Has Democrats’ Biggest Fundraising Weapon Become A Big Liability?

For years, conservatives have alleged that major Democrat fundraising platform ActBlue facilitated massive amounts of money laundering and illicit donations to liberal candidates and causes. Now, a new report has added more fuel to that fire as ActBlue’s own lawyers admit the company may have “misled” Congress about foreign funding sources.

According to a New York Times report out last week, “ActBlue’s chief executive had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter explaining how the organization vetted donations to ensure that they were not illegally coming from foreign citizens.”

ActBlue’s law firm, Covington & Burling, warned that the letter created a “substantial risk” for ActBlue, instigating a “meltdown” at “the highest levels” of the company. Top officials resigned and ActBlue is now “all but declaring war on its own past lawyers.” As the Times reported in March 2025, at least seven senior officials at the company resigned in rapid succession following the firm’s warning.

ActBlue is by far the largest online fundraising platform for Democrats, processing some $19 billion in contributions since 2004. In 2025 alone, candidates and groups raised nearly $1.8 billion from 52 million individual contributions through ActBlue.

But according to federal campaign finance regulations, foreign individuals who are not permanent residents of the United States cannot donate to U.S. candidates or causes. Although ActBlue claimed in its letter to Congress that it carried out “multilayered” screenings of contributions that helped “root out” foreign sources, the Times reports that “the law firm found some of the steps [the ActBlue executive] had described were not always followed.”

This new reporting from the Times threatens to blow the lid off what could be an even bigger scandal. Conservative activists have previously raised the alarm about suspicious donation patterns on ActBlue, including hundreds or even thousands of individual transactions credited to one address and suspiciously large amounts of money supposedly coming from one individual.

Back in 2023, independent journalist James O’Keefe filmed several videos speaking directly with individuals listed as major ActBlue donors. In many instances, the people O’Keefe spoke with were shocked when he told them that tens of thousands of dollars had been donated to Democrat candidates and causes in their name.

In one case that O’Keefe highlighted, ActBlue data showed that a woman in Maryland made more than 1,000 contributions in 2022 totaling $18,849 – averaging out to more than three donations per day every day for the entire year. When O’Keefe spoke with the woman, she confirmed that she had donated to ActBlue only “once in a while” and was visibly shocked upon learning that nearly $19,000 had been given in her name. “I don’t think so,” she said.

Conservative online influencer Matt Van Swol also shared screenshots this week showing that “dozens” of donations had been made in his name to Democrats in Kansas. “I’ve never been to Kansas or donated to any political candidate in my entire life,” Van Swol said. “Something is up.”

The act of using a real person’s name and address to donate to political candidates without their knowledge is known as “smurfing.” The practice has become more common in recent years and violates campaign finance laws.

The Times report puts more heat on ActBlue after the Trump administration opened an investigation into the company last April. In a memo to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, President Trump stated that “there is evidence to suggest that foreign nationals are seeking to misuse online fundraising platforms to improperly influence American elections.” That investigation followed a House Judiciary Committee report on “potential illegal activity” on ActBlue.

So far, no charges have been brought against ActBlue. But the frantic activity of employees within the company and mounting evidence pointing toward potential wrongdoing suggests that at least some senior executives feel the walls may be closing in.

ActBlue vehemently pushed back against the Times story, prompting an unusual response from the outlet. “We’re confident in the accuracy of our reporting, which is based on internal legal memos, emails, resignation letters, Slack messages and interviews with current and former ActBlue employees,” the Times said. “We reached out to ActBlue about our reporting before publication and included the organization’s response.”

The turmoil within ActBlue could have drastic implications for the midterm elections as Democrats look to take back control of Congress. Democrats are already lagging Republicans in fundraising. If donors don’t trust ActBlue, Democrats could find themselves even more strapped for cash.

The major question now will be whether investigators can produce any “smoking gun” evidence pointing to impropriety on the part of ActBlue or the Democrats who use it. One of Republicans’ most potent attack lines against Democrats is that they care more about foreigners than American citizens.

If it is indeed the case that non-Americans were illegally donating to Democrats through ActBlue, that accusation suddenly has even more teeth – and could be an electoral anchor come November.

Shane Harris is the Editor-in-Chief of AMAC Newsline. You can follow him on X @shaneharris513.