ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Lawyers helping the New York Assembly investigate whether Gov. Andrew should be impeached have received more than 200 tips and spoken with attorneys for about 70 people and four government agencies, a lawmaker overseeing the probe said Wednesday.

Speaking at a legislative hearing, Assembly Judiciary Committee ...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted Wednesday to confirm Vanita Gupta to the No. 3 position at the Justice Department, blowing up her party’s effort to make Democrats solely own the confirmation.

Senate Republicans have spent weeks speaking out against Gupta, describing her as a “radical” who would defund the police. They’ve also criticized her past statements on decriminalizing drugs and heavily signaled that their entire 50-member conference would stay unified against her. Vice President Kamala Harris arrived in the Senate on Wednesday ahead of a preliminary vote on Gupta, indicating widespread expectations that the nomination would require the first tie-breaking vote of the Biden administration.

But Murkowski, who voted to convict Donald Trump in the former president's second impeachment trial, had other plans. During floor remarks ahead of a final vote, the senator said that after meeting with Gupta, she was impressed by “the passion that [the nominee] carries with her with the work that she performs” and said Gupta is “deeply committed to matters of justice.”

Among the issues Murkowski discussed with Gupta was domestic violence and sexual assault, particularly against Native women — a major priority for the Alaska Republican.

“I felt that I was speaking to a woman who had not only committed her professional life to try to get the base of these injustices, to try to not just direct a little bit of money, put a program in place, and walk away and call it a day,” Murkowski said, “But to try to truly make a difference.”

Gupta had unanimous support from Senate Democrats, who praised her credentials and were quick to note her endorsements from several law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed former President Donald Trump twice. Gupta also has backing from Grover Norquist and Bill Kristol.

While Gupta’s nomination was never in jeopardy, Murkowski’s vote to confirm her was a surprise. Earlier in the day, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had warned that Gupta could be the first Biden nominee whose confirmation could fall along party lines. In the end, she was confirmed 51-49.

Gupta’s bipartisan confirmation came after Senate Republicans, including Murkowski, unanimously voted last week against discharging Gupta from the Judiciary Committee, which deadlocked 11-11.

During her floor remarks, Murkowski said that when meeting with Gupta, the nominee spoke about the pressures associated with her confirmation.

“Is this worth it?” Murkowski asked her GOP colleagues. “Because this has been, clearly, very hard on her as a nominee. And she paused and reflected a moment and just spoke to how she feels called to serve in a very personal way that I thought was impactful.”

Gupta was previously president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She also was head of the civil rights division under former President Barack Obama. She will be the first woman of color to serve as associate attorney general.

Fifteen Senate Republicans on Monday pledged to uphold their party's decadelong ban on earmarks, drawing a battle line days before the GOP is set to vote on whether to reinstate the spending practice.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, the group — led by conservative Sen. Mike Lee of Utah — made clear they are “committed” to the earmark ban and “will not vote to repeal it.”

“We will not participate in an inherently wasteful spending practice that is prone to serious abuse,” the lawmakers wrote.

The anti-earmark letter includes a diverse mix of lawmakers, illustrating that the opposition to so-called congressionally directed spending spans the ideological spectrum in the GOP. Among the signatories: Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an ally of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a potential 2024 contender who challenged certification of the election results; Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, a member of GOP leadership; Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who voted to convict former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial; and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian Trump ally.

The Senate GOP will vote Wednesday on whether to reinstate earmarks, which were first banned in 2010 after conservatives turned against directing money to projects like the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere" in Ketchikan, Alaska.

With Democrats planning to revive earmarks now that they control Congress, Republicans have wrestled over whether they should take advantage of the spending practice. House Republicans faced a similar internal debate, but ultimately voted in a 102-84 secret ballot to embrace earmarks as long as certain criteria are met.

Republicans' ban on earmarks is one of the last vestiges of the tea party era, and some are reluctant to dispose of the prohibition in the post-Trump GOP. Critics argue that the practice is ripe for abuse and would only lead to “pork-barrel” spending. They also contend that it would be politically unwise to hand Democratic leaders a useful tool to corral gettable Republican votes on major bills, especially given the narrow majorities held by President Joe Biden's party.

But other Republicans contend that they would be at a huge disadvantage if they decided not to earmark while Democrats reaped the rewards of the spending practice. Allowing lawmakers to ensure money for specific projects, those GOP lawmakers say, would restore power to the legislative branch and shift it away from the Biden administration. Earmarks proponents further note that if Republicans don’t want to participate, they don’t have to — lifting the ban would only open up the option for GOP senators, not require them to.

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Democrats’ narrow majorities are in peril in next year’s midterms, and their most vulnerable members are seeing a major cash infusion early in the fight to keep Congress in their control.

The four swing-state Senate Democrats likeliest to face the toughest reelection fights — Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada — each raised more than $2 million, posting higher totals than any incumbent senator two years ago. All four had over $4 million in the bank, a total only two senators had at this point in 2019.

Meanwhile, House Democrats quickly assuaged any fears that they would struggle to keep up fundraising with their main antagonist, Donald Trump, out of office. Over two dozen of the 45 House Democrats that Republicans plan to target in 2022 raised over $500,000. Four of them, including California Reps. Katie Porter and Josh Harder, raised over $1 million — an impressive amount for the first quarter of an off-year.

But this isn’t the 2020 cycle. Armed with WinRed and an energized small-dollar donor base, House Republicans have narrowed their financial gap. Of their roughly three dozen most vulnerable incumbents, 15 raised over $500,000, a much stronger showing than in the first months of the 2019. That’s not a good sign for House Democrats, who had a huge money edge last cycle and still lost over a dozen seats.

Here’s our breakdown of the most important takeaways from the first-quarter financial reports on the fallout from the second Trump impeachment trial, the Jan. 6 riots and, most importantly, the 2022 battle for control of the House and Senate.

Senate Dems Start Strong

Warnock and Kelly, who became some of the best small-dollar fundraisers in the country during special elections last cycle, both raised more than $4.4 million, showing the benefit of fundraising networks that never went inactive.

Some Democratic challengers also had good quarters. Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman raised $4 million, cementing his frontrunner status in the Senate race there. But he also spent heavily, shelling out $2.1 million in the quarter. The vast majority of that was for his digital fundraising: more than $880,000 for email acquisitions and more than $577,000 for digital advertising, a bet on spending big early to build a small-dollar program that could pay off throughout the race. State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (the only other candidate in the race during the quarter), raised $374,000, a decent showing for a first-time statewide candidate.

Several other Democratic challengers posted strong early showings. Rep. Tim Ryan, who has not yet announced but is expected to run for Senate in Ohio, raised $1.2 million; in Wisconsin, Alex Lasry raised $1.1 million, while Tom Nelson raised $264,000; and in North Carolina, state Sen. Jeff Jackson pulled in nearly $1.3 million. The early fundraising suggests Democratic challengers will be well-funded — although both of those races are expected to get more crowded, creating expensive primary fights.

House Republicans narrow the money gap

Vulnerable House Democrats kicked off the official start of the post-Trump era by continuing to raise large sums of money. Of the 45 incumbents on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s target list, 25 raised over $500,000.

And some 21 are starting the redistricting cycle with over $1 million in the bank. Porter ($11.5 million) and Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey ($9.2 million) have especially staggering high war chests.

But this cycle, Republicans aren’t too far behind. The quarterly totals of their endangered incumbents are almost as formidable. Of the 33 GOP members who are either targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or deemed vulnerable by the NRCC, 14 of them raised over $500,000, including Reps. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) and María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). Only a handful of vulnerable Republicans cleared that margin in the first three months of the 2019 cycle.

The Jan. 6 cash cow

Jan. 6 proved to be a financial lightning rod for both the Republicans who emerged as outspoken Trump defenders, like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who raised $3.2 million; Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who raised $2.1 million; Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who raised $1.8 million; Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who raised $1.1 million and Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who raised $1 million.

A couple of the Republicans who most sharply condemned his behavior were also rewarded. Five of the 10 GOP members who voted to impeach Trump for his role in the insurrection that day raised over $500,000. The leaders were Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) with $1.5 million; Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) with $1.1 million; Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) with $745,000; and Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) with $616,000.

Trump has promised to recruit and fund primary challengers against those 10 members who defied him, but so far only one of those challengers looks formidable. Max Miller, the Trump-backed challenger against Gonzalez, raised $508,000 — he self-funded over $50,000 of that, and it still wasn’t enough to best the incumbent. Cheney’s challenger, Anthony Bouchard, had the next highest total with $335,000.

The FEC reports of these members provide insight on the alignment of some prominent Republicans in the ongoing civil war. Some notable Cheney donors: Former Bush-era Labor Secretary Linda Chavez; former GOP Reps. Barbara Comstock (Va.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Heather Wilson (N.M.); Wal-Mart heiress Christy Walton, political strategist Mary Matalin and the congresswoman’s parents, Lynne and Dick Cheney.

Meanwhile, former Trump spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Ohio Senate candidates Jane Timken, Mike Gibbons and Bernie Moreno donated to Miller.

Republicans stockpile cash for red-state primaries

Alabama is the first open-seat race where former President Donald Trump endorsed a candidate, backing hardline conservative Rep. Mo Brooks. Brooks’ fundraising doesn’t reflect his clear frontrunner status: He raised just $274,000, though he has $1.3 million on hand. But he’s got an expensive competitor in Lynda Blanchard, the former ambassador who loaned herself $5.1 million and has nearly $5.3 million in the bank. Blanchard has already started airing TV ads. Brooks could be an early test both for the fundraising effect of Trump’s endorsement — which came after the quarter ended — and for how the endorsement fares against a well-funded opponent.

Meanwhile, the picture in Ohio is murky since two self-funders entered the GOP primary after the quarter ended. But the earliest candidates both got a bit of a head start. Jane Timken, the former state party chair, raised $1.1 million and gave her campaign another $1 million, demonstrating some real fundraising ability for a first-time candidate and some willingness to self-fund. Meanwhile, Josh Mandel, the former state treasurer, raised $1.4 million into a joint fundraising committee that includes his campaign account and leadership PAC. Combined, he has roughly $5 million in the bank for a fight that is getting pricier by the day.

Other GOP retirements coming?

Alabama and Ohio are among five states where incumbent Republicans have already announced their retirements. But one of the biggest looming questions on the Senate map is whether others will join. And the senators who haven’t officially declared they’re running again had among the smallest quarters of any incumbents.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who will be the most vulnerable Republican incumbent if he runs, raised $545,000 and had just $1 million in the bank. Republicans don’t necessarily see Johnson’s fundraising as a sign he’s decided against running. Johnson can self-fund to a degree, which would make up the difference if he chooses to invest his own money.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) raised just $381,000, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) raised just $256,000. It’s notable to compare those figures to the first quarter in 2015, the last time both faced reelection. Murkowski this year raised roughly half her total from 2015; Grassley raised roughly one-third. But both senators had close to the same cash on hand as six years ago, so it’s not a clear sign of their intentions yet.

Other Republican incumbents who could face tough races had much better quarters, by comparison. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) raised $1.6 million and has $3.9 million on hand.

Redistricting tea leaves

Several states are beginning to feel the redistricting squeeze. By the end of this month, a few of the smaller delegations might be playing musical chairs as one of their seats disappears.

Nowhere is this predicament more acute than in Rhode Island, which has two Democratic incumbents and is set to condense into one at-large seat. Rep. David Cicilline raised $655,000, to Rep. Jim Langevin’s $118,000. While Langevin has nearly $780,000 in the bank, his meager first-quarter number doesn’t suggest he’s readying for a member-on-member battle. Cicilline’s war chest is $1.1 million.

Keep an eye on West Virginia. The state is shedding its third district, and most Republicans in the state expect GOP Reps. David McKinley and Alex Mooney to get drawn in together, while Republican Rep. Carol Miller is untouched in the south. McKinley has just $400,000 banked, compared to Mooney’s $2.4 million.

Sixteen days after her vote to impeach then-President Donald Trump, Rep. Liz Cheney’s campaign office logged a $22,000 expense for personal security. Two days before his vote to convict Trump, Sen. Mitt Romney’s campaign team recorded $43,000 spent for his safety.

Those massive sums from two of the most high-profile Republicans in Washington is a fraction of the security spending that GOP lawmakers incurred after publicly blaming Trump for inciting January’s insurrection at the Capitol. More than one third of the 17 GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach or convict the former president used campaign funds to install security systems or hire private details within weeks of their votes — for an eye-popping total of nearly $200,000 over the first three months of this year, according to an analysis of filings with the Federal Election Commission this week.

And those Republicans aren’t alone. Congressional spending on private security has surged among members of both parties since the deadly riot on Jan. 6, amid an alarming spike in death threats against lawmakers and their families. Just-elected Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock (Ga.) and Mark Kelly (Ariz.) spent $130,000 and $115,000, respectively, while Trump backers Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) spent $46,061 and $25,000.

That spending — all revealed in recent campaign finance disclosures — spotlights a challenge many lawmakers are eager to tackle this month: how to update the strict rules that govern personal security costs for members of Congress.

“This is a very dangerous moment,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a senior Democrat who has long paid for her own security and, as a Black woman, has seen rising threats this year.

“We’ve got to be able to do our job, and not feel intimidated or harassed,” she said. “A lot of members who didn’t think about it before Jan. 6 are thinking about it.”

Top Democrats and Republicans are already in talks to offer more flexibility on how official funds can be spent as part of a massive, likely billion-dollar security funding package that is expected to be released within weeks. Under existing rules, lawmakers are limited in how they can spend their official budgets. Bulletproof vests and security personnel for town halls, for instance, are allowed, while security systems for a member’s home and bodyguards for nonofficial travel are typically not.

“It’s just crazy that we’re even having this conversation, but it’s the reality of what we’re living in,” said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), whose spending panel oversees Capitol security funding.

The Ohio Democrat is one of many lawmakers pushing to be able to use official funds for a wider range of security purposes, rather than relying on campaign funds, which he said is “unfair” to put on donors.

“If you’re a governor of a state — that could be smaller than a congressional district — you get state highway patrol,” Ryan said, pointing out that when many lawmakers leave the Capitol, “you’re on your own.”

Many Republican lawmakers, too, said that change can’t come fast enough.

“I don’t care how they do it, as long as they do it,” said Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), who reported spending $19,874 on security this quarter after voting to impeach Trump. “You’ve got to keep people safe. That’s the bottom line.”

Much of the security expenses showed up on campaign reports within days or weeks of the Jan. 6 insurrection, where rioters stormed an ill-equipped Capitol and forced hundreds of members and staffers to fear for their safety.

Capitol officials moved swiftly to protect members and staff, shoring up the Hill complex with barbed wire fencing, metal detectors outside the House chamber and tens of thousands of National Guard troops scattered throughout the grounds.

Those threats weren’t confined to the Capitol, however: Senior and junior lawmakers alike were being chased down at airports or harassed outside their homes or district offices. Threats to harm members or their families were being dialed into many offices on a near-daily basis, with backlogs at Capitol Police headquarters to investigate.

Lawmakers did get protection from Capitol Police at D.C.-area airports when they traveled, but many said it wasn’t enough to feel safe, and they worried about their families while they were away.

Each congressional office was also given $65,000 in additional funds for security-related expenses this year. But in the long term, the issue is trickier than simply assigning security guards to every member: While it’s standard protocol for high-level administration officials, it would be far more difficult to outfit all 535 members of Congress with round-the-clock security.

One suggestion in an independent review of Capitol security, by retired Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, was a “member allowance” fund to be used for protection such as residential security systems. Honoré also recommended a “threat-based” program to assign protective details for lawmakers outside of leadership.

Congressional leaders do provide personal security to lawmakers who face the most acute threats — including the nine House Democrats who helped prosecute Trump in his second impeachment trial earlier this year.

In addition to a protective detail in the Capitol, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) — one of the Democrats’ impeachment managers — spent well over $40,000 this quarter on security. The few months before that, he had spent under $100 per month.

“The speaker is working to try to find ways to make sure that any member who has significant threats can be protected,” Swalwell said, noting the ongoing discussions over how to use congressional funds to protect members amid “hundreds of threats.”

“The last place I’d want to take it is from constituents,” Swalwell said. “Drawing from campaigns isn’t ideal either. You almost incentivize people to threaten the most vulnerable on either side. That’s my fear.”

It’s a delicate political issue, too. Politically vulnerable lawmakers from both parties say they fear that the use of official funds for security could be manipulated in attack ads back home, with state-of-the-art camera systems considered more of a home improvement project than a taxpayer necessity.

“I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, should taxpayers have to pay for what people could construe as improvements to our houses? I think I’d like to see it on the [official] side, but there has to be some kind of showing of needs,” said Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who already had her own home security system before this year.

In recent years, candidates have increasingly sought clarity from the FEC on whether they can, in fact, use their campaign fundraising for security purposes on the Hill or around their homes.

This January, all four congressional campaign arms petitioned the FEC to clarify its rules on the issue. By late March, the federal elections agency responded to one of those requests — which came from the GOP’s House and Senate campaign arms — to formally state that lawmakers can hire bodyguards with campaign money.

The FEC is also exploring more ways in which members may be able to spend campaign money on security for themselves and their families.

Ryan, who paid for a police officer to park outside his family’s home in Ohio earlier this year, said he isn’t sure how long the demand for more security will last, but was clear that it’s needed now.

“I mean, you have a metal detector right there, and we’re here,” Ryan said, pointing toward the House chamber.

“We protect generals. We protect other people in the government," he added. "Unfortunately, we’re out and about so much that we need it, too.”