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.
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego (D) invested campaign funds into an AI startup launched by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat and gubernatorial candidate.
Gallego paid Swalwell’s startup FindRaiser over $13,000 between April and July of last summer from two campaign committees: Gallego for Arizona and Juntos PAC, as first reported by NOTUS. About $10,500 came from Gallego for Arizona and over $2,600 came from Juntos PAC. Both issued identical disbursements of $2,613.75 for subscriptions to the startup, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records.
First congressional district candidate Marlene Galan-Woods also got in on the action. Galan-Woods, a former Fox News and CBS News anchor and key member of Gov. Katie Hobbs’ gubernatorial transition team in 2023, paid almost $1,000 to Swalwell’s startup between October and November of last year.
Swalwell and Gallego have described one another as “best friends” in various media interviews over the years. In a more recent interview with CNN last November, Swalwell likened himself and Gallego to “the Avengers,” describing them as the standard-bearers of the Democratic Party.
The startup, FindRaiser, uses AI to search and provide advice to candidates about their donor databases. Swalwell’s former chief of staff, Yardena Wolf, cofounded the startup and serves as its CEO. NOTUS reported that Wolf sent promotional emails for FindRaiser prior to stepping down as chief of staff last December.
Wolf joined Swalwell’s office in 2021, making the transition from the vice presidency of a fundraising company where she’d raised funds for Swalwell. Listed on Wolf’s LinkedIn under her chief of staff employment is a link to a 2024 Elle article, “The Group Chat That Secretly Runs Congress.” Members of that group chat, all females, included chiefs of staff for Democratic representatives that gave campaign funds to FindRaiser.
Swalwell invested over $7,000 of his own campaign funds into the startup as well. In his annual financial disclosure report, Swalwell estimated FindRaiser’s value to be between $250,000 and $500,000.
Others to give money to the startup out of their campaign coffers were:
Alabama Rep. Shomari Figures, over $1,000 from Committee to Elect Shomari Figures For Congress through payments made last June and July;
California Rep. Jimmy Gomez, $3,000 from Jimmy Gomez For Congress through payments made from last July through November;
California Sen. Adam Schiff, about $2,000 from Schiff For Senate through payments made last November and December;
Michigan U.S. House candidate Matt Maasdam, $500 from Matt Maasdam For Congress through a payment made last August;
Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens, over $3,600 from Hayley Stevens For Senate through payments made from last June through October;
Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig, $2,300 from Angie Craig For Minnesota through payments made from last September through December;
Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, over $4,500 from Ilhan For Congress, through payments made from last March through October;
Nevada Rep. Steven Horsford, $500 from Nevadans For Steven Horsford in a payment made last October;
New York Rep. Dan Goldman, over $7,400 from Dan Goldman For New York, through payments made from last April through December;
New York Rep. Joe Morelle, over $6,500 from Joe Morelle For Congress, through payments made from last April through December;
Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, $4,500 from Jasmine For Us and $1,000 from Jasmine For Texas, through payments made from last March through this February;
Texas Rep. Tom Suozzi, $5,000 from Suozzi for Congress in a payment made last July; and
South Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Annie Andrews, over $4,200 from Dr. Annie Andrews For Senate, through payments made from last July through November
FEC records show FindRaiser raised nearly $67,500.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Democrats’ top lawyer and central actor in Russia collusion hoax, Marc Elias, deleted all tweets published prior to April 4. As AZ Free News reported, Elias is assisting several activist groups in their lawsuits against Arizona for enacting a law requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. According to court filings, only one case has seen action beyond the initial complaint: the court allowed Attorney General Mark Brnovich to intervene in the case filed by Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).
Elias hasn’t offered an explanation for the sudden purge; he joined Twitter in March 2009. In recent months, federal investigators have closed in on those behind the Russia collusion hoax, or Russiagate.
At the end of March, the Federal Election Commission fined the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign $113,000 for misrepresenting payments for opposition research used to create Russiagate. Elias was Clinton’s general counsel and his law firm at the time, Perkins Coie, billed for “legal expenses” that were used to hire an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, to do their work on former President Donald Trump.
Fusion GPS obtained the debunked “Steele dossier” linking Trump to Russia from former British spy Christopher Steel, who created the dossier using false information from a Russian analyst living in Virginia, Igor Danchenko, who in turn received some ideas from former Clinton aide Charles Donlan Jr.
Buzzfeed first published the fake dossier in January 2017, ten days before Trump’s inauguration. The lies cast a shadow on all four years of Trump’s presidency.
Although Elias wasn’t President Joe Biden’s general counsel for his campaign — he served as Vice President Kamala Harris’ general counsel during her short bid for president — the Biden campaign and the DNC enlisted his help to counter 65 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results.
Last August, Elias left his partnership at Perkins Coie to launch his own law firm: the Elias Law Group. He took 10 partners with him.
A month later, a federal grand jury indicted Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman for making false statements to the FBI concerning alleged communications between Trump and Russia. In a 48-page motion last month to admit additional evidence, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Sussman attempted to manipulate the FBI to advance the interests of his client, the Clinton campaign, by giving then-FBI general counsel James Baker information that Trump was colluding with Russia based on alleged internet server communications between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa-Bank. Sussman’s indictment noted that he billed the Clinton campaign for time spent drafting the document given to Baker.
Then, the DOJ alleged that Sussman turned around and ordered Steele to create reports about the Alfa-Bank communications. After that, the DOJ alleged that Sussman and Fusion GPS employees presented their information to media.
Sussman wasn’t one of the 10 partners that Elias recruited for his law firm.
In January, Elias testified in Sussman’s case. In February, Sussman asked U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to dismiss the case; Cooper denied the request last month. The trial is scheduled for May 16. At the pretrial hearing, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
While Sussman was dealing with the fallout of Russiagate, his former employer and Elias moved onto other controversial clients.
According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Black Lives Matter PAC paid the Elias Law Group nearly $8,000 for legal services and Perkins Coie over $8,000 for compliance services from January through March. Black Lives Matter came under scrutiny over the last year for its use of millions in donations to purchase mansions.
As for the DOJ case against Sussman, Elias and other top Clinton officials are fighting to keep the work done by Fusion GPS under wraps, claiming that it qualified for the confidentiality required of legal work.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Previous Democratic state representative Gabby Giffords alleged in a federal lawsuit that the National Rifle Association (NRA) broke campaign finance laws by using shell corporations to coordinate advertising with individuals running for federal office. The lawsuit alleged that the NRA illegally gave up to $35 million to the campaigns of at least seven candidates: previous President Donald Trump, who may have received up to $25 million; Republican Senators Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Ron Johnson (WI), Tom Cotton (AR); former Republican Senator Cory Gardner (CO); and Representative Matt Rosendale (MT).
These illegal contributions allegedly occurred in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections. In that last year, Giffords filed complaints to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the NRA’s contributions. After the FEC didn’t act, Giffords sought and received a district court order this September to compel the FEC to act within 30 days. The FEC reportedly failed to act once again, allowing Giffords to sue. Those named in the complaint are the NRA, Rosendale, and Hawley.
Giffords’ counsel asserted that these allegedly illegal funds were the NRA “buying influence over elected officials” as part of a national scheme. Giffords Law Center Senior Staff Attorney David Pucino characterized the NRA and the politicians they backed financially as corrupt.
“The NRA has long acted like it is above the law, and it has done so flagrantly in the last several election cycles. This lawsuit demonstrates that the NRA broke the law by illegally coordinating with federal campaigns and funneling millions of dollars to candidates who supported their extremist, deadly agenda,” said Pucino. “We are suing the NRA to finally hold them accountable for actions that corrupted politicians and undermined our democracy.”
The NRA responded Thursday, asserting their innocence.
“[Just] another premeditated abuse of the public by our adversaries, who will stop at nothing in their pursuit of their anti-freedom agenda. This latest action is as misguided as it is transparent,” asserted the NRA. “Suffice it to say, the NRA has full confidence in its political activities and remains eager to set the record straight.”
Giffords’ lawsuit describes how she co-founded her gun violence nonprofit in 2013 to compete directly with the NRA after surviving a targeted shooting in 2011. The other co-founder was her husband, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.
As AZ Free News reported in September, Kelly never recused himself from voting on President Joe Biden’s since-retracted nominee for the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, who his nonprofit hired, endorsed, and backed financially.
The lawsuit requests relief in the form of limited funding in future elections and a penalty payment matching their allegedly illegal contributions: up to $35 million.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
