RI Democrats Put $228K in Mailers and Staff Behind Foulkes in Three Weeks as Block’s Cash Falls 76%

What the filings show

The final pre-election campaign-finance reports in the governor’s race are posted on the Board of Elections’ public ERTS site. They cover the three weeks from Oct. 6 through Oct. 26, the last full stretch before the Nov. 3 election.

Democrat Helena Buonanno Foulkes (report) started the period with $214,871.74, took in $421,980.19 from individuals and $29,767.21 from PACs, returned $5,219.27 in contributions, and spent $541,219.61. She ended with $120,180.26 in cash, down about 44%. Most of the spending, $498,636, went to Canal Partners in four advertising payments.

Her report also lists $237,168.84 in in-kind contributions. Of that, $228,124.99 came from the Rhode Island Democratic State Committee in three entries:

• $153,459.77 for “Production & Postage Mailers” (Oct. 13)
• $66,713.15 for “Production & Postage Mailers” (Oct. 26)
• $7,952.07 for “Employee Salaries and Wages” (Oct. 15)

That is about $220,000 in mailers and about $8,000 in staff pay in three weeks. It is roughly half as much as Foulkes raised in cash from individuals and PACs over the same period. The rest of her in-kind support, about $9,000, came from individuals and three PACs (event food, catering, entertainment and digital ads). In her previous report (Sept. 2–Oct. 5), the party gave $126,596.34 in in-kind support, mostly digital communications and salaries, as we reported then. That brings the party’s reported in-kind support since Sept. 2 to about $354,700. Foulkes’ report still carries $1,835,000 in loans payable, which press reports describe as money she lent her own 2022 campaign.

Independent Ken Block (report) started the period with $263,515.35, more than Foulkes. He raised $14,709 from individuals, no PAC or party money, and lent his campaign another $20,000 (a loan from Kenneth J. Block received Oct. 21). He spent $234,138.39, mostly $186,550 in TV and other advertising through Onvision Media plus polling and ad production. He ended with $64,085.96, a 76% drop. His loans payable now total $1,269,301.60. His report lists only $675.82 in in-kind contributions.

Republican Aaron Guckian has also filed (report). He started with $7,273.99, raised $5,432.70 from individuals, lent himself $7,000, spent $16,961.69, and ended with $2,895.00. He reported no in-kind contributions.

Update (Oct 28, 2026): Block files complaint over the party mailers

On Wednesday afternoon, independent Ken Block personally delivered a campaign-finance complaint against Democrat Helena Foulkes to the Board of Elections, according to WJAR and WPRI. He argues that the roughly $220,000 in party-paid mailers reported on her filing breaks the $25,000 cap. “The Democratic Party appears to have violated the $25,000 cap in spending that they can use to support Helena Foulkes’ communications,” Block told NBC 10. He told reporters: “The Helena Foulkes campaign has been spreading lies about me, and they have been doing so violating campaign finance law. And someone needs to hold her accountable.”

What the law says. R.I. Gen. Laws § 17-25-10.1(e) says “There shall be no restriction on the amount of ‘in-kind’ contributions that a political party committee may make to a candidate of its political party; provided, that for the purposes of this subsection only, the cost of any preparation and airing of television and/or radio advertisements and the cost of any print advertisements shall not be considered an allowable ‘in-kind’ contribution and shall be subject to the aggregate limitation of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).” The fight is over whether a mailer counts as a “print advertisement.”

Both sides. Block campaign manager Matthew Schweich wrote to WJAR that Rhode Island campaign finance laws “make no distinction between a print advertisement and a mailer to voters,” and that “two separate investigations conducted by the Rhode Island Board of Elections in 2017 and 2018 support our interpretation of the law.” Foulkes senior strategist Eric Hyers replied that “mailers like the ones that show he is really a Republican who opposes the ACA do not count towards the $25,000 in-kind limit,” according to WPRI’s quote of his statement. WPRI reported that in 2018, when a similar issue surfaced, the Associated Press reported that the board had given the state Democratic Party an advisory opinion four years earlier saying mailers don’t count toward the aggregate limit. The board’s spokesman told WJAR that “All Board of Elections campaign finance investigations are confidential unless or until the Board finds there is a reason to believe a violation has occurred.” Democratic Party Executive Director Katherine Riordan told WJAR the party had not received the complaint.

Guckian. Rhode Island Current reported that Republican Aaron Guckian filed his seven-day report “early Wednesday — nine hours after the midnight deadline.” It also reported that his Sept. 30 private-plane trip to a Florida fundraiser, which the Current says should have been reported as an in-kind donation on the Oct. 6 report, is still not in his filings. A complaint from his former primary opponent, Elaine Pelino, is pending and confidential.

Update (Oct 29–30, 2026): The 2014 opinion surfaces, and Block files a second complaint

The 2014 advisory opinion. Rhode Island Current has published the 2014 advisory opinion, which we had not been able to find. It was written in response to an Oct. 14, 2014 request from lawyers Marc E. Elias and Jonathan S. Berkon on behalf of the Rhode Island Democratic State Committee. The committee asked two questions: whether paid internet ads count toward the $25,000 cap, and whether direct mail does. On direct mail the board answered no: “Because the statute clearly refers to media expenses and costs related to direct mail pieces are not media related expenses, direct mail costs are not subject to the aggregate twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) limitation of R.I. Gen. Law § 17-25-10.1(e).” According to the board’s Oct. 22, 2014 minutes, which are included in the same document, the board voted 4–0 to adopt the staff recommendation, with no dissents. That cuts against Block’s first complaint. The board’s own standing interpretation says the party’s mailers fall outside the cap.

Block is asking the board to set that interpretation aside. “That defies common sense,” he said of the 2014 opinion, according to the Current. “The delivery method does not change what the advertisement is.” His campaign manager, Matthew Schweich, objected that the opinion was not on the board’s website: “To my knowledge, an advisory opinion is not a law. It’s not even a regulation.” Board spokesman Chris Hunter told the Current that the website reflects all decisions and opinions since 2018. Common Cause Rhode Island executive director John Marion sided with the board’s reading: “The common understanding of a print advertisement is something like in a newspaper,” he said. “A mailer is something separate.” He added: “This complaint doesn’t seem to be based in the law.”

The second complaint: $90,000 in digital ads. On Thursday Block filed a second complaint, which the board stamped as received Oct. 29. It targets two $45,000 in-kind contributions from the RI Democratic State Committee that Foulkes reported in her Oct. 6 filing, both described as “Digital Communications” and dated Sept. 2 and Oct. 5. Block argues the $25,000 cap should cover digital ads. He points to a 2024 board rule that defines “qualified internet or digital communication,” and he says that since the party has already spent $25,000 on print ads for Foulkes, she “must refund the illegal contribution totaling $90,000.00 to the RI Democratic State Committee.” Foulkes spokeswoman Angelika Pellegrino told the Current the complaint was “half-baked” and said, “We, of course, believe the RIDP can pay for digital communications, and if asked for a response by the BOE, we will provide one.”

A detail neither side has raised. The same 2014 opinion answers the digital question too, and that answer favors Block. The party had asked the board to rule that paid internet ads were exempt. The board answered “Yes”: they count. It wrote that “Since the clear intent of § 17-25-10.1(e) is to limit aggregate media spending, and the internet clearly presents media to the public, the limitations of the statute apply to internet communications.” The question it answered was about communications “placed for a fee on third party websites.” Block’s second complaint does not cite this opinion. We do not know exactly what the party’s $90,000 in “Digital Communications” paid for.