ActBlue: troubling questions about a leftist funding behemoth

• ActBlue is a financial vehicle for massive numbers of small-value donations to progressive candidates
• Investigations into ActBlue’s practices have shown a pattern of lax security and campaign finance irregularities
• A congressional investigation of ActBlue has shown that they reduced their data security, making it easier to commit fraud

ActBlue has become a must-have fundraising tool for the left over the past two decades, raising billions of dollars for Democratic candidates. The organization has shown a troubling pattern of lax security measures, however.

A leftist fundraising juggernaut

Technological advancements have dramatically changed how election campaigns are run in the 21st century. These advancements have led to the use of digital ads, greater efforts in micro-targeted messaging, and even the use of texting to communicate directly between voters and campaign committees.

While politics has undoubtedly changed in other ways, modern U.S. politics can be summarized as becoming far more nationalized in issues and financing, the latter being best characterized by the progressive fundraising giant ActBlue.

ActBlue is arguably the most effective advantage Democratic candidates and progressive organizations have over their opposition. It is an online fundraising platform that allows campaigns to receive thousands of donations in a short period of time during “viral moments,” something that would often overwhelm campaign web pages. It also connects candidates with a large pool of small donors (and major donors making numerous small donations).  Campaigns find ActBlue’s 3.95% processing fee to be a bargain for the campaign cash it helps bring in.

Since its creation in 2004, ActBlue has raised over $17 billion. Both on the national and state fronts, Democrats and progressive organizations have shown great success using this tool. 

From raising nearly $50 million in seven hours for the launch of Democrat Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, to the North Carolina Democratic party bringing in almost $16 million from out-of-state contributions, ActBlue has become a large part of the financial tail that wags the Democratic dog.

The conservative equivalent to ActBlue is WinRed, but the latter has been much less successful in securing big cash for its causes and candidates. For example, while WinRed raised $1.7 billion in 2024, ActBlue raised $3.8 billion.

Concerns over the legality of ActBlue-distributed funds

There are concerns over how ActBlue has raised and distributed all that money. While the organization’s practices have been questioned for a while, those questions have risen to the point where several state attorneys general have begun investigations:

Reports of alleged chicanery at ActBlue caused officials from state capitals to Capitol Hill to begin investigating the online fundraising powerhouse. Attorneys general from a number of states began their own investigations into ActBlue’s operations, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton even demanded that the Federal Election Commission require that the small donor platform improve its contributor verification practices.

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson has not joined in on those investigations.

North Carolina independent journalist Stephen Horn did conduct an investigation in 2023. What he found suggested that the “ActBlue fundraising platform is being used to launder fraudulent political donations using the names and addresses of ordinary citizens.”

Inspired by an O’Keefe Media Group video on alleged fraudulent political contributions through ActBlue in Maryland, Horn reached out to listed ActBlue donors in North Carolina. Of the six donors he was able to reach, “two confirmed that the amount of political contributions attributed to them via FEC records was far higher than the amount they had actually contributed.” Again, the individuals did not deny donating to candidates through ActBlue but stated that the reported amounts were much larger than they had donated.

Those donors might be victims of campaign finance “smurfing,” a practice in which criminals circumvent campaign finance regulations by using the identities of those who have previously donated to a campaign to channel additional donations in their names.

“If an otherwise legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donations.”

In response to these and other investigations, ActBlue said in a statement that its platform is secure and not used to funnel excessive donations or donations from foreign nationals into Democratic campaign coffers. The statement further claims that investigations into its fund distribution practices constitute a “brazen attack on democracy in America.”

Congressional report: ActBlue’s design aids fraudulent contributions

Professional staffers from three United States House committees are jointly investigating ActBlue’s funding practices. They released an interim report in April. The report shared the committees’ “troublesome preliminary findings:”

Internal documents produced to the Committees by ActBlue and its fraud-prevention contractor, Sift, demonstrate a lack of commitment to stopping fraud and paint a picture of complacency on ActBlue’s fraud-prevention team. Put simply, the documents reflect a fundamentally unserious approach to fraud prevention at ActBlue—one that has left the door open for large-scale fraud campaigns on Democrats’ top fundraising platform.

The report also found that the organization “weakened its standards for reviewing potentially fraudulent donations” twice in 2024. It raised risk assessment thresholds that trigger fraud reviews in April. Then, in September, at the height of the 2024 election fundraising period, it loosened those standards again.

Internal documents showed that ActBlue leadership “knew that it was accepting more fraudulent transactions” due to those changes, which in effect increased the organization’s tolerance for fraud.

The report found that ActBlue also instituted an enhanced security requirement in 2024, requiring donors to include their CVV, but rolled it out quietly to “minimize coverage of the policy change so that the media, Congress, and other parties would not inquire more broadly about ActBlue’s fraud policies.”

ActBlue also encouraged staff members to “give our donors the benefit of the doubt and think about why a contribution is legitimate” rather than critically examine donations flagged by their already weakened fraud warning triggers. The training guide even encourages them to look past fake names, stating, “If an otherwise legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donations.”

Two caveats are important to note. First, the congressional interim staff report was about fraud conducted through ActBlue, not fraud conducted by ActBlue. While the organization’s policies and practices make fraud easier, that is not the same as saying they are committing fraud themselves.

Second, this is a preliminary report on the ActBlue system’s vulnerabilities and does not address the extent to which fraud was conducted through ActBlue. The investigation is ongoing.

As the congressional and other investigations continue, we may discover the extent to which ActBlue enabled finance fraud and whether the organization’s leadership has been negligent in fraud prevention to the point of culpability. In the meantime, ActBlue’s money machine and its lax financial security practices continue apace.

Note: Jim Stirling is a former John Locke Foundation employee. His contributions to this article were made while he still worked for Locke.

The post ActBlue: troubling questions about a leftist funding behemoth first appeared on John Locke Foundation.