SWEENEY, DOWN IN THE POLLS, LASHES OUT AT SHERRILL

His “Mikie Took the Money” attack fails even a cursory examination

Negative campaigning often works, because so-called “low information voters” – that is, voters who really don’t pay attention to the news – often take what they see in one candidate’s propaganda as the gospel truth about another candidate. But when negative campaigning is outlandish and based on unfounded or spurious allegations – and especially when it’s nasty and mean-spirited – it often tends to backfire.

Meet Steve Sweeney.

Last week, Sweeney launched a broadside against the consensus front-runner in the gubernatorial race, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, accusing her of a bunch of financial and money-related wrongdoing. He even created a separate website, called “Mikie Took the Money,” detailing the allegations he’s made against her. Pretty much none of them hold up to scrutiny. (We’ll get to the details below.)

What prompted Sweeney to go negative (and nasty)? Maybe it’s because he’s been running last, or close to last, in poll after poll, since the beginning of 2025. The former senate president, who lost his seat in 2021 to an off-the-wall, ultraconservative truck driver named Ed Durr running a shoestring campaign, has long been an apparatchik in the South Jersey machine owned and operated by George Norcross. As such, he’s been a well-oiled cog in one of New Jersey’s most reactionary and corrupt political machines. (Last year, Norcross and several cronies were indicted by Matt Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, who accused Norcross of “racketeering” and said that the South Jersey boss’ businesses in Camden were part of a “criminal enterprise.” A judge didn’t agree, and Platkin told The New Jersey Democrat that he plans to refile the case.)

In his “Mikie Took the Money” campaign, Sweeney accused Sherrill of enriching herself through improper actions while in Congress, of taking money from Elon Musk, of hiding stock transactions in advance of the 2020 pandemic, and of taking $25,000 from a “rabidly anti-union group.”

Let’s unpack all that.

First, Sweeney charged that Sherrill “tripled the value of her assets” during her time in Congress to as much as $13 million, implying that she used her insider knowledge to cash in on the stock market. Had she done that, it would not only have been improper, but illegal. “I don't think we’re accusing her of doing anything illegal,” a spokesperson for Sweeney told TNJD. “But it’s a question of, what did she know, and when did she know it?”

Yes, Sherrill and her husband, Jason Hedberg, have a lot of money. That’s not entirely surprising: Hedberg is a managing director at UBS, formerly known as the Union Bank of Switzerland.

A review of Sherrill’s financial disclosure forms for 2018 and 2024 show that, indeed, the couple’s assets increased significantly. But because the disclosure forms provide only ranges for each asset – for instance, between “$15,000” and “$50,000” – it’s impossible to say exactly how wealthy they are. In a careful analysis by TNJD, through OpenSecrets.org and the records at the House of Representatives, it appears that in 2018 Sherrill’s assets ranged from $683,000 to $4.3 million; by 2023-24, her assets rose to somewhere between $4.8 million and $13.9 million. That includes their multimillion-dollar home, so their wealth is not all stocks, bonds and other investments. (But Sherrill and Hedberg have liabilities, too, ranging from about $2.2 million to $10.5 million, which substantially reduces how rich they are.) Those numbers significantly undermine what Sweeney is charging; in fact, it’s not impossible that Sherrill and Hedberg are in the red.

Second, is Sweeney right in charging that in 2020, “after getting non-public information, she and her husband traded stocks 187 times” on the eve of the pandemic, which tanked the stock market in March 2020? Well, no. In fact, at the end of 2019 and in January 2020, Sherrill “converted all of her individual stocks” into index funds that, by definition, avoid even the appearance of conflict. In doing so, they sold stock in 112 individual companies to convert their holdings into index funds, according to the New Jersey Globe. “The move puts Sherrill well above the national controversy on personal financial dealings,” said the Globe.

But the Sweeney spokesperson said that it’s not impossible that Sherrill gave her husband, the UBS executive, insider information about events that could affect the stock market. “Is she not talking to her spouse, when they’re in their house, about where to invest?” he said. Asked whether he had any reason to suspect that’s what happened, he said, “We’re just raising questions. That’s for them to answer.” When TNJD asked the Sherrill campaign about that, they responded: “It’s just ridiculous. Absurd.”

In 2021, Sherrill co-sponsored a bill in the House (H.R. 336, the TRUST Act) that explicitly “requires a Member of Congress, as well as any spouse or dependent child of a Member, to place specified investments into a qualified blind trust.”

Third, Sweeney notes that Sherrill took $31,500 from a PAC associated with Elon Musk’s SpaceX. That’s true, and in retrospect, unfortunate – although the Musk-related cash came mostly long before Musk migrated from being a rather oddball libertarian billionaire to, in 2023, full-on MAGA. Sherrill, somewhat red-faced, returned the money when it became a point of controversy. But it’s unlikely that it affected her decision-making, either way. (In her 2024 congressional campaign, Sherrill raised $4.4 million overall, and since starting in 2017 she has pulled in more than $25 million in campaign contributions, according to Open Secrets. Which means that the $31,500 from SpaceX is about one one-thousandth of her total.

No Musk-related business or PAC has contributed to her gubernatorial campaign.

Sherrill, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, would probably have not blinked at getting SpaceX funds in the early days of her congressional career, long before Elon Musk emerged as a Trump fanboy. Still, Sherrill has been a fierce opponent of Musk and his ersatz Department of Government Efficiency.

Incidentally, in 2019, when Sweeney was running for reelection to the state senate, he got a $1,200 contribution from Tesla, Inc., Musk’s flagship firm. Earlier, Sweeney helped Christie pass an exception for Tesla that allowed the company to direct-market its cars, something that other car companies are not allowed to do. (Back then, hardly anyone thought Musk was crazy, and Tesla was widely praised as the car of the future.)

Finally, Sweeney lambasted Sherrill over a $25,000 contribution to a nonprofit tied to Sherrill from ABC, the Association of Builders and Contractors, which preaches “free enterprise and open competition,” opposes prevailing-wage laws, and supports non-union shops in the construction industry. For Sherrill, not a good look – but the nonprofit, One Giant Leap Action, returned the money. It isn’t clear what point Sweeney is trying to make, since Sherrill has compiled a lengthy pro-union record in Congress and in her gubernatorial effort. To get clarity on the issue, TNDJ contacted ABC to ask about its relationship with Sherrill.

“I was impressed by her. Her background is impressive,” said Samantha DeAlmeida Roman, president of ABC’s New Jersey chapter, in an interview with The New Jersey Democrat, adding that she thought Sherrill was fair-minded. She said that ABC gave Sherrill’s group a contribution because they “wanted a seat at the table.” It isn’t clear if they’ll have a seat at any table with Sherrill now that the check has been returned. “I can’t force people to take money,” DeAlmeida Roman said.

As for Sweeney? He’s “not the most friendly to our organization.”