IACI's Idaho Prosperity Fund links the dairy PAC and GS Strategy into the same 2026 election apparatus

The IACI/dairy overlay can now be tightened with direct organizational and campaign-finance evidence. IACI's current site identifies the Idaho Prosperity Fund (IPF) as its election PAC and says the IPF board decides which state/local candidates and statewide issues to support; IACI's staff page says vice president John Eaton oversees all aspects of IPF. A Transparency USA snapshot explicitly labeled for Idaho's 2026 election cycle reports IPF at $320,210 in contributions and $59,931.72 in expenditures at that snapshot; the corresponding committee detail lists Idaho Dairy Industry PAC as a $15,000 contributor and GS Strategy Group as IPF's largest listed payee at $14,600. This dairy relationship is not merely a similarly named PAC: Idaho Dairymen's Association's own materials say a portion of IDA associate-member dues may support the Idaho Dairy Industry PAC, a 2020 IDA publication describes the PAC as supported by dairy producers/processors/allied industry and built on IDA's existing influence, and a 2022 IDA newsletter explicitly says the Idaho Dairy Industry PAC was a member of the Idaho Prosperity Fund and that its board voted to maintain the membership. Separately, ACEC of Idaho's 2025 annual report says Robert Jones, Partner at GS Strategy Group, delivered an analysis of Idaho's changing Republican electorate at IACI's June 2025 Public Policy Conference. This extends the previously documented Robert Jones node (CAP president; Idaho Liberty PAC chair as reported from registration records; GS Strategy partner) into IACI's political ecosystem through both the firm's paid relationship with IPF and Jones's IACI-conference role. The evidence does NOT show that the $14,600 IPF payment was paid specifically for Jones's conference presentation, that Jones personally controlled IPF spending, that Article IV money reached IPF, or that IACI, Idaho Dairy Industry PAC, CAP and Idaho Liberty PAC coordinated strategy. The supported conclusion is a set of documented institutional and professional crosslines, not common legal control.