Are there billionaires today supporting the NO vote in Kansas

Yes.

Two clear connections to billionaires appear in the contribution list:

1. Lynn Schusterman (Tulsa, Oklahoma) — $1,000,000 She is a confirmed billionaire. Forbes lists “Lynn Schusterman & family” with a real-time net worth of approximately $4.4 billion as of mid-July 2026. Bloomberg has carried higher estimates in the past. She is a major progressive philanthropist through the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation.
2. Open Society Policy Center (New York) — $400,000 This is the 501(c)(4) lobbying/political arm of the Open Society Foundations network founded and long funded by George Soros, one of the world’s best-known billionaires. (His son Alex Soros has taken a more public leadership role in recent years, but the organization remains the vehicle of the Soros family’s political and philanthropic spending.)

No other individuals on the list are known billionaires. The remaining large donors are either organizations (ACLU entities, Planned Parenthood entities, National Education Association, Health Forward Foundation, etc.) or law firms and non-billionaire individuals/philanthropists. 

The NO's - Following the Money: Kansas United for Impartial Courts Files $7.6 Million Report Opposing Election of Supreme Court Justices

On July 20, 2026, Kansas United for Impartial Courts (KUIC), based at PO Box 3021 in Lawrence, Kansas 66046, filed its Receipts and Expenditures Report with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission for activity promoting or opposing a Kansas constitutional ballot question. The report covers calendar year 2026 activity and was received by the Commission on July 22, 2026. It was signed by Micah Kubic.

This is no small-dollar grassroots effort. The numbers are large, concentrated, and heavily tilted toward national progressive organizations, major trial-lawyer firms, and a handful of high-dollar individual and foundation donors. The group is the lead opposition force against the Kansas Elections for Supreme Court Justices Amendment that will appear on the August 4, 2026, primary ballot.

The Ballot Question and the Stakes

The amendment, placed on the ballot by the 2025 Legislature via SCR 1611, would change how Kansas selects its Supreme Court justices. Currently, Kansas uses a merit-selection system: a nominating commission screens candidates, the governor appoints from the list, and justices face retention elections. The proposed amendment would replace that with direct election of justices by the voters for six-year terms (staggered starting in 2028, 2030, and 2032), with vacancies filled by election. A “Yes” vote supports electing the justices; a “No” vote keeps the existing appointment/retention system.

KUIC is campaigning for “No.” Its report shows the financial muscle behind that effort.

The Headline Numbers

From the summary page:

• Total Contributions and Other Receipts (Schedule A): $7,635,371.03
• In-Kind Contributions (Schedule B): $260,515.92
• Total Expenditures and Other Disbursements (Schedule C): $6,600,675.29

Itemized contributions accounted for $7,615,288.96; unitemized contributions of $50 or less totaled $20,082.07. The group certified that, for the period beginning July 1, 2025, it had not knowingly accepted contributions or made expenditures from a foreign national, and that each named donor was not a foreign national and had not knowingly accepted more than $100,000 in the aggregate from foreign nationals in the prior four years.

The Big Money: Largest Contributions, Biggest First

When the contributions are ordered by size (aggregating multiple gifts from the same entity or closely related entities where the report shows repeated large transfers), a clear pattern emerges. National progressive organizations and a small number of wealthy donors and trial-lawyer firms dominate the top of the list. Here are the largest, ranked from biggest to smallest:

1. American Civil Liberties Union entities (national ACLU, ACLU of Kansas, and ACLU Foundation of Kansas) — approximately $2,100,000. Multiple large transfers appear, including $500,000, $250,000, and $100,000 gifts plus substantial in-kind support.
2. Planned Parenthood entities (Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes) — approximately $1,450,000. This includes repeated six-figure cash gifts ($400,000, $250,000, $200,000) plus in-kind contributions.
3. Lynn Schusterman (110 W 7th St Ste 2000, Tulsa, OK 74119) — $1,000,000.
4. Open Society Policy Center (400 W 59th St, New York, NY 10019) — $400,000.
5. National Education Association (1201 16th St NW, Washington, DC 20036) — $250,000.
6. Health Forward Foundation (2300 Main St #304, Kansas City, MO 64108) — $175,000.
7. Kansas Fair Court Fund (1031 Vermont St, Lawrence, KS 66044) — $115,921.36. 8–17. A cluster of $100,000 contributions from plaintiff/personal-injury oriented law firms and one individual:
   • DM Law Kansas City LLC (Kansas City, MO)
   • DeVaughn James LLC (Wichita)
   • Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman (Kansas City, MO)
   • Prochaska Law Firm LLC (Wichita)
   • Davis Bethune & Jones LLC (Kansas City, MO)
   • Langdon & Emison LLC (Lexington, MO)
   • Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP (Kansas City, MO)
   • Dickerson Oxton LLC (Kansas City, MO)
   • Nicholas Rowley (Decorah, IA)
   • Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP (Kansas City, MO)
8. Dollar, Burns, Becker & Hershewe, LC (and related entries) — approximately $90,000–$100,000 range across listed gifts.

19–22. Several $50,000 gifts from additional law firms:

• Slape and Howard (Wichita)
• Palmer Law Group LLC (Topeka)
• Patterson Legal Group LLC (Wichita)
• Bull Attorneys, PA (Wichita)
• Jonathan E. Baum Revocable Trust (Mission Hills)

23–33. A group of $25,000 contributions that includes:

• John Bird / Glassman Bird Law LLC (Hays)
• Ann Stegman Isenberg (Mission Hills)
• Mann & Wyatt LLC (Hutchinson)
• Schmitt Templin LLC (Kansas City, MO)
• Graybill & Hazelwood LLC (Wichita)
• Fred Spigarelli (Pittsburg)
• Simon Law Firm PC (St. Louis, MO)
• Hutton & Hutton Law Firm, LLC (Wichita)
• Kansas Bar Association (Topeka)
• Quinn Delaney (Oakland, CA)

Additional notable five-figure gifts include Gary Robb and Anita Robb (combined roughly $46,800 across entries), Kansas Women Attorneys for Freedom / Kansas Women Attorney’s Association (combined roughly $40,000+), Hite, Fanning & Honeyman LLP ($20,000), Martin Pringle Oliver Wallace & Bauer LLP ($20,000), Polsinelli ($20,000), Fowler Pickert Eisenmenger Norfleet LLC ($20,000), and the KTLA Consumer/Civil Justice PAC ($12,979.08). Rebein Brothers (Dodge City), Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLC, John Isenberg, Rachel Smith, Injury Law Associates LLC, and several other firms appear at the $10,000 level.

Below that threshold are hundreds of smaller contributions—many in the $25–$1,000 range—from individual Kansas lawyers, retired judges or court-related professionals, and private citizens across the state (Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita, Overland Park, Mission Hills, Emporia, Hutchinson, Dodge City, and elsewhere) plus a scattering of out-of-state individual donors. Interest deposits from Great American Bank in Lawrence also appear as minor receipts. The report’s unitemized total of just over $20,000 covers the smallest gifts of $50 or less.

In-Kind Support

Schedule B lists $260,515.92 in in-kind contributions. The largest single item is $148,825.31 from Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity (Washington, DC). Other significant in-kind donors include Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes ($46,792.33), the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas ($45,922.03), the national ACLU ($8,168.59), KS Value Institute ($6,850), the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association ($2,963.84), and smaller amounts from Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the Sedgwick County Democratic Party.

What the Money Bought

The group spent roughly $6.6 million. The expenditure schedules (many pages of Schedule C) show heavy volume of credit-card processing fees (ActBlue, Stripe, Anedot), payroll and benefit services, software and digital tools (EveryAction, Zoom), office supplies, legal services (including Elias Law Group), compliance consulting, digital strategy, and—by far the largest category—advertising and campaign services. This is consistent with a high-intensity media and field campaign in the weeks leading up to the August 4 primary.

Observations

The donor list is not a broad cross-section of ordinary Kansas voters writing small checks. It is dominated by:

• National progressive advocacy organizations with strong interests in judicial selection and related social issues (ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Open Society Policy Center, NEA).
• A network of plaintiff-side personal-injury and consumer law firms, many of which have long preferred appointed rather than elected high courts.
• A small number of very large individual and foundation gifts, including the $1 million from Lynn Schusterman and the $400,000 from the Open Society Policy Center.

Local and regional law firms, the Kansas Bar Association, and Kansas-based progressive groups round out the upper tier. Hundreds of smaller individual donations exist, but they do not drive the totals.

This report provides a clear, publicly available snapshot of who is financing the campaign to keep the current merit-selection system for the Kansas Supreme Court. Voters can now weigh that information alongside the policy arguments as they decide how to vote on August 4. The full 54-page filing is a public record with the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission and the Secretary of State. 

All figures come from the official Kansas Public Disclosure Commission filing. These are reported contributions supporting one side of a contested constitutional ballot question.

1. In-Kind Contributions (~$260,516 total — fully detailed in the provided Schedule B)

Key observation: In-kind support is heavily concentrated in reproductive-rights groups, with ACLU entities as the clear secondary source.

kansasvaluesinstitute.org

2. Overall Contributions (Cash + In-Kind, ~$7.64 million)Public summaries of the full Schedule A and contemporaneous reporting show a similar progressive/advocacy tilt at much larger scale, with these major categories:

• National and state progressive nonprofits / advocacy groups (largest category by far):
  Multiple large gifts from ACLU entities (national and Kansas affiliates — hundreds of thousands to over $1 million combined in various reports), Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes (hundreds of thousands combined), Open Society Policy Center (Soros-linked, reported at $400,000), National Education Association (NEA, reported at $250,000), and related foundations (e.g., Health Forward Foundation). Kansas Values Institute (a left-of-center 501(c)(4) focused on issues including “fair and impartial courts,” education funding, and opposition to changes in judicial selection) also appears as a contributor.
  @EarlGlynn
• Individual high-dollar donors:
  Notable example includes Lynn Schusterman (reported at $1 million). Many smaller-to-mid five- and six-figure gifts appear from Kansas-based individuals.
• Law firms, trial lawyers, and individual attorneys:
  Numerous contributions in the $50,000–$100,000+ range from law firms and individual lawyers (common in judicial-selection fights, as the plaintiffs’ bar has a stake in the current merit-selection system). Kansas Women Attorneys Association and similar professional groups also appear.
• Labor / education unions:
  National Education Association and related education interests.
• Local Democratic Party and allied political entities:
  Smaller relative to the national progressive nonprofits (e.g., the Sedgwick County Democratic Party in-kind example).
• Other / unitemized / interest:
  Small unitemized contributions (<$50) plus minor bank interest; these are a tiny fraction of the total.

Overall Patterns and Context

• Dominant donor types: Progressive national nonprofits (especially reproductive-rights and civil-liberties groups) + high-dollar individuals + the plaintiffs’ trial bar/law firms. Local Democratic Party money is present but secondary.
• Geographic mix: Significant out-of-state money (national ACLU, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Open Society, NEA, URGE/Unite) alongside Kansas-based law firms, individuals, and the Kansas Values Institute / ACLU of Kansas.
• Alignment with the ballot measure: The group opposes the August 2026 constitutional amendment that would alter the method of selecting Kansas Supreme Court justices (moving away from the current merit-selection system toward greater electoral accountability). The donor profile is consistent with organizations that have historically supported the status-quo merit system and progressive policy priorities in Kansas.
• Limitations: Exact percentages for the full $7.6 million require summing every line of the multi-page Schedule A PDF. In-kind data is complete and cleanly categorizable; cash data follows the same ideological/interest-group pattern at larger scale. The group’s own expenditures ($6.6 million) are not broken out by vendor or purpose in the summary materials provided.

Vote

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Dollar General Trip Generation: A Data-Driven Assessment for Neighborhood Traffic Planning

When evaluating the traffic impacts of a typical Dollar General store, the most reliable starting point is the company’s own operating performance rather than generalized assumptions. In fiscal 2025, Dollar General generated approximately $42.7 billion in net sales across a store base of roughly 20,900 locations. This equates to an average of about $2.05 million in annual sales per store.

The average transaction, or ticket size, at Dollar General has historically fallen in the range of $18 to $20. Independent analyses of shopper behavior have placed the figure near $19.99 in earlier years, while more recent industry observations of the broader dollar channel remain clustered around $19 to $20. Using a midpoint of $19.50 produces a straightforward calculation: $2.05 million in annual sales divided by $19.50 yields roughly 105,100 customer transactions per year at an average store.

Converted to a daily basis, this represents approximately 288 customer visits each day, or a practical working range of 255 to 310 visits depending on the precise ticket size applied. Because the majority of these visits in rural and suburban settings occur by automobile, each customer trip typically generates both an inbound and an outbound vehicle movement. Conservatively accounting for this pattern produces an estimated 500 to 600 vehicle trips per day associated with customer activity alone. Adding employee arrivals and departures, together with routine vendor and delivery traffic, elevates the total daily vehicle activity associated with a typical store into the range of 550 to 700 trips or higher.

These derived volumes align with, and in many cases exceed, the rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual for comparable land uses. Free-standing discount stores (ITE Land Use Code 815) are generally expected to generate 50 to 56 weekday trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. For a store in the 8,000 to 8,500 square-foot range that Dollar General commonly employs, this produces an expected daily total of roughly 400 to 480 trips under pure ITE averages. The higher figures obtained from actual sales and transaction data are consistent with Dollar General’s operating model: frequent, low-basket-size trips for everyday consumables in markets that often lack nearby alternatives. The result is a higher trip rate relative to store size than would be predicted for a conventional larger-format discount retailer.

The practical implication is clear. A single Dollar General location can be expected to generate several hundred vehicle movements each day on a consistent, year-round basis. In a residential or mixed-use neighborhood setting, this level of activity constitutes a meaningful addition to the local traffic stream. When combined with observed pedestrian activity, school-related travel, or existing roadway conditions that lack adequate crossing provisions or speed control, the data support measured interventions. A reduction in posted speed limit and the installation of a marked crosswalk represent proportionate responses to the volume and character of traffic that such a store introduces.

These estimates are intentionally conservative. They rely on company-wide averages rather than site-specific sales figures, which may be higher or lower depending on local demographics and competition. They also treat most customer visits as vehicle trips, an assumption that is reasonable for the majority of Dollar General’s locations but can be refined with local observation. Even under these measured assumptions, however, the numbers demonstrate that a typical store is a consistent generator of daily traffic at a scale that warrants formal consideration in roadway design and pedestrian safety planning.

The analysis above can be adapted with greater precision if actual store square footage, local sales performance, or observed peak-hour counts become available. In the absence of such site-specific data, the company averages and established engineering rates provide a transparent and defensible foundation for discussion with municipal staff.