (cisa.gov)
  3. Jan 2025She leaves CISA; her OGE 278e income window runs from this period (OGE 278e #10076406)
  4. Feb 9, 2026The Intercept reports the income and the NDAs; the omission from her site becomes public (The Intercept)
  • The only served-entity purchase, Primer to USSOCOM, pre-dates both her CISA role and her Primer pay (USASpending)
  • Hidden Level has no buy from any entity she served; its only served-branch money is conventional Army C5ISR work via Booz Allen primes that pre-dates her engagement (USASpending subawards)
  • The closest true statement is that the special-operations community she came from bought Primer before she joined CISA and before Primer paid her, not that an agency she directed bought from a firm then paying her (INFERENCE, bounded by the contract record)

This timeline is what disciplines the charge: it shows adjacency, not procurement, and explicitly forecloses any steering claim.

USASpending / FPDS; cisa.gov; OGE 278e #10076406; The Intercept (2/9/2026)

Part VI

The Thiel-Palantir Orbit

VI · The Thiel-Palantir Orbit

Her largest defense-donor household is an Anduril co-founder's

A $10,000 household maxout from the Anduril COO who came up inside Palantir and Thiel's own venture fund, with one clean caveat.

Matthew Grimm (Anduril co-founder/COO)$5,000listed 'ANDURIL INDUSTRIES / COFOUNDER,' 2025-09-29
Kimberly Grimm$5,000same date, adjacent Orange County town; reads as one household
Cy Sack (Anduril)$1,000a second Anduril employee, 2025-03-17
Peter Dixon (Second Front Systems)$7,000defense-tech founder, 2025-06-24
Catherine Gray (In-Q-Tel)$1,000the CIA's venture arm, 2025-06-18
  • Grimm's arc runs Booz Allen to an early Palantir hire to a principal at Thiel's Mithril Capital to Anduril co-founder and COO (Crunchbase; The Org; 20VC)
  • HARD CAVEAT, which must be kept: the $10,000 is the Grimms' individual money direct to Conley; separately the Grimms gave to Anduril's corporate PAC, but Conley received $0 from that PAC, holds no Anduril or Palantir corporate-PAC money, and made no contribution to Anduril or Palantir herself (FEC)
  • Her employers' own people also appear: a Hidden Level executive gave $20 and a Primer employee gave $250 (FEC)

These are independent, lawful individual contributions, not a corporate tie or coordination; the weighting of her donor base toward defense-AI is the finding, and the Anduril-PAC caveat is non-negotiable.

FEC Schedule A and cross-giving records; Crunchbase; The Org; 20VC

VI · The Thiel-Palantir Orbit

Her chief endorser was inside the 'Team Themis' surveillance pitch

Rep. Pat Ryan, her most co-funded fellow candidate and a public endorser, spent two years as a Palantir subcontractor and was on the threads pitching surveillance of unions and a journalist.

From 2009 to 2011, Pat Ryan was deputy director of Berico Technologies, a Palantir subcontractor in Afghanistan, and was on the leaked Team Themis email threads pitching the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America on surveilling unions and journalist Glenn Greenwald.

The Intercept (2/22/2018); Salon (2/15/2011)
  • 36 of Conley's donors also gave to Pat Ryan for Congress, routing $214,500 to Conley and $183,100 to Ryan, making him her most co-funded real candidate (FEC)
  • Ryan endorsed Conley on January 16, 2026, calling her the strongest candidate to defeat Mike Lawler (Judge Street Journal)
  • In fairness, after the 2011 Anonymous hack exposed Team Themis, Palantir and Berico publicly disavowed the proposal, though that does not undo Ryan's participation in pitching it (Techdirt; Salon)

Ryan's record is his own and is not imputed to Conley; the documented link is a shared donor base and a mutual endorsement, not any joint conduct.

The Intercept (2/22/2018); Salon (2/15/2011); FEC; Judge Street Journal; Techdirt

VI · The Thiel-Palantir Orbit

Two arms of one network, kept legally and factually distinct

The Conley-to-Grimm-to-Anduril line and the Conley-to-Ryan-to-Palantir line trace to the same Thiel and Founders Fund defense complex, with the caveats stated.

  • Anduril was incorporated in 2017 by Palmer Luckey, Trae Stephens, Matt Grimm, Joe Chen, and Brian Schimpf, with Stephens, Grimm, and Schimpf all Palantir or Founders Fund alumni, and seeded by Thiel's Founders Fund (CNBC; TechCrunch)
  • Palantir itself invested $40M in Anduril's 2025 Series G and Thiel is deemed to hold more than 10% beneficial ownership of Anduril through related entities (SEC DEF 14A)
  • Read together, the two lines are legally separate, lawful contributions and public corporate-funding facts, not coordination (INFERENCE for the network read)
  • Conley holds no Palantir or Anduril corporate money, made no contribution to either, and denies any Palantir or ICE work (FEC; her own denial)

This is a thematic network map built on hard FEC and SEC facts plus a labeled inference; it asserts adjacency and a shared orbit, never coordination or a corporate tie to Conley.

SEC DEF 14A; CNBC; TechCrunch; FEC

Part VII

The Residency Question

VII · The Residency Question

She signed up to vote in NY-17 three weeks before she launched

A documented timeline from her own voter file and county records, presented without imputing motive.

  1. Mar 5, 2025Conley's NY-17 voter-registration form is signed (Westchester County BOE FOIL via David McKay Wilson)
  2. Mar 24, 2025She announces her campaign, about three weeks later (McKay Wilson)
  3. Nov 2025She votes in Chappaqua, her first documented NY-17 vote (McKay Wilson)
  • The registration-then-launch sequence is FOIL-confirmed and stated here as a documented timeline; no motive is imputed (McKay Wilson)
  • She grew up in Pine Bush, in Orange County, outside NY-17; her Hudson Valley upbringing is genuine and not contested here
  • Her party-enrollment date and any prior party history are not independently confirmed in this record and are flagged as an open question, not asserted as fact

Moving into a district to run is legal and common; the dates are her own public records, presented as a timeline rather than a character attack.

Westchester County BOE FOIL via David McKay Wilson

VII · The Residency Question

She lives in a $760K New Castle home that carries an 'Ossining' label

The brand and the assessor's record do not line up, and the money comes from people who cannot vote for her.

The brand

Conley presents as 'Ossining,' a working-river-town identity in NY-17.

vs

  • County records place her home in the affluent Millwood neighborhood of New Castle, town-assessed at $759,856, with an Ossining mailing address; the home is in New Castle, not Ossining proper (McKay Wilson)
  • In-district donors supplied roughly 8 to 9% of her about $2.65M in receipts, about 12 to 16% of her itemized individual money, with roughly half of her individual money out of state (FEC)
  • The NRCC has already built a 'Carpetbaggin Cait' brand around this, a sign the line will be used in the general, though the underlying facts are non-partisan public records (NRCC)

This critiques only her current residency and the geography of her money, not her genuine upbringing; out-of-district money is legal and routine.

Westchester County BOE FOIL via David McKay Wilson; FEC committee C00900431; NRCC

Part VIII

The Federal Contract Record

The thesis

She runs against the surveillance state she was just paid by — and on populism her donors never feel.

Funded overwhelmingly from outside the district. Paid ~$328,000 by two defense-AI firms after leaving CISA, then kept it off her own website behind NDAs. A "crack down on Wall Street" message bankrolled by the people it names.

VIII · The Federal Contract Record

The one served-entity buy runs the wrong way in time

The closest true link is Primer to the special-operations community she came from, and it pre-dates both her CISA role and the day Primer started paying her, which is why steering cannot be alleged.

  1. Feb 2022USSOCOM buys Primer 'Social Media Event Monitoring' (H9240122C0002, $2,996,017; PoP 2022-02-18 to 2023-02-18), before her CISA role and before Primer paid her (USASpending; FPDS PIIN)
  2. Mar 2023Conley becomes CISA senior advisor and election-security lead (cisa.gov)
  3. Jan 2025She leaves CISA; her OGE 278e income window from Hidden Level and Primer runs from this period forward (OGE 278e #10076406)
  4. Feb 9, 2026The Intercept reports the income and the NDAs; the omission from her campaign site becomes public (The Intercept)
  • The single load-bearing served-entity purchase, Primer to USSOCOM, pre-dates both her CISA role and her Primer pay (USASpending H9240122C0002)
  • The closest accurate statement is that the special-operations community she came from bought Primer before she joined CISA and before Primer paid her, not that an agency she directed bought from a firm then paying her
  • A second served-branch buy (Primer to an Army SBIR program, W5170124C0152, $1,899,999.99 in 2024) is Army-broad and post-dates her Army service, so it does not implicate her tenure either (USASpending)

This timeline is what disciplines the entire story. It shows adjacency, not procurement, and it forecloses any claim that Conley steered a dollar to a firm that paid her.

USASpending / FPDS-NG; cisa.gov; OGE 278e #10076406; The Intercept (2/9/2026)

VIII · The Federal Contract Record

The comparators prove the category is real, but the comparators never paid her

Palantir and Anduril sell exactly this surveillance and autonomy category to agencies in Conley's orbit, often during her CISA years. Neither paid her, and where they sold, the buyer was the wrong component.

The firms that paid Conley

Primer and Hidden Level: ~$328,283 in disclosed income to her, but $0 in confirmed contracts with CISA or DHS, and no buy by any entity she served except a SOCOM/Army Primer purchase that pre-dates her CISA role (USASpending; OGE 278e #10076406).

vs
The firms that did not pay her

Palantir and Anduril: hundreds of millions in DHS, SOCOM, and Army awards, including Anduril's $862M+ in CBP surveillance-tower delivery orders, some awarded during her CISA tenure. But CBP and ICE are not CISA, a CISA advisor has no contracting authority over them, and neither firm paid Conley (USASpending; FPDS verified to the cent).

  • Palantir's DHS work is large but runs to ICE, USSS, USCG, USCIS, and FEMA, never CISA (0 of 18 DHS awards to CISA); its USSOCOM Gotham award ($275,959,237.71) and Army Maven award did not pay Conley (USASpending; FPDS)
  • Anduril's largest customers are CBP ($862M+ across 23 tower delivery orders) and SOCOM ($964M+); none of it is CISA money and none of it paid Conley (USASpending IDV 70B02C20D00000019, H9240222D0001)
  • She denies working for Palantir or ICE, and there is no evidence she did; the GOP mailer branding her a 'Palantir operative' is an overreach (Yonkers Times; her own denial). The Intercept's reported 'Hidden Level feeds Maven' link is contested on a deeper documentary pass and should be treated as a reported, not contractually confirmed, relationship

The bottom line: the surveillance-procurement category Conley's critics invoke is genuinely enormous, which is what makes the exculpatory finding load-bearing. The agencies buying it are not the agency she ran, and the firms winning those buys are not the firms that paid her.

USASpending / FPDS-NG; the defense-AI firms analysis; Yonkers Times; The Intercept (2/9/2026)

VIII · The Federal Contract Record

What the record still cannot see

The honest limit on every 'none-found': USASpending does not show classified work, and an open accreditation question remains. Two FOIA pulls would convert the negatives to confirmed.

  • Classified and intelligence-community contracts (CIA, NSA, NRO, and SAP-funded DoD efforts) are excluded or redacted from USASpending and FPDS, so a SOF or IC element could in theory buy either firm without a public record; this is the single largest caveat to every 'none-found' (USASpending data-coverage limits)
  • A DHS/CISA FOIA for any contract, call order, OTA, or sub-award naming Primer or Hidden Level would convert the CISA negative from 'not in USASpending' to 'confirmed none' (recommended verification step)
  • Primer's announced 2023 plan to run inside Palantir's FedStart accreditation boundary is a hosting and eligibility relationship, not a federal purchase, and Primer does not currently appear in the FedRAMP Marketplace roster; treat it as announced intent, not confirmed live hosting (GSA FedRAMP Marketplace data.json as of 2026-05-19; primer.ai 2023-09-11)
  • A standing DHS department-wide Palantir BPA (70RTAC26A00000001, $1.0B ceiling) exists where CISA could in theory place an order, but none has been placed to date; it is worth monitoring, not asserting (USASpending IDV; FPDS)

Stating these gaps is part of the discipline. The findings that hold are stronger because the file does not pretend the procurement record is omniscient, and it names exactly which document a reader or reporter would pull to close each remaining question.

USASpending data-coverage limits; GSA FedRAMP Marketplace; the defense-AI firms analysis; FOIA targets (DHS/CISA, SOCOM)

Part IX

The Company She Keeps

The thesis

She runs against the surveillance state she was just paid by — and on populism her donors never feel.

Funded overwhelmingly from outside the district. Paid ~$328,000 by two defense-AI firms after leaving CISA, then kept it off her own website behind NDAs. A "crack down on Wall Street" message bankrolled by the people it names.

IX · The Company She Keeps

Her chief endorser was inside the 'Team Themis' surveillance pitch

Rep. Pat Ryan, her most co-funded fellow candidate and a January 2026 public endorser, spent two years as a Palantir subcontractor and was on the leaked email threads pitching surveillance of unions and a journalist.

From 2009 to 2011, Pat Ryan was deputy director of Berico Technologies, a Palantir subcontractor in Afghanistan, and was on the leaked 'Team Themis' email threads (Palantir, Berico, HBGary) pitching the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America on surveilling unions, progressive nonprofits, and journalist Glenn Greenwald.

  • Exactly 36 of Conley's donors also gave to Pat Ryan for Congress, routing a combined $214,500 to Conley and $183,100 to Ryan, making him her most co-funded real candidate behind only her own committee and the ActBlue conduit (FEC)
  • Ryan endorsed Conley on January 16, 2026, calling her the strongest candidate to defeat Mike Lawler; friendly coverage emphasized their shared West Point and combat-veteran backgrounds (Judge Street Journal; Yahoo/lohud)
  • In fairness, after the 2011 Anonymous hack exposed Team Themis, Palantir and Berico publicly disavowed the proposal; that disavowal does not undo Ryan's documented participation in pitching it (Techdirt; Salon)
  • Ryan's record is his own and is not imputed to Conley; the documented link is a shared donor base and a mutual endorsement, not any joint conduct

This is a 'company she keeps' finding, kept strictly to documented facts: a shared donor spine and a public mutual endorsement. Ryan's two-decade-old contractor history belongs to Ryan; it is included because he is her closest co-funded ally and endorser, not as a charge against her.

The Intercept (2/22/2018); Salon (2/15/2011); Techdirt; FEC; Judge Street Journal; Yahoo/lohud

IX · The Company She Keeps

Her largest defense-donor household is an Anduril co-founder's, with one non-negotiable caveat

A $10,000 household maxout from the Anduril co-founder/COO who came up inside Palantir and Thiel's venture world, alongside other defense-AI principals, with the corporate-PAC caveat stated in full.

Matthew Grimm (Anduril co-founder/COO)$5,000listed 'ANDURIL INDUSTRIES / COFOUNDER,' 2025-09-29; arc runs Booz Allen to early Palantir to Thiel's Mithril Capital to Anduril
Kimberly Grimm$5,000same date; reads as one $10,000 household
Peter Dixon (Second Front Systems)$7,000defense-software founder and New Politics / With Honor cofounder, 2025-06-24
Jen Easterly (former CISA Director)$7,000Conley's own former agency head, filed via Evenstar Cyber, in her launch week
Georgina Cannan (CISA senior advisor)$7,000FEC employer 'CISA,' occupation 'Senior Advisor'; a sitting colleague in Conley's old portfolio
  • HARD CAVEAT that must be kept: the Grimms' $10,000 is their individual money direct to Conley. Separately the Grimms gave to Anduril's corporate PAC, but Conley received $0 from that PAC, holds no Anduril or Palantir corporate-PAC money, and made no contribution to Anduril or Palantir herself (FEC the cross-giving data)
  • Her two employers' own people also appear in tiny amounts: a Hidden Level executive gave $20 and a Primer employee gave $250, which is why early 'hundreds of thousands from Hidden Level and Primer' framing of campaign contributions was false; the real money is her consulting income, not donations (FEC; The Intercept)

These are independent, lawful individual contributions, not a corporate tie or coordination. The finding is the weighting of her high-dollar base toward the defense-AI and national-security world she came from, and the Anduril-corporate-PAC caveat is stated as plainly as the donation itself.

FEC Schedule A and the cross-giving data; the donor-network map; The Intercept (2/9/2026); Crunchbase; The Org

Part X

Compliance, Conflicts & the Uniparty Tell

X · Compliance, Conflicts & the Uniparty Tell

On the compliance basics, the record is clean, and saying so matters

Several tempting 'violation' angles netted out legal. The honest story is composition and concealment, not law-breaking, and the file says so to keep the real findings credible.

  • No self-dealing: zero dollars went to the candidate, to anyone named Conley, or to a candidate-controlled entity; her payroll is real and largely in-district (Ossining, NY) staff, which is exculpatory (FEC Schedule B)
  • The one genuine over-limit contribution, $14,000 from Molly Dyson-Schwery, was caught and refunded $7,000 by the campaign; that is compliance, not corruption (FEC)
  • The 'hundreds of thousands from Hidden Level and Primer' premise is false in the contribution data: employees of those firms gave $270 total ($20 + $250). The real relationship is her ~$328,283 in consulting income, disclosed on her OGE 278e, not campaign money (FEC; OGE 278e #10076406)

Carrying the exculpatory compliance record is the price of credibility. The defensible spine of this file is the geography of her money, her surveillance-AI paycheck plus concealment, and policy-versus-donor contradictions, never an invented FEC violation.

FEC committee C00900431 (Schedule A and B); OGE Form 278e #10076406; this investigation

X · Compliance, Conflicts & the Uniparty Tell

The unresolved conflict is the revolving door, not a steered contract

She ran CISA's election-security mission, then took ~$328,283 from two defense-AI vendors and kept it off her campaign site behind NDAs. The defensible charge is adjacency plus concealment.

$328,283 post-government income on Conley's OGE Form 278e (#10076406) from Hidden Level and Primer, two surveillance-AI vendors, omitted from caitconley.com behind signed NDAs
  • Her OGE 278e (#10076406, period 1/1/2025 to 4/30/2026) reports Hidden Level salary $152,743.07 plus consulting, and Primer consulting, reconciling to $328,283.15 across the window; she confirmed she signed NDAs with both clients and could not elaborate (OGE 278e #10076406; The Intercept, 2/9/2026)
  • What it does not show, stated plainly: no evidence she steered any contract, no buy by an agency she ran from a firm that paid her, and she denies any Palantir or ICE work, which no record contradicts (USASpending / FPDS; her own denial)
  • The open, sourced question a reporter or the candidate can still answer: what did her Hidden Level and Primer deliverables involve, and will she disclose them given the CISA-to-vendor transition and any post-employment ethics or recusal agreement

This is the legitimate conflicts finding, bounded to what the record supports. The income and the concealment are documented and her own choice; anything stronger than adjacency-plus-concealment is unsupported by the contract record in Chapter 9.

OGE Form 278e #10076406; The Intercept (2/9/2026); the defense-AI firms analysis; USASpending / FPDS-NG

X · Compliance, Conflicts & the Uniparty Tell

The uniparty tell: the access-buying donor class hedges both sides of NY-17

Conley runs as the change candidate against Mike Lawler, but a small set of donors, one defense company, and K Street write checks to both. It is a hedge, not a secret operation, and the caveats are kept.

Same donors, both candidates

Two individuals funded both: Jessica Neuwirth gave Lawler $1,000 (2024-08-01) and Conley $1,000 (2025-08-15); Anita Wien gave Lawler $222.22 (2024-06-14) and Conley $250 (2025-11-10). BGR Group lobbyists sit on both sides: Hai Peng maxed $7,000 to Conley while BGR-employer money to Lawler totals roughly $34,000, and BGR's PAC funds both parties' committees (FEC).

vs
Same company, opposite candidates

Anduril spans the race: co-founder Matthew Grimm and spouse gave Conley $10,000, while Anduril founder Palmer Luckey personally bankrolls Lawler ($3,300 twice 2023-02-09, $3,500 2025-06-27, $2,000 2026-03-20). One company, both candidates (FEC).

  • Both campaigns are overwhelmingly national-money operations: Conley reported $2,645,257.86 in 2026-cycle receipts and Lawler $6,731,833.32, two well-funded candidates drawing from the same out-of-district well (FEC)
  • Firm by firm the hedge repeats: Coinbase, Jane Street, and bipartisan lobbying and PR shops quietly fund whichever NY-17 candidate can deliver (FEC; the donor-network data)
  • CAVEAT, kept in full: the bulk of Conley's base is Democratic and most of these overlaps are small dollar amounts; this is the access-buying donor class hedging a competitive seat, not Conley running a Republican operation, and no coordination is alleged (FEC; INFERENCE on the framing only)

The uniparty tell is a posture, not a quid pro quo: a donor class that buys access in a competitive seat by funding both sides. The point is documented in FEC checks; the explicitly stated limit is that the dollars are small, mostly Democratic, and uncoordinated.

FEC committees (Conley C00900431, Lawler); the donor-network data; bgrdc.com; DOSSIER-Conley-NY17-FULL.md

Part XI

The Bottom Line

The thesis

She runs against the surveillance state she was just paid by — and on populism her donors never feel.

Funded overwhelmingly from outside the district. Paid ~$328,000 by two defense-AI firms after leaving CISA, then kept it off her own website behind NDAs. A "crack down on Wall Street" message bankrolled by the people it names.

XI · The Bottom Line

What remains unresolved

The open questions a reporter, or the candidate, can still answer, drawn from the records named in this file.

  • What did her Hidden Level and Primer consulting deliverables actually involve, and will she disclose them, given the CISA-to-vendor transition and any post-employment ethics or recusal agreement
  • Will she name a single carried-interest, REIT, capital-gains, pass-through, or 1031 reform, the loopholes her own donors use
  • When did she enroll as a Democrat in New York, and what is her full party-change and registration history, which the voter file would answer
  • Has she returned or pledged to return any developer or hedge-fund money given the 'crack down' pledge, testable against subsequent FEC reports

These are open, sourced questions with a named record to pull for each, not allegations; they mark the line between what is documented and what is still unverified.

OGE 278e #10076406; caitconley.com/policy; NY State Board of Elections; FEC committee C00900431

The bottom line

Cait Conley campaigns as the working-class candidate who will rein in Wall Street and the surveillance state — while half her money comes from outside the district, a megadonor-seeded Super PAC carries her air war, and she banked roughly a third of a million dollars from two defense-AI firms whose work she then left off her own website. The record doesn't question her service. It questions who her bid actually answers to.

Every figure traces to a primary public record. Nothing alleges a crime, and nothing here questions her military service. The full evidence is at /findings; the narrative is the dossier.

The bottom line

Cait Conley campaigns as the working-class candidate who will rein in Wall Street and the surveillance state — while half her money comes from outside the district, a megadonor-seeded Super PAC carries her air war, and she banked roughly a third of a million dollars from two defense-AI firms whose work she then left off her own website. The record doesn't question her service. It questions who her bid actually answers to.

Every figure traces to a primary public record. Nothing alleges a crime, and nothing here questions her military service. The full evidence is at /findings; the narrative is the dossier.

Swipe or use the arrows · “All slides” jumps to any chapter