Future Forward, the pro-Harris group, disbursed the funds between 2022 and 2024, according to Federal Election Commission filings and tax documents filed with the IRS. The $10 million was routed to the companies from the organization’s super PAC and its “dark money” nonprofit arm.

The donor money — paid out to GCJ Research, PFB Media, and OpenLabs — was part of a massive spending spree from pro-Harris groups and the Harris campaign that is now under intense public scrutiny after her loss to President-elect Donald Trump. Future Forward co-founders Chauncey McLean, Gaurav Shirole, and Jon Fromowitz are all either co-owners or helped launch the three companies, which could raise conflict of interest questions. A portion of the payments were reported by independent journalist Lee Fang.

“It’s bad form,” Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, told the Washington Examiner. “I’ve worked on 700 campaigns all over the world and never saw stuff like this. It doesn’t look good.”

“This is kind of an explanation for why Democrats are getting clobbered,” Sheinkopf said. “They really don’t represent people at the bottom. They represent people at the top.”

Future Forward, which did not respond to requests for comment, was behind a historic ad-making operation aiming to boost turnout for Harris with the backing of Democratic megadonors such as Bill Gates and George Soros. It quickly ascended to becoming the largest political super PAC, raising around $1 billion.

Now, the organization is under the spotlight as the Democratic Party points fingers and aims to get to the bottom of how Harris lost so handily to Trump in must-win battleground states. Scrutiny of Harris’s finances has grown after a Washington Examiner report on her campaign paying a company founded by Oprah Winfrey, among other expenses, though a fuller picture of the spending will be public upon post-election reports being filed in December.

This election cycle, Future Forward’s super PAC arm paid at least $8.3 million to the consulting firms tied to Future Forward’s co-founders.

The bulk of that sum went to GCJ Research, a survey firm formed by Shirole, who led the analytics effort for the 2012 Obama campaign’s broader 0 million digital advertising operation, according to his LinkedIn profile. GCJ Research received over $7 million for “media consulting” and “media services,” campaign finance records show.

Future Forward also paid GCJ Research over $940,700 in 2022, according to tax forms for its 501(c)(4) nonprofit group.

The documents list GCJ Research as both an “independent contractor” and “subcontractor.” A fuller picture of the tax-exempt organization’s finances will also become public soon, as Future Forward’s 2023 tax return was due in November.

The 2022 Future Forward tax filing also lists PFB Media as an independent contractor to the tune of $178,077. PFB Media, an ad agency, has received at least $1 million in recent years from Future Forward’s super PAC for ad production, campaign finance records show.

PFB Media is reportedly co-owned by McLean and Fromowitz.

Campaign finance filings place the firm at an apartment address in New York that public records say belongs to Fromowitz — the co-founder of another firm called Blue Sky Strategy.

Ishanee Parikh, a Blue Sky Strategy leader, has acted as Future Forward’s creative director, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Fromowitz’s bio on the Blue Sky Strategy website lists him as the co-founder of OpenLabs, which worked on research and survey consulting for Future Forward.

For such services, OpenLabs received at least $659,700 from the pro-Harris super PAC, according to campaign finance records. The records list OpenLabs as a limited liability corporation in Washington, D.C.

“I don’t think any campaign makes perfect decisions across the board,” said Democratic strategist Stefan Hankin, the president of the public opinion research firm Lincoln Park Strategies. “But, I think in this case, questions should be asked, right?”

“Does it make sense for the organization raising funds to pay these companies to do the work?” Hankin asked. “Maybe they were the best firms to do the work. Could be, but it’s 100% fair game to be asking.”

To Sheinkopf, the payments don’t reflect well on the campaign finance system and the spending decisions of top committees.

“It’s like creating companies whose sole purpose is to give the money back to you,” Sheinkopf said.