Imagine how embarrassing this would be if the GOP were still a conservative party instead of an independent center-left nationalist program under the Republican label.

“Given more than twice as much” is a kind way of putting it, actually. According to the Washington Examiner, fully 85 percent of this guy’s contributions has gone blue. Alternate headline: “Democrat appoints Democrat to top campaign position.”

Although Mnuchin has given to Republicans, his financial ties to the Democratic Party and liberal causes appear to be significantly deeper. Overall, Mnuchin has given more than $125,000 since 1998 to candidates and committees that disclose their donors — more than half of which went to Democrats, according to FEC records. He contributed to Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd in the 2008 presidential election cycle. He also gave to Obama and Clinton’s Senate campaigns, and supported Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee… Beyond his contributions, Mnuchin’s past employers don’t fall in line with Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail. Mnuchin is a former Goldman Sachs partner and worked for liberal mega-donor George Soros’s hedge fund. He also contributed to a group called America Coming Together, which was largely funded by Soros and unions.

Remember that heckler in Indiana on Monday who taunted Cruz by asking him where’s his “Goldman Sachs jacket”? Not only did Mnuchin work at GS, the FEC database shows that he donated thousands to the Goldman Sachs PAC. He gave $2,000 to Hillary for her 2005 Senate run, then gave her another $2,300 during the Democratic presidential primary in 2007. But he gave to Romney/Ryan too, so despite his grossly anti-populist hedge fund pedigree and his relationship to Soros, you know what the moronic spin will be. As it was with Trump himself, this’ll be dismissed as Mnuchin simply trying to buy influence according to the rules of our “rigged system” — notwithstanding his lopsided support for one party. Trust President Trump to reform that system, even though he and his rich friends have profited spectacularly from it for decades.

Makes you wonder: Why didn’t Trump name someone with more robust connections to Republican donors since it’s mostly Republican money that’ll be bankrolling him? Would none of the GOP’s top rainmakers accept the job? An interesting anecdote:

Talked to a veteran GOP fundraiser today. Said he thought about helping Trump but his wife promised a divorce if he did. So he's not. — Reid J. Epstein (@reidepstein) May 5, 2016

Speaking of Democrats staffing up with Democrats, here’s a tidbit from a new NYT report about goings-on at the RNC:

For some in the party, the question of whether to embrace Mr. Trump is not merely an intellectual exercise. Some staff members at the Republican National Committee were told Wednesday that if they were unable to get behind the nominee, they should leave by the end of the week.

The RNC says it’s “100% untrue” but conservatives on Twitter, ever suspicious of Reince’s crew, are outraged. I’m not sure why, and I’m not sure why the RNC wouldn’t implement such a policy. (Although I understand why they’d want to keep quiet about it.) The organization is bound to support the nominee; if staffers can’t work to that end due to a conscientious objection, what’s the case for keeping them in place? Move them aside and clear the way for some alt-righters or Democrats or whoever else is willing to labor for Trump enthusiastically. Trump flirted with the idea of clearing out the organization a few weeks ago, Reince Priebus included, and remaking it with his own cronies. Let him. I’m sure he can recruit a few dozen liberal Goldman Sachs alums to fill the vacancies. He’s a managerial genius, after all.

Exit question via Tom Nichols: How would Trumpers have reacted to nominee Cruz or Rubio tapping a left-leaning GS alum to lead his money-raising operation?