Mitchell Nobel
Cantor Fitzgerald employee and finance director of Fellowship PAC, which claims $100m unfiled.
Last refreshed: 12 April 2026 · Appears in 1 active topic
Why has Fellowship PAC's finance director not disclosed $100m to the FEC?
Timeline for Mitchell Nobel
Served as PAC treasurer filing Q1 report
US Midterms 2026: Fellowship PAC: $11m filed, $89m missingMentioned in: Fellowship PAC Shows Zero in Federal Filings
US Midterms 2026- Who is Mitchell Nobel and what is his connection to Fellowship PAC?
- Mitchell Nobel is a Cantor Fitzgerald employee serving as finance director of Fellowship PAC, which claims $100 million raised but has filed $0 with the FEC. The PAC is chaired by Tether US executive Jesse Spiro.Source: FEC filings and public records
- What is Cantor Fitzgerald's connection to Trump?
- Cantor Fitzgerald's CEO Howard Lutnick was appointed US Secretary of Commerce in 2025, placing the firm's employees in a prominent position within crypto-adjacent political activity.Source: Press reports, 2025
Background
Mitchell Nobel is the finance director of Fellowship PAC, a pro-Cryptocurrency political action committee that has publicly claimed to have raised $100 million for the 2026 midterms while disclosing $0 in contributions to the FEC. Nobel works at Cantor Fitzgerald, the US financial services firm whose chief executive Howard Lutnick was appointed US Secretary of Commerce in 2025.
The PAC's chairman is Jesse Spiro, a Tether US executive, placing Nobel in an organisation that bridges Cantor Fitzgerald, Tether, and the crypto political spending landscape. The combination of Cantor's proximity to the Trump administration and Tether's opaque financial structure has drawn scrutiny from campaign finance researchers. Fellowship PAC's Q1 2026 quarterly report was due 15 April 2026; if it again shows zero receipts, the gap between public claims and federal disclosures will span two full reporting periods.
Nobel's role as finance director makes him the individual responsible for PAC fundraising operations and FEC compliance. The absence of federal filings could reflect a deliberate disclosure strategy exploiting FEC enforcement lag, or indicate that the $100 million figure was aspirational rather than raised. The FEC has not opened a public investigation.
