Anyone who values fair elections should be alarmed by mounting evidence that ActBlue—the Democrats’ billion‑dollar fundraising behemoth—has become a conduit for questionable and possibly unlawful campaign contributions. For years, ActBlue has dominated online political fundraising, funneling vast sums into nearly every major progressive campaign. Yet recent investigations suggest that its system may enable donor fraud on a scale large enough to distort the political process.
According to a congressional report, ActBlue executives reportedly urged staff to “look for reasons to accept contributions,” rather than question them. This mindset prioritizes cash flow over compliance. When a platform handles billions, even modest levels of unverified donations can translate into massive sums—and massive exposure to abuse.
Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee’s report warns that ActBlue’s internal posture appears to have tilted away from basic compliance. Staff were allegedly instructed that they should be “looking for reasons to accept contributions, not reasons to reject them,” even when transactions raised red flags. Such guidance, if accurate, reflects an internal culture that treats compliance warnings as obstacles rather than safeguards. In the campaign finance context, that is not a technical lapse; it is an invitation to abuse.
State-level investigations have begun to uncover just how widespread the problem may be. Attorneys general in Texas, Virginia, and 17 other states are probing suspicious donations routed through the platform. Many appear to have been made in the names of elderly Americans who had no idea their personal details were used. Other transactions trace to foreign IP addresses or prepaid debit cards—classic indicators of money‑laundering networks. One technique, known as “smurfing,” breaks prohibited or oversized donations into countless small ones designed to escape detection.
Federal law is unambiguous: the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits contributions made “in the name of another.” The question now is whether ActBlue’s systems adequately prevent such violations. The FEC is well positioned to answer that question. By releasing relevant records and confirming whether reviews or safeguards are underway, the Commission can help restore public confidence and fulfill its mission of transparency and fair enforcement.
ActBlue’s own choices have made that task increasingly important. In 2024, executives reportedly loosened internal fraud‑detection measures after complaints that too many donations were being flagged. The organization for years processed payments without requiring a credit card verification code—a practice no reputable processor would tolerate. Senior staff turnover followed soon afterward, underscoring internal instability.
The pattern described by investigators raises another unavoidable question: what safeguards were deliberately weakened, and why? Modern payment processors routinely employ layered verification tools—address checks, card security codes, velocity limits, and anomaly detection—to prevent identity misuse and foreign funding. When a platform handling billions abandons or dilutes such controls, the burden of explanation falls on those who made the decision. The public is entitled to know who approved the changes and what risks were ignored.
If even a fraction of ActBlue’s donations originates from improper or foreign sources, the consequences could touch nearly every major Democratic campaign it fuels. The platform is the financial engine of the modern Left. Americans deserve assurance that political fundraising—on either side—operates under the same lawful standards.
Last month, Judicial Watch’s legal team filed a federal lawsuit after the Federal Election Commission declined to release records about suspicious transactions processed through the platform. The goal is simple: transparency. The FEC now has an opportunity—indeed, a responsibility—to clarify what it knows and to reassure Americans that campaign finance laws are being applied evenly, no matter how politically powerful the organization involved.
Transparency is not a partisan demand; it is the minimum condition for lawful elections everywhere.
ActBlue’s deep reach into national, state, and local races alike makes this a turning point not just for the organization’s credibility but for public confidence in how campaigns are financed. Its influence reaches far beyond any single candidate or election. The FEC can help illuminate the truth. And if credible investigations find ActBlue’s operations to be sound, oversight will vindicate them. If not, accountability must be swift and complete, because no network, regardless of size or ideology, should be allowed to warp the electoral process.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has publicly shifted toward what he calls energy pragmatism, admitting that society now demands a balanced approach to meeting power needs rather than adherence to rigid climate agendas. This could be a pivotal moment for global energy policy, as one of the planet’s most powerful financial players steps back from decades of ill-advised “green” mandates.
BlackRock is the world’s top financial manager, overseeing more than $10 trillion in assets that sway markets, companies and even governments. It delivers risk analysis tools that guide how firms allocate capital, set strategies and tackle issues from energy supply to corporate governance. BlackRock’s hand is in everything from pension funds to sovereign wealth, where its votes and investments steer decisions affecting wide swaths of society.
Fink points to China, which leads in new nuclear plants and vast solar installations while importing record volumes of natural gas and oil to meet surging demand. “Society has moved into a better position of having more pragmatism,” Finkstates, “and what you’re hearing from me is I’m echoing what we’re hearing from our clients.” Better to have clients than ideologues steering the ship.
Fink’s tone matches his earlier report of $4 billion lost in ESG-linked assets in 2023, a hit from states like Florida and others pulling funds over concerns about politicized investing. BlackRockdropped the “weaponized” ESG label by mid-2023 and exited the Net Zero Asset Managers group in January 2025 amid antitrust probes and backlash from state governments.
Clients forced Fink’s hand after years of BlackRock deploying their money to advance ESG and related priorities, often with the encouragement of left-leaning managers of public pension funds like New York’s. Fiduciary duty – maximizing investor returns – had taken a backseat as the firm lobbied corporations on “woke” interests ranging from board diversity to cuts in industrial emissions. Now, with lawsuits mounting and states divesting billions, Fink invokes thatsame duty to justify pragmatism.
Fink’s reversal exposes the scam. BlackRock wielded trillions to warp board politics and policies, betraying investors for a clique’s dreams. Now, scrutiny and an outflow of funds force truth. Fink’s admission also validates what skeptics argued: Climate narratives overstated risks to advance costly fantasies. Data show no increase in extreme weather, for which emissions of CO2 have been absurdly blamed. Hurricanes, floods and droughts have followed historical norms.
Climate alarmists’ infatuation with wind and solar energy has run into the reality of physics. So-called “renewables” falter where reliability counts. Their intermittency strands grids during times of peak demands, hiking costs for families and factories. In contrast, fossil fuels and nuclear power human prosperity. They provide the dense, affordable and reliable energy required by modern civilization.
The campaign to abruptly replace them with low-density, weather-dependent alternatives was a mathematical impossibility from the start. A foundation of coal, natural gas and nuclear energy is needed to maintain a modern standard of living. This is why Asian industrial economies continually added fossil fuel capacity behind a veneer of “green” pretense.
Look at global patterns. Growth in wind and solar capacity covers only a small part of rising electricity needs. China builds nuclear faster than anyone and guzzles oil and gas imports to fuel factories and homes. Despite net-zero pledges, India accelerated domestic coal production while exploring small modular reactors to power its 1.4 billion people and hit 8% growth targets.
Even European countries that once championed rapid shifts to “renewables” began to reconsider after the 2022 energy crisis exposed vulnerabilities. In Germany, factories shut down and household budgets strained when Russian gas supplies tightened and wind and solar stalled during calm or cloudy periods.
After years of climate-driven experimentation – forced by deluded or dishonest politicians and business titans – the failures became too many and too consequential to be ignored. Little wonder that Larry Fink has turned his ear away from the rhetoric of alarm and toward client demands for strategic guidance.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Va. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Arizona’s legacy media is at it once again—going after our state’s highly popular Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, which now sits at over 100,000 enrollments.
Last month, activist reporter Craig Harris, from 12 News, pushed his latest “investigation” claiming that the ESA program had fraud totaling 20 percent. Certainly, if such a level of fraud is accurate, it deserves a full investigation. But it didn’t take long before the truth—and the real data—revealed itself.
According to the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), Harris’s 20 percent fraud claim originated from a risk-based audit, which was not only limited in scope, but also targeted higher-risk participants and accounts. But it did not account for the entire ESA program. Instead, the ADE referred to a study by a Stanford PhD that showed a more accurate assessment of fraud at 0.3 percent. That’s quite a gap between the 12 News report and reality. Perhaps Harris is getting math lessons from his buddies in the teachers’ unions who, as we know, have never exactly been good at counting.
As Harris continued to push his vendetta against school choice on social media this past weekend, he was completely ratioed for his debunked ESA fraud claims. And the best part? He was also unmasked as a partisan liberal with Red for Ed conflicts of interest and a history of publishing defamatory stories that are still being litigated…
When Dr. Menzel was hired as Superintendent of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), he arrived with a stated goal: to disrupt and dismantle what he believed were systems denying access and opportunity to students of color, students in poverty, and students with IEPs.
But was that truly the reality in SUSD before his arrival?
Regardless, Menzel has moved forward with exactly that approach, disrupting and dismantling the district. His emphasis on initiatives like gender identity and social-emotional learning, often at the expense of academic performance, has produced troubling results: school closures, declining academic outcomes, falling enrollment, record levels of non-classroom spending, teacher layoffs, and increasing staff turnover.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At the November 18, 2025, board meeting, Menzel outlined reductions in FTE staff at the district office over the past three years, arguing that all reasonable cost-cutting measures have been exhausted, leaving school closures as the only remaining option.
But is that really true?
When board members Amy Carney and Carine Werner raise concerns about wasteful spending or request detailed financial information, they are often ignored or told that staff are too busy to provide answers. Meanwhile, the expenditures they question are dismissed as not necessarily wasteful just because they disagree with them.
Not only has Menzel shown little interest in cutting favored programs or non-essential spending unrelated to improving academic performance, but he has also failed to address concerns raised in exit interviews, concerns that could help slow declining enrollment.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At a recent board meeting, it was announced that more than 130 applications had been submitted for the Phase II Design Team. Selections are underway, with the first meeting scheduled for March 26.
Menzel noted that Matt Pittinsky was the only board member to suggest closing more than two schools in Phase II. When asked by Menzel for input from the board about additional closures, Mike Sharkey responded that if the committee recommends closing three schools instead of two, “that’s great”—despite having campaigned on not closing schools. He added that committee members can “feel it out as it goes along” and gauge community reaction afterward.
Carney argued that school closures should be a last resort; Pittinsky disagreed, despite also campaigning against closures. He now claims more schools must be closed to maintain a “quality student experience.” But is this the same “quality” that has coincided with declining enrollment and revenue losses?
Carney pressed for early parent input through surveys, with Werner agreeing that community feedback should come at the beginning, not the end, of the process. Menzel, however, stated surveys would occur only after the committee completes its work, likely in late May or early June. Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis supported that timeline.
While district leadership claims to value community input, their actions suggest otherwise. The committee is not being asked to explore solutions to the budget shortfall; they are being steered toward a predetermined outcome: closing schools.
For those who haven’t followed closely, the public comments from last fall’s board meetings tell the story. Parents from schools like Pima and Echo Canyon described being blindsided by closures, with little to no input. Even some board members indicated they were excluded from meaningful involvement.
According to the district, the Phase II Design Team members will “help inform discussions about enrollment trends, school facilities, and long-term sustainability through respectful, student-centered collaboration.”
But what does that actually mean?
A small group, selected by Menzel and guided by a district-paid consultant, is expected, over just a few weeks, to analyze years of enrollment data, financial trends, and demographic projections, and then “inform” district decisions.
Is that realistic?
So, what will this design team actually do?
In all likelihood, it will just validate decisions that have already been made by Menzel.
Over recent meetings, Menzel has presented Phase II “repurposing solutions.” One proposal involves relocating Cheyenne Traditional School (CTS) to Copper Ridge. He describes this as an opportunity to place a high-demand program in an underutilized facility with room for growth.
However, what goes unaddressed is the likely impact on enrollment. Moving CTS to the northernmost part of the district could drive families away, not attract them. CTS draws students from across the district, many within walking or biking distance of its current location. Relocating it would add significant travel time, potentially up to 20 extra miles per day for some families.
How many parents would make that commute? How many would instead leave CTS or SUSD altogether?
Similarly, how many Copper Ridge families would choose CTS or be willing to move to the Desert Canyon schools, or simply leave SUSD? These are critical questions, but they remain unanswered.
They could be answered now through parent surveys. Instead, feedback is being delayed until after decisions are effectively finalized.
If enrollment drops following a relocation, as seems likely, the result could be the eventual closure of CTS, the district’s last remaining traditional school, which could lead to even further declining enrollment and financial shortfalls for SUSD.
And that would align with Menzel’s stated goal: disrupt and dismantle.
Parents at Phase II schools should make their views known by contacting the Board and Menzel, using Let’s Talk, writing opinion pieces, participating in PTO meetings, and sharing information with parents through newsletters and social media. Don’t wait until decisions are final; speak up now. Community input is important.
Don’t let Menzel continue to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Katie Hobbs would love nothing more than for Republicans at the legislature to start wheeling and dealing on Prop 123, the roughly $300M per year K-12 funding stream from Arizona’s State Land Trust.
Republicans should not even entertain it.
In fact, negotiating over Prop 123 now would amount to a political self-own of the highest order.
Prior to 2025, the argument for extending Prop 123 was the imminent “funding cliff” for school districts because the distributions from the land trust to K-12, which were temporarily increased for a period of 10 years, were set to expire. But lawmakers addressed this concern when they increased K-12 funding from the general fund a few years ago in the amount districts were receiving from the trust.
Last year, there were discussions about initiating a new 123 enhanced distribution, but only if it included significant education reforms, one of which involved constitutionally protecting school choice programs in the state. Outside of these types of reforms, there is no reason for Republicans to even be discussing any plan that involves dumping hundreds of millions into K-12 with no strings attached.
Yet somehow the conversation has been resurrected…
It is said that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. But when the truth finally catches up, it tends to arrive with receipts.
In recent weeks, anti-school-choice activists have accused Arizona’s popular Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program of having a ludicrously high rate of misspending. That narrative, repeated endlessly despite being repeatedly debunked, has now collided with an inconvenient reality: the Arizona Department of Education’s own data tell a starkly different story, one that exposes the “unaccountable ESA” myth for what it always was: a misleading talking point masquerading as journalism.
On Thursday, the Arizona Department of Education published the results of a random audit of the ESA program, finding very low rates of misspending relative to other publicly funded programs and even less fraud. Less than 2% of ESA funds were spent on unallowed items, and 0.3% of the funds were spent on items considered “egregious” or fraudulent. The department is in the process of recouping those funds.
The department’s audit has punctured the gross distortions of Phoenix-based journalist Craig Harris of Channel 12, who had misrepresented the ESA program as being rife with fraud. The department called Harris’s claims “ridiculous,” “reckless,” and “a total misinterpretation of data provided by [the department] to Channel 12.”
Harris had claimed that 20% of ESA purchases represented misuse of funds based upon an examination of only a small portion of total ESA purchases—384,478 of the 1.8 million total ESA transactions since December 2024, approximately 20% of the total.
But it was not a random sample. The Arizona Department of Education had selected these purchases under a risk-based audit for additional scrutiny, so it was not a random sample that one could use to extrapolate rates of misuse in the ESA program. Instead, the risk-based pool was far more likely to contain misuse than the average purchase.
In other words, among the 20% of ESA purchases flagged for additional scrutiny, the department found 20% to be misspending. Harris, however, extrapolated the risk-based results on to the entireuniverse of ESA purchases. This represented a blatant distortion because the remaining purchases outside of the risk-based sample were far less likely to involve misspending.
Think of it this way: imagine that a reporter read a study showing that 20% of Americans were obese and that 20% of obese Americans had diabetes, then he ran a story claiming that 20% of all Americans had diabetes. Such a claim would be a complete distortion of the data, a conclusion that is entirely unsupported by the facts.
Harris was warned both publicly and privately that his “analysis” was deeply misleading. Nevertheless, he continued to repeat his “20% misuse” claim on television and social media.
The Arizona Department of Education decided to set the record straight by auditing a random sample of thousands of Arizona ESA purchases. The audit’s conclusion: “About 2% of purchases are unallowable expenses and only 0.3% represent fraud or egregious purchases.”
In short, Harris’s “analysis” on misspending was off by a factor of 10, and his accusations of fraud were off by nearly a factor of 100.
And although Harris made it seem like one in five ESA parents were buying diamond rings, the reality is that egregious purchases represented a vanishingly small percentage of ESA spending. Most of the unallowed items appear to have been innocent mistakes.
The Arizona Department of Education explained the difference between unallowable purchases and egregious purchases/fraud in a press release:
The submission of a purchase that is deemed unallowable does not constitute fraud. Most are innocent mistakes, such as an error in a form that must be resubmitted, or educational items that are not on the allowable list but that the user could have in good faith believed were permitted. Some examples would be backpacks, lunch boxes and water bottles.
A ridiculous figure of 20% fraud has been circulating concerning ESA purchases which resulted from a total misinterpretation of data that we provided to Channel 12.
Cracking down on misspending is important, but so is keeping things in perspective. The rate of improper payments for the Arizona ESA program, at 1.9%, stands far below a variety of programs which ESA opponents support, such as Medicaid (7.4%), food stamps (9.3%), and unemployment insurance (14.4%). Moreover, the Arizona Department of Education actively recovers misspending, and refers serious cases for criminal prosecution to punish criminal activity and to deter fraud.
Indeed, the only reason we know about the miniscule level of unallowed purchases in the ESA program is because it is so transparent—far more transparent than district schools, which do not report transaction-level data to state officials, let alone the public. Given the rash of recentscandals in Arizona’sdistrictschoolsystem, one can only imagine what we would find if given access to information about every purchase that district schools have made, as we have for the ESA program.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, state lawmakers should require the district schools provide the same level of information about purchases as ESA families.
Harris has not yet retracted his false reporting. Instead, he has doubled down on his errors, erroneously claiming that the department’s audit was “largely skewed” and based on “a miniscule sample.” This claim is particularly ironic given that Harris erroneously treated a risk-based sample—which is inherently skewed—as though it was representative of the entire population. A random sample, by contrast, is representative of the whole.
Facts are stubborn things. So too, apparently, are anti-school-choice activists who can’t let go of the false narrative they pushed in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Matthew Ladner is a Senior Advisor for education policy implementation and Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
