Joe Biden plans to allow media access to all of his fundraising events, a show of transparency designed to address the Democratic base’s increasing discomfort with the role of big-money donors in politics.

Unlike his 2020 rivals who have built out robust small-donor online fundraising operations, Biden is more reliant on the kinds of big donors and high dollar events that Democratic primary voters frown on. On the day he launched his presidential bid last week, opponents including Bernie Sanders — an online fundraising powerhouse — seized on Biden’s first fundraiser in Philadelphia as an opportunity to criticize the former vice president for being too cozy with corporate donors while at the same time positioning himself as the working-class candidate.

Story Continued Below

The media access provided by the campaign isn’t unlimited. TV cameras will not be allowed in and it’s unclear how much of the events print and wire reporters will be allowed to attend. When Biden attends a private fundraiser at the home of a South Carolina supporter this weekend during a brief swing through the state, only pooled print and wire reporters will be allowed inside.

But Biden’s prepared remarks and his answers in any question and answer session with those donors will be made public in the pool reports. And the access will at least provide some level of visibility into what’s happening in the room and who’s attending the fundraisers.

The Biden campaign’s approach goes beyond the access that others in the field permit. Campaigns of Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, for example, do not allow uniform access to private fundraisers.

“It’s reflective of Joe Biden’s longstanding commitment to transparency,” a Biden spokesperson said.

The move comes as the 76-year-old faces a historically diverse field of candidates who are responding to voters’ concerns by rejecting traditional fundraising practices. Sen. Elizabeth Warren took the most comprehensive position by declaring she will no longer even meet privately with big-dollar donors, much less hold closed-door events available only to an elite group.

Candidate have instead shifted their focus to raising money online and touting grassroots outreach, measuring their own strength not just by total dollar amounts but by the number of individual donors and how small the average donation turns out to be.

Biden’s campaign announced last week that he raised $6.3 million on his first day as an announced candidate, ranking him first in the crowded Democratic primary in terms of first-day fundraising totals and erasing doubts that he might not be able to compete in the new era of small-dollar-donor-fueled campaigns.

At least some of the calculation behind Biden’s approach, according to a donor close to the campaign, is putting the gaffe-prone former vice president on notice that his remarks will be public.

“He wants to make sure that everybody understands what he says in public isn’t any different than what he says in private,” said the donor, who was briefed on the policy but not authorized to talk about it publicly. “He understands: too many phones, too many recordings,” are available to make their way to social media.

Technology has made it so anyone — from a high-level donor to a caterer working an event — can capture video or audio in a closed setting. And it’s been in those unguarded moments where candidates often slip up and create major headaches for their campaigns.

In his 2012 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Mitt Romney faced a firestorm when his remarks from a private event leaked revealing that he said “47 percent” of the people in America “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

In 2008, Barack Obama set off controversy after his remarks at a private fundraising event in San Francisco leaked out — he had infamously referred to frustrated voters in a small Pennsylvania town as people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” And Hillary Clinton’s remarks at a New York fundraiser in 2016 that supporters of Donald Trump belonged in “a basket of deplorables,” haunted her in the final months of the campaign.

“Whether it was ‘47 percent’ quote, ‘clinging to guns and religion,’ or ‘basket of deplorables’ – all of which were statements used by presidential candidates in fundraisers that caused a degree of controversy — I think there’s a concern that candidates say things behind closed doors to financial supporters that they wouldn’t say on the stump,” said Rufus Gifford, former national finance director to Barack Obama. “That’s why having media in the room is a good thing.”

The practice with Obama was that events were covered by pool report, where print reporters were allowed some, but not unfettered, access to the room, said Ami Copeland, Obama’s one-time deputy national finance director.

“That’s how he did it. There’s some access but not complete access — media can’t mix and mingle through the room,” Copeland said. “It seems like a nice nod to transparency while protecting the aura of intimacy.”

On Saturday, state Sen. Dick Harpootlian, an attorney and former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, will host a Biden fundraiser at his home, where tickets range from $1,000 and $2,800, he said. Harpootlian said 60 to 100 people are expected to attend and, while he acknowledged having media attend means guests forgo some sense of privacy, he said it ultimately comes with the territory.

“Anybody is concerned about having public access to your home, but we’re having a fundraiser for the [former] vice president of the United States who wants to be president of the United States and if his campaign wants to make it a transparent process, we’ll have sacrifices made, but it’s something we will do,” Harpootlian said. “It’s Joe Biden’s position that there is transparency in his campaign, I don’t know anybody who’s attending who will have a problem with that.”

Several veteran fundraisers who have worked on national presidential campaigns called Biden’s move unusual, given that the rule of thumb in fundraising, especially in private homes, is to respect the privacy of the homeowner. Another fundraiser, who is acting as a bundler to a competing candidate in the field, dismissed the move as little more than smoke.

“At the end of the day, the transparency is disclosed on everybody. They’re required to disclose who the people are in [Federal Election Commission] reports,” the fundraiser said. “To me, it’s more optics than anything else.”

Either way, the Biden campaign’s move is unlikely to be welcomed by the donor class.

“When you organize people will ask: ‘There’s not going to be press there, right?’” one veteran national fundraiser said. “A lot of these things are people in their own circles. I don’t think donors want everyone to know who they’re schmoozing with reported.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday that the Trump administration “will simply not rule out” military action in Venezuela. And on Friday, Trump administration officials met for the second day in a row at the Pentagon to discuss options for toppling the country’s embattled autocratic leader. Speaking to reporters back in March, national security adviser John Bolton held a yellow notepad with a line of text conspicuously visible: “5,000 troops to Colombia,” he had written.

Together, the actions and planning meetings — one of them held in “the Tank,” the Pentagon’s most secure room — are part of a threatening drumbeat aimed at Nicolás Maduro, who, U.S. officials say, may be on the brink of ouster.

Story Continued Below

“The time for talking is over,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said in a Friday statement. “The safety and security of our nation depend on this fight.”

“Where is our aircraft carrier?” tweeted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally.

But on a day when Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose backing of Maduro is causing tensions with the U.S., Trump officials and national security experts said mounting talk of U.S. military action is almost certainly hollow.

Two U.S. officials told POLITICO these actions are designed more to rattle Maduro — and Venezuelan military leaders who have been a key source of support for him — than to foreshadow an American military effort in Venezuela.

“The administration’s strategy on Venezuela over the past two years had been one of building regional consensus, a policy of incrementalism,” said Ana Quintana, a Latin America analyst at conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, citing the steady buildup of “incremental sanctions” and support to the opposition.

“The idea of a military invasion does not logically fit into that strategy whatsoever, especially when there are still so many other types of pressure that can be applied,” she said, pointing to additional sanctions targeting the government or sanctions by other countries that oppose Maduro.

The U.S. has yet to deploy an aircraft carrier strike group to the region, which would represent the most visible sign of U.S. military power and the keystone of any Pentagon war plans.

The nearest major U.S. military asset is a group of amphibious ships that left San Diego on Thursday for a scheduled deployment in the Pacific. The group could move quickly to a position off the Colombian coast if it were needed to launch limited combat strikes, provide humanitarian relief or evacuate American citizens from a conflict zone.

Asked today whether naval forces would be involved in potential military action, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan would say only, “There’s a lot of water nearby.”

The tough talk from U.S. officials has escalated since Bolton indicated earlier this week that senior Venezuelan military officials were in talks with the U.S.-backed opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, to potentially throw their support behind him.

But President Donald Trump, who campaigned on putting an end to scurrilous American military forays, is resisting an intervention in Venezuela.

“We’re doing everything we can do short of, you know, the ultimate,” Trump told Fox Business Network’s Trish Regan on Wednesday, adding that “there are people that would like to have us do the ultimate.”

The Lima Group of 13 Latin American countries plus Canada, which has joined American efforts to oust Maduro, rejected military intervention in Venezuela at a meeting in mid-April. For the U.S., losing the support of its Latin American allies in the push to get rid of Maduro would be a fatal blow to efforts in Venezuela.

Adm. Craig Faller, the head of U.S. Southern Command and responsible for U.S. military activity in Latin America, suggested in congressional testimony this week that any military planning is geared more toward stabilization and humanitarian assistance should the Maduro government fall than toward aggressive action.

“There is going to be a day when the legitimate government takes over, and it’s going to come when we least expect it,” said Faller, who was at the Pentagon on Friday to meet with Shanahan, Pompeo and Bolton. “And it could be right now, so we are calling it ‘day now’ planning.”

The defection this week of Maduro’s intelligence chief, Christopher Figueroa — which Pompeo touted in an interview on Thursday — could help the administration and its allies more effectively target nonmilitary pressure, said Quintana.

“He knows the ins and outs of who’s involved in the deepest, dirtiest misdeeds of the regime,” she said. “This is the guy who has the knowledge” to bring pressure to bear against individual members of Maduro’s government.

At the Pentagon on Friday, Shanahan met to discuss Venezuela with Bolton, Pompeo and Faller. It was the second meeting this week that the Trump administration’s senior national security officials had convened to discuss options in Venezuela.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Shanahan was tight-lipped about what they discussed in the meeting, saying the talks were simply “so that we all stay stitched together in real time.” Shanahan added that he’d invited Faller from his Florida headquarters to share observations from recent visits to Brazil and Colombia.

“All options are on the table,” Shanahan reiterated. “We have a comprehensive set of options tailored to certain conditions, and I’m maybe just going to leave it at that.” Pressed as to whether the plans extended beyond the evacuation of American citizens to “kinetic,” or violent, military action, he said, “I’ll leave that to your imagination.”

Trump and Putin also discussed the standoff in their first phone call since special counsel Robert Mueller released his finding that the Trump campaign had not criminally conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.

The Kremlin has sent a small number of military personnel to Venezuela as part of a campaign to save the Maduro regime. But Putin appeared to warn Trump off of any military intervention, telling him that only Venezuelans should determine the future of their country, according to a Kremlin readout of the phone call.

The White House had not yet provided a readout of the phone call as of Friday afternoon, but White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee sanders told reporters that the president communicated his hopes for a peaceful transition of power. Still, Sanders noted, Trump emphasized that “all options continue to be on the table.”

For Trump, the situation in Venezuela has become something of a proxy battle with the Kremlin, challenging the president’s stated desire to improve relations with Russia.

“The tension between Trump’s very well-advertised desire that we need a new relationship with Russia and the fact that Russia is being so in your face in Venezuela just seems to make those two situations really incompatible,” said Andrew Weiss, an expert in U.S.-Russia relations at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

While the administration has worked to lay the groundwork for a Trump-Putin meeting at the G-20 meeting in Osaka next month, “there’s really no promising issue on the agenda,” Weiss said.

Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.

Democratic foreign policy strategists are hot commodities again.

For the past two years, they have been frozen out under President Donald Trump. And during the 2016 election cycle, Hillary Clinton held a virtual monopoly on the Democratic foreign policy establishment.

Story Continued Below

But now, with nearly two dozen Democrats running for president, these experts say their phones are ringing with inquiries. Several foreign policy thinkers told POLITICO they had already been approached by three or more campaigns, or people affiliated with campaigns, to gauge their interest. With relatively few of the Democratic candidates having significant foreign policy experience, these advisers are especially desirable hires.

“The process at this stage is kind of like a mix between a pickup basketball game and Afghan tribal politics,” said Brian Katulis, a foreign affairs analyst with the Center for American Progress, who has yet to commit to a candidate.

“It’s a seller’s market,” added a Democratic foreign policy strategist, who, like most people contacted for this story, requested anonymity for reasons including campaign rules. “We’re constantly having this discussion within the campaign I work with about who’s already taken.”

With over a year left until the election, many left-leaning foreign affairs specialists are wary of committing to one candidate or being public about it. Several said they’re willing to offer advice to any White House hopeful who requests it, and some are affiliated with think tanks or other organizations that have special rules about election-related work.

Plus, there’s the reality at this stage that a candidate you sign up with will fizzle out fast, and that you could endanger your chances of joining another campaign or getting a job in a future Democratic administration if you’re too vocal about supporting one person.

Slowly and quietly, however, many of the candidates are building stables of favored foreign policy advisers — structures sure to grow in the months ahead. The need for such an apparatus is especially acute for the many Democratic candidates with sparse foreign policy experience.

Among the contenders, former Vice President Joe Biden is thought to have a major lead on foreign policy. That’s due in part to his close ties to Obama administration alumni, his stint in Congress as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the relationships he’s built over the years with numerous world leaders.

Biden also has the luxury of turning — unofficially — to people at the Penn Biden Center, a global affairs institution established at the University of Pennsylvania after he left office. The center’s leaders include figures who served with Biden under then-President Barack Obama, including former deputy secretary of State Antony Blinken.

“Vice President Biden’s deep qualifications and close relationships with world leaders equip him to repair our standing in the world on Day 1. … He’s grateful to have a strong bench of trusted advisers ready to do this critical work,” Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California also has emerged as a favorite among former Obama administration officials, especially seasoned ones who worked for Clinton when she was secretary of State. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, too, has drawn notice from that crowd.

Clinton’s most prominent foreign policy hand, Jake Sullivan, has yet to officially align himself with a specific candidate. But several younger foreign policy gurus in his generation, figures in their 30s and 40s, are eyeing Pete Buttigieg, according to people familiar with the situation.

The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind., speaks multiple languages and has spent time abroad, but he’s still largely a blank slate on foreign policy, meaning whoever gets his ear could have tremendous influence — an appealing prospect for up and comers.

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who is in his 40s, holds a similar appeal. O’Rourke, too, has limited foreign policy experience, but can boast of having served on the House Armed Services Committee and representing El Paso, a city on the border with Mexico.

One candidate who learned the hard way that he can’t ignore foreign policy is Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who challenged Clinton in the 2016 primary.

In that cycle, Sanders preferred to focus on domestic and economic issues, prompting claims that he was a global affairs lightweight. It didn’t help that Clinton managed to lock down the loyalties of hundreds of foreign policy experts on the left, leaving him few options.

In 2017, Sanders brought on to his staff Matt Duss, a progressive who has helped the senator lay out a more comprehensive foreign policy vision. At this stage, Sanders’ campaign has a “solid core” of around 10 foreign policy advisers he turns to regularly, an aide to the senator said.

So far, there’s been little bitterness among the Democratic campaigns as they cast about for foreign policy talent.

Democrats across the ideological spectrum are largely united on broad themes such as the need to fix damaged ties with U.S. allies. That sense of unity is, for now, why many foreign policy experts are comfortable offering advice to more than one candidate.

“There’s not really a competitiveness at this point yet — the field is just so wide and so diverse and so up for grabs,” the Democratic foreign policy strategist said.

“There’s a higher demand [for advisers], but it’s still kumbaya,” added a Democratic former national security official.

It’s a notable contrast to the 2008 primary battle between Obama and Clinton, which campaign observers described as being especially ugly. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, dominated the Democratic Party at the time, and Obama was seen as a long shot. The Clinton side hinted that anyone who joined Obama’s team was giving up a shot at working for her future administration.

The two camps were especially divided over the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Clinton voted to authorize while in the Senate. Obama used that foreign policy issue to separate himself from Clinton, ultimately winning the primary.

This time, not even aides to Biden, who leads many polls, are making such veiled threats — yet.

Because Democrats view toppling Trump as the paramount goal, many have teamed up to create advocacy organizations such as Foreign Policy for America and National Security Action to help maintain some sense of unity even as the race heats up.

National Security Action, for instance, offers foreign policy strategy and advice to all of the campaigns. The goal is to help Democrats avoid damaging internecine warfare on the left’s more divisive foreign policy topics, such as the U.S.-Israel relationship, military spending and the war in Afghanistan.

At this stage in the presidential primaries, campaigns are focusing more on domestic issues. But the strength of the economy may push Democrats to pivot to overseas controversies, such as Trump’s desire to withdraw troops from Syria or his ongoing support for Saudi Arabia’s military actions in Yemen.

While campaigns may have one or two paid foreign policy advisers, most of these roles are unpaid.

Volunteer advisers churn out position papers and talking points, often as part of working groups that focus on a region, such as the Middle East, or a theme, such as human rights. The lawmakers who run for president have the advantage of being able to, informally at least, tap the expertise in the congressional staffs.

The candidates often require staffers and volunteers to sign nondisclosure agreements, limiting what they can say about campaigns’ internal dynamics. But some of the experts may be tapped as surrogates who can publicly criticize rival candidates at key moments, such as primary debates.

Under the Clinton campaign’s wide umbrella in 2016, many of the volunteers wondered whether their work ever even reached the candidate. This time, it’s possible one person’s advice can influence several candidates.

“I suspect over time issues will emerge where there are differences, and that’ll start to get interesting,” said one former Obama foreign policy aide.