Nancy Mace's campaign paid her lawsuit lawyers $176,206

"I'm suing people who need to be sued and I'm holding them accountable."

That is Rep. Nancy Mace, in her own words on the PBD Podcast, June 19, 2025. Six months later, her campaign committee began paying the two law firms that represent her in the suit she was talking about. The Federal Election Commission filings put the total at $176,206.28 in six months, while the committee reported $0.00 in receipts for January through June 2026.

Here is the line this page holds from the first paragraph to the last. The filings say "legal fees" and nothing more. No public record shows what the payments covered. There is no finding of any violation, and no public record shows an FEC matter. What follows is the money, the lawsuit, the match between the two, and the places where the record stops. The Short plays above; the full film is on the Maceopedia YouTube channel. Every number below links to the filed page it comes from, and every quote is verbatim.

The first payment: FEC Schedule B, Year-End 2025 report, image 202601309794600461. Committee: Nancy Mace for Congress, C00710103.

The money: seven years, then six months

Nancy Mace for Congress is her campaign committee. In its first seven years it reported five legal payments, $24,264.44 in all. Two small lines went to Kutak Rock LLC on Oct. 1, 2021, $48.51 and $3,456.00 (FEC page). The largest earlier payment was $13,497.43 to the Dhillon Law Group on July 22, 2022:

FEC Schedule B, October 2022 quarterly report, image 202210149532396573.

Then $1,000.00 to Bowers Law Office LLC on Jan. 6, 2025 (FEC page), and $6,262.50 to Lex Politica, PLLC on May 15, 2025:

FEC Schedule B, July 2025 quarterly report, image 202507159762987894.

That is the whole list before December 2025: $24,264.44. Then came four payments in six months. The first was $50,000 to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on Dec. 22, 2025, shown above, for "LEGAL FEES." The Washington Sun first reported that payment, in a Jan. 31, 2026 story by Taylor Giorno on lame-duck campaign spending. Next, $26,206.28 to Moorman Law Firm LLC of Greenville, South Carolina, on March 18, 2026:

FEC Schedule B, April 2026 quarterly report, image 202604159857688773.

Then $50,000 more to Pillsbury on May 6, 2026, and another $50,000 on June 15, 2026:

FEC Schedule B, July 2026 quarterly report, image 202607159875083093.

FEC Schedule B, July 2026 quarterly report, image 202607159875083094.

The arithmetic: three Pillsbury payments of $50,000 plus Moorman's $26,206.28 is $176,206.28, which is 7.26 times the $24,264.44 the committee had spent on lawyers in the seven years before. All time, the committee has now reported $200,470.72 in legal fees, up 726 percent from where it stood before December 2025.

The lawsuit: Mace v. Bowman, Charleston County

On May 12, 2025, Nancy Mace sued a man named Eric Bowman for defamation in Charleston County Common Pleas, case number 2025-CP-10-02733 (complaint, PDF). Bowman is named here only as the defendant she sued. Her complaint describes her this way, in paragraph 5: "Rep. Mace is a private citizen of the State of South Carolina, domiciled in Charleston, South Carolina. Rep. Mace is also a Member of the United States House of Representatives, serving as the representative for South Carolina's First Congressional District."

Complaint, Mace v. Bowman, May 12, 2025, page 2, paragraph 5 (PDF on this site).

The signature block names her lawyers. Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., of Moorman Law Firm in Greenville signed it. Under his name are William M. Sullivan, Jr., and Alex G. Anderson of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, marked "pro hac vice forthcoming." The block reads: "Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Representative Nancy R. Mace."

Complaint, Mace v. Bowman, page 18, signature block (PDF on this site).

On July 1, 2025, the two Pillsbury lawyers applied to appear in the case. Each verified application says the applicant "has been retained personally or as a member of the above-named law firm by United States Representative Nancy R. Mace to provide legal representation in connection with the above case." On July 10, 2025, Circuit Judge Roger M. Young, Sr., admitted them both, and his order says: "The Clerk of Court is directed to add William M. Sullivan, Jr., as counsel of record for the Plaintiff." (Mace v. Bowman, No. 2025-CP-10-02733, applications filed July 1, 2025 and order of July 10, 2025.)

So on the court record, Moorman Law Firm and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman are her lawyers in a suit she filed as a private citizen. Five weeks after the filing, on the PBD Podcast, she said: "I literally have to sue them now all of them and I'm doing that today or tomorrow to say here are the receipts." (PBD Podcast, June 19, 2025.)

The FEC filings show her campaign paying both of these firms. They do not show which work the money paid for. Keep that line in view. It is where the record stops.

The match: the payee and the signature block

Side by side, the payees on the campaign filings and the signature block of the complaint are the same two firms:

Left: FEC Schedule B, image 202601309794600461 and image 202604159857688773. Right: complaint, signature block. Both are real filings; the labels are Maceopedia's.

One detail: the FEC payee address for Pillsbury is a post office box in San Francisco, while the court papers list the firm's Washington office. One national firm, two addresses. And the purpose line on every one of these payments says only "LEGAL FEES."

The same firms also work for her in other matters, and that complicates any simple reading. Pillsbury (William Sullivan, Jr.) wrote her Dec. 17, 2025 response to a House Ethics referral, posted by the House Committee on Ethics. The consent order in her suit says the court "would take notice that the parties are adverse to each other in a pending case in federal court in the District of South Carolina." A campaign may lawfully pay for legal work that comes with the office. No public record shows what the payments covered.

Zero: money out, nothing in

Campaign money is donor money, and she has asked for it on live television. On Fox Business on Oct. 4, 2023, she said: "You're damn right I'm fundraising off of this right now because the establishment is coming after me for taking a principled stand." (Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Fox Business, Oct. 4, 2023.)

In 2026, while the checks to the law firms went out, nothing came in. The committee's Form 3 reports total receipts of $0.00 for January through March 2026 and $0.00 for April through June 2026 (line 16):

Form 3, July 2026 quarterly report, Detailed Summary Page, image 202607159875083089.

Form 3, April 2026 quarterly report, Detailed Summary Page, image 202604159857688769.

Cash on hand was $241,293.75 on Dec. 31, 2025 (Year-End 2025 summary page), $184,856.68 on March 31, 2026 (April 2026 summary page), and $76,794.23 on June 30, 2026:

Form 3, July 2026 quarterly report, Summary Page, image 202607159875083088.

In that last quarter the committee spent $108,062.45. One hundred thousand dollars of it went to Pillsbury and Moorman.

The last payment: thirteen days, then twenty-one days

On June 2, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker entered a consent order pausing the Bowman suit for 120 days (Mace v. Bowman, No. 2025-CP-10-02733, Consent Order for Stay of Proceedings, filed June 2, 2026). She consented through her counsel, Andrew Moorman and William Sullivan of Pillsbury, who sign as "Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Representative Nancy R. Mace."

[ Consent Order for Stay of Proceedings, Mace v. Bowman, No. 2025-CP-10-02733, filed June 2, 2026, page 2 (court filing, not posted on this site).

Thirteen days later, on June 15, 2026, the campaign paid Pillsbury its last $50,000, shown above. Twenty-one days after that, a notice stamped filed July 6, 2026 took all three lawyers off the case. It reads: "Alex Anderson, William Sullivan, and Andrew Moorman of Moorman Law Firm are no longer representing Defendant The Honorable Representative Nancy R. Mace." The notice calls her the defendant. She is the plaintiff. She signed it herself, as "Rep. Nancy R. Mace, Pro Se."

Notice of Removal of Counsel, stamped filed July 6, 2026 (PDF on this site).

The same day she asked the court to lift the stay. Her motion reads: "Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, is prepared to move this matter forward." (Motion to Lift Stays of Proceedings, PDF; our earlier page on it: Pro Se: Nancy Mace has lost her lawyers again.)

Thirteen days from the consent order to the last $50,000. Twenty-one days from that payment to the notice that her lawyers were gone. No public record shows what that final payment was for.

The judge's ledger: two invoices marked Campaign Counsel

This is a different case. In 2025, Mace intervened in a Charleston County petition, GLT2 v. Mace, case number 2025-CP-10-00981, and won sanctions against the petitioner's lawyer, Barrett Brewer. Her South Carolina counsel billed $350 an hour. Two more invoices reached the judge by email, labeled "Campaign Counsel," from "a Washington D.C. law firm."

Circuit Judge T.J. Rode's Final Sanctions Order of Oct. 30, 2025 describes the first one: an invoice dated July 31, 2025, for $35,968.50, for a matter entitled "Campaign Counsel," addressed to Rep. Mace. The order says "many of the entries were clearly unrelated to and/or pre-dated the matter before the Court." A second invoice reached the judge on Oct. 23, 2025, dated Aug. 15, 2025, for $33,926.50. The order says: "Although no rates are shown, the total bill suggests an effective hourly rate of $1,080.00 per hour."

[ Final Sanctions Order, GLT2 v. Mace, No. 2025-CP-10-00981, Oct. 30, 2025, page 2 (court filing, not posted on this site). Coverage: The Post and Courier, Oct. 30, 2025.

The judge did not award those fees. The order says: "Accordingly, equity and fairness dictate that to the extent a request is being made for the fees incurred for Campaign Counsel, that request is untimely. Moreover, even if such a request were properly before the Court, the Glasscock factors would likely not support awarding these fees." It also notes that of the 31.4 hours on the Campaign Counsel invoice, roughly 12 were for editing other lawyers' filings and roughly 13 were for several lawyers reviewing one transcript. Her South Carolina lawyers' bill, $33,456.74, was awarded in full against Brewer and his firm: "the Court finds that time spent was reasonable and necessarily incurred."

The order never names the Washington firm. Brewer did, in his own filed memorandum of Aug. 28, 2025 (GLT2 v. Mace, page 8): "The invoices submitted by Pillsbury are from a Washington DC law firm representing the Campaign of Nancy Mace." He argued the invoices related to other matters, including a separate defamation case and federal defense issues. That is one party's argument, not a finding by the court. The order contains no personal-use or campaign-finance finding.

Outside the courthouse on Oct. 10, 2025, after the sanctions hearing, Mace spoke about her lawyers. She told Live 5 News: "They fought very hard and I pray that they get every dime they earned. In this case, they were very reasonable." And she told ABC News 4: "I want other women to know we do have a voice. We can win when we fight back."

The next day, The Post and Courier reported on her remarks to reporters. In the reporter's words, she "had initially planned to pay for her legal fees out of her own pocket." About ten weeks later, her campaign sent Pillsbury the first $50,000. That is the reporter's paraphrase, not a direct quote from Mace, and the record does not connect the two.

Her own words: on suing, and on who can sue

Eleven days before the first Pillsbury payment, on Fox Business, host Maria Bartiromo said to her: "You're suing the airport and American Airlines." Mace answered: "Well, I've drafted that suit." (Mornings with Maria, Dec. 11, 2025, clip via The Daily Beast.)

In June 2025, on the PBD Podcast, on her lawyers: "I have a great legal team I have great staff I have a great platform and all I'm going to do is tell the truth."

In August 2026, with her suit still on the docket, she told the journalist Tara Palmeri: "there are all these stories written about me because I am a public figure. I can't sue New York magazine. I don't think I've been talking to attorneys about it." (Tara Palmeri, Aug. 30, 2026.)

In September 2026, on her own podcast, Get Maced: "we don't get to have our say in court. We don't get to sue people because defamation is at the threshold for us. Our threshold is defamation per se with actual malice." (Get Maced, Sept. 22, 2026.)

Public figures cannot sue, she says. She also says she sues. Both are her words. Neither says who pays the lawyers.

The rule: personal use, case by case

Federal law bars converting campaign funds to personal use: 52 U.S.C. 30114(b). The FEC rule, 11 C.F.R. 113.1(g), asks one question: would the expense exist irrespective of the campaign or the duties of the office? Legal fees are judged case by case.

A defamation suit she brought as a private citizen could fall on either side of that line. It depends on what the lawyers did, and for whom. The FEC lines do not say. There is no finding of any violation, and no public record shows an FEC matter. The committee's treasurer, Paul Kilgore, certified each report, and every one of these payments carries the same two words for its purpose: legal fees.

What the record cannot show

Documented: between December 2025 and June 2026, Nancy Mace for Congress paid Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman $150,000 and Moorman Law Firm $26,206.28. Both firms were her lawyers of record in the defamation suit she filed as a private citizen. The last Pillsbury payment came thirteen days after the consent order and twenty-one days before the notice that removed her lawyers.

Not documented: what any of the payments covered; whether any of them paid for Mace v. Bowman; whether any rule was broken. No public record shows what the payments covered, and the filings say legal fees, and nothing more.

Nancy Mace says the people she sues need to be sued. Her campaign paid the two firms that represented her in that suit: $176,206 between December 2025 and June 2026, while the campaign raised nothing. The filings say legal fees. They do not say what the money bought. That is the record, and that is the gap.

Sources and credits

Filings and public records

• Federal Election Commission, Nancy Mace for Congress, C00710103: Schedule B and Form 3 page images linked under each image above (treasurer: Paul Kilgore).
• Charleston County Common Pleas, Mace v. Bowman, No. 2025-CP-10-02733: complaint, May 12, 2025; notice of removal of counsel, July 6, 2026; motion to lift stays, July 6, 2026; verified applications for admission pro hac vice (July 1, 2025), orders of July 10, 2025 and the Consent Order for Stay of Proceedings (June 2, 2026), cited by case number and date.
• Charleston County Common Pleas, GLT2 v. Mace, No. 2025-CP-10-00981: Final Sanctions Order, Oct. 30, 2025, and the memorandum filed Aug. 28, 2025, cited by case number and date.
• House Committee on Ethics: Pillsbury response of Dec. 17, 2025.
• 52 U.S.C. 30114 and 11 C.F.R. 113.1.

Reporting

• The Washington Sun, Taylor Giorno, Jan. 31, 2026: first reported the Dec. 22, 2025 payment to Pillsbury.
• The Post and Courier, Caitlin Byrd, Oct. 11, 2025 and Oct. 30, 2025.

Footage and creators credited

• PBD Podcast, June 19, 2025: youtube.com/watch?v=2ww2vIx0NMs
• Get Maced with Nancy Mace (her own channel), Sept. 22, 2026: youtube.com/watch?v=NQPdMo-LmBc
• Tara Palmeri, Aug. 30, 2026: youtube.com/watch?v=d6NdNFeONuU
• Live 5 News (WCSC), Caroline Spikes, Oct. 10, 2025: live5news.com
• ABC News 4 (WCIV), Emily DeAnne, Oct. 10, 2025: youtube.com/watch?v=lfzDtwhk4x4
• Fox Business, Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Oct. 4, 2023: youtube.com/watch?v=TeFkzXi-01Y
• Fox Business, Mornings with Maria, Dec. 11, 2025, clip via The Daily Beast: thedailybeast.com
• South Carolina Republican governor debate footage: Gray Media via Nancy Mace's YouTube channel; FOX Carolina News, April 2, 2026; WIS News 10, May 26, 2026
• Forbes Breaking News, House Oversight subcommittee hearing, Sept. 13, 2023: youtube.com/watch?v=ZgzAOBL4Fe0

The narration in the film is an AI-generated voice reading a script written and checked by Maceopedia. All footage belongs to the outlets and creators credited above.