Tag: superpacs

Another ActBlue Official Pleads Fifth In House Probe of Alleged Foreign Donations

Another senior figure at Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue invoked the Fifth Amendment during congressional testimony Tuesday as House Republicans investigate allegations of fraudulent and foreign political donations.

Kimberly Peeler-Allen, a member of ActBlue’s board of directors, invoked her constitutional right against self-incrimination while appearing before the House Administration, Judiciary and Oversight committees, according to sources familiar with her testimony.

Her decision follows similar moves by other ActBlue officials.

ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis invoked the Fifth during a closed-door deposition Aug. 20, while CEO Regina Wallace-Jones asserted the same right during congressional questioning in June.

The House Administration Committee began investigating ActBlue in 2023 following concerns that the fundraising platform’s fraud-prevention procedures were inadequate to prevent illegal foreign donations.

Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., has focused in part on ActBlue’s previous practice of not requiring donors to provide credit card CVV security codes.

“We have an entity here with ActBlue, that has raised roughly $20 billion since its creation,” Steil told Fox News.

“We want to make sure that they have the fraud prevention protocols in place to make sure that foreign funds are not coming into U.S. elections.”

Steil acknowledged that witnesses have a constitutional right to invoke the Fifth Amendment but said their refusal to answer questions has frustrated lawmakers seeking information about ActBlue’s operations.

The investigation intensified after The New York Times reported in April that ActBlue’s attorneys had warned internally that Wallace-Jones may have provided Congress with a misleading description of the organization’s procedures for detecting foreign donations.

Wallace-Jones had described ActBlue’s screening system as “multilayered.” According to the Times, however, the organization’s attorneys warned that ActBlue did not always follow the procedures she described, creating what they characterized as “a substantial risk for ActBlue.”

Republicans have denied accusations that the investigation is politically motivated, arguing that foreign money entering American elections would present a serious threat regardless of which party benefits.

ActBlue has denied wrongdoing and has previously said it maintains safeguards against fraudulent and foreign contributions.

Keep reading

NYT Killed A Story That Exposed How Democratic Spam PACs Drain Elderly Donors — And A Stanford Professor Had To Publish It Himself

You might remember that eight months ago, Stanford University political science professor Adam Bonica spent that time collaborating with The New York Times to run a massive, data-driven expose on the how Democratic spam PACs targeted and bilked elderly donors of their cash. And in the end, The New York Times killed the story after the Elias Law Firm (DCCC/DSCC lawyers) contacted The Times.

Using Federal Election Commission (FEC) data on contributions to Democratic PACs and voter registration lists with age information covering over 300 million contributions to candidates and PACs, Bonica found that the vast majority of donors to Democratic spam PACs are elderly. In fact, a surprisingly concentrated group of elderly donors are responsible for the lion’s share of money raised by these groups.

1% of Democratic donors – approximately 138,000 donors with an average age of 75 – are responsible for more than 49% of $1.4 billion raised by “spam PACs” since 2017.

These are actual cases of senior citizens being taken advantage of by Democratic spam PACs, all while consultants rake in millions. For example, an 85-year-old retired man from Oxford, Ohio sent out 7,800 donations to Democratic groups totaling $648,000 in value. That is more than double the value of his home. An elderly woman from an assisted living center in Indianapolis made 25,000 donations totaling $250,000 in value. The money she was spending on these donations was for her own care. A 93-year-old man was charged 4,208 times over the course of four months for Democratic groups, an average of 31 times per day. That came out to $32,742.

Between 70 and 85 percent of the largest spam PACs’ Facebook/Facebook fundraising ad impressions were served to users 65 and older – a demographic that comprises just 14% of the total adult user base on the platform.

Keep reading

Wary Of Backlash, Pro-Israel GOP Senate Hopeful Asks AIPAC Not To Spend On His Behalf

With Israel’s standing in the United States crumbling, America’s leading pro-Israel organization has become a focal point of anger among those who think the US government is putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. Political candidates have started seizing on this, attacking opponents who are backed by that group — AIPAC. So for, that’s largely been a phenomenon in the Democratic primaries, but now — in a jarring indication of AIPAC’s ballot-box toxicity — staunchly pro-Israel GOP Senate hopeful Mike Rogers has asked AIPAC not to spend money on his general election campaign.  

Rogers, a former US representative who chaired the House intelligence committee from 2011 to 2015, has been a stalwart backer of US aid to Israel, and was one of 12 federal legislators honored in 2015 by the US-Israel Security Alliance for his work to arm the Israel Defense Forces. 

Having won the Republican primary, Rogers faces Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed in the general election. El-Sayed is an outspoken critic of Israel and US support for Israel, which is why AIPAC blew through $30 million in a failed attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for the Israel-catering Haley Stevens. In that campaign, El-Sayed deftly portrayed Stevens as beholden to Israel. Stevens had given him all the ammo he needed; indeed, the El-Sayed campaign created a website that did nothing but show this cringy Stevens performance on a continuous loop.

When his primary victory was nearly in hand, El-Sayed taunted AIPAC, saying, “AIPAC, if you’re listening, come back and burn it again” in the general election. AIPAC was poised to start running an already-produced commercial for the November race when Rogers talked to AIPAC chair Michael Tuchin in Los Angeles last week, Axios reports. The next day, the commercial was put on ice. 

The extraordinary move by the Rogers campaign is a humiliation for AIPAC, which has long been nearly omnipotent in securing lopsided congressional votes on pro-Israel bills, and in installing pro-Israel legislators while ousting those who dare to offer even mild criticism of Israel. While AIPAC has hit “pause” on its effort in the Michigan Senate campaign, angry AIPAC officials want back in. 

Keep reading

AOC and Bernie Sanders Are Still Taking ActBlue Money After an 88-Year-Old Said She Donated $150,000 From a Trailer With No Computer

ActBlue’s own CEO sat before Congress in June and invoked the Fifth Amendment 22 times.

The platform – the financial backbone of every major Democrat campaign in America – just got caught with a new donor who says her name was used for more than 16,000 contributions she didn’t make.

And AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Ilhan Omar are still cashing the checks from ActBlue.

An 88-Year-Old Woman Living in a Trailer Has 16,000 Donations in Her Name

Elizabeth Waffle is 88 years old.

She lives in a trailer down a dirt road in Milan, Michigan, after her house burned down two years ago.

She has no computer.

She has spotty internet service.

Federal Election Commission records say she has made more than 16,000 political contributions totaling nearly $150,000 through ActBlue since 2020.

That’s eight donations a day, every day, for five years straight – averaging $9.18 a pop.

“One hundred and fifty thousand? Hell no, I don’t have that kind of money,” Waffle told reporter Charlie LeDuff of the Michigan Enjoyer in a now-viral video.

She acknowledged making small donations through ActBlue – she disputed the $150,000.

“I don’t see $150,000,” she said. “That’s very abnormal and I think it’s wrong. I think there’s something in there that’s off.”

ActBlue responded by saying it had “zero tolerance for fraud.”

Then it kept processing donations for AOC, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and the Democratic National Committee.

Keep reading

ActBlue Co-Founder Pleads the Fifth During Closed-Door Meeting

The co-founder of the Democrat fundraising powerhouse ActBlue invoked his Fifth Amendment right during a deposition with three key House Committees, according to sources reported by FOX News.

Matt DeBergalis was in and out in under thirty minutes this morning during a deposition with the committees on House Administration, Oversight, and the Judiciary.  The deposition was reportedly over lax fraud prevention standards which may have allowed foreign donations to seep through their filters and into U.S. campaigns.

According to InfluenceWatch.org, DeBergalis is an MIT graduate who created ActBlue in 2004 after a failed bid for city council.

Influence Watch cited a 2007 interview where DeBergalis described ActBlue:

The whole thing is built around using existing social networks: whether they are coworkers asking each other to do things, friends, or existing communities built around e-mail lists or blogs. But we aren’t trying to direct people to give money to any particular place, we’re just trying to facilitate connections that already exist. Our feeling is that everyone has some sphere of influence and that set of people will respond to appeals from a person far more actively and frequently than they will to a top down national advertising campaign. We’re just trying to harness that.

Originally, ActBlue would list every Democrat running for office in a state where ActBlue was active. A user would select which Democrats they wanted to support. The fundraiser would use their social circles and encourage people to donate to that candidate. ActBlue would process the credit card and send the money directly to the candidate or organization. 3

DeBergalis saw ActBlue as a counter to the traditional Republican advantage in direct-mail fundraising, saying, “The other big tool however has been direct mail — it works particularly well for the Republicans, they’ve always had a large advantage in direct fundraising by mail. ActBlue is a nice counter-example: our model, where everyone can use their own language and own pitch for why they’re supporting a candidate, actually works better for the democratic party than for a republican party.” 3

Last month, The Gateway Pundit reported that ActBlue and the DNC allegedly funneled millions through payroll firm Rippling taken from unwitting employees.  The total accounted for approximately $23.3 million in payroll expenditures processed by the DNC.

Keep reading

AIPAC Burns $90 Million In Michigan — And Loses Anyway As Abdul El-Sayed Crushes Establishment Senate Pick

The most expensive Senate primary in Michigan history ended in a stunning defeat for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Tuesday night, as progressive Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated establishment-backed Rep. Haley Stevens in a race that exposed the outer limits of foreign lobby money in American elections.

NBC News projected El-Sayed the winner early Wednesday morning after an all-night count that swung dramatically through the hours. He overcame what NBC estimates at nearly $65 million in outside spending — the bulk of it funneled through AIPAC and its affiliated dark money arms including the United Democracy Project — to beat Stevens by roughly two points. Total AIPAC-aligned spending in the race, including coordinated outside advertising, reached $90 million according to multiple tallies, a record for any single Senate primary in the organization’s history.

El-Sayed, a physician and former Wayne County health director of Egyptian descent, ran an explicitly anti-AIPAC campaign, calling out the lobby by name at every stop and telling Michigan voters: “This is what democracy looks like — when the people vote and the money loses.” He was outspent 11-to-1 by Stevens, who had the backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and the full weight of the Democratic establishment. None of it was enough.

AIPAC’s singular focus was keeping El-Sayed — who has called for ending unconditional U.S. military aid to Israel and said The Jewish State should not exist specifically as an ethno-state — out of the Senate. The lobby’s affiliated super PAC set a single-race spending record in this contest. And it still failed. “The Democratic establishment threw everything it had at Abdul El-Sayed,” wrote Dan Pfeiffer, a senior Obama White House aide turned political analyst. “If he wins, the reverberations will be felt far outside of Michigan.”

The broader Michigan primary results compounded the drama. The Democratic Socialists of America — not a fringe club but an organized political machine — also scored wins on the down-ballot. DSA-backed William Lawrence won Michigan’s 7th district congressional primary, territory Trump carried by just one point in 2026. Former Rep. Cori Bush, attempting a comeback in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, did lose her race to incumbent Wesley Bell — himself the beneficiary of a 27-to-1 AIPAC-funded spending advantage, one of the few bright spots for the lobby in an otherwise black night.

Keep reading

DNC and ActBlue Funnel Millions Through Sketchy Payroll Firm Sued by Workers for Withholding Pay and Punishing Parental Leave

The same Democrat Party that endlessly lectures American businesses about “workers’ rights” is funneling millions of dollars in payroll expenditures through a company accused by former employees of withholding wages and retaliating against workers who took family or medical leave.

Libs of TikTok brought renewed attention to the scandal Thursday, writing:

“The DNC and ActBlue are running all their payments through a sketchy payroll company who were SUED by multiple employees for allegedly withholding pay.”

The payroll vendor is Rippling, a San Francisco-based human-resources and payroll software company operated by People Center, Inc.

According to a Washington Free Beacon investigation citing Federal Election Commission records, the Democratic National Committee and ActBlue processed approximately $23.3 million in payroll expenditures through Rippling during the 2026 election cycle.

The records reportedly show that the DNC and ActBlue began using Rippling during the second quarter of 2025.

But behind the Democrat money machine is a growing stack of disturbing employee allegations.

Keep reading

Musk’s America PAC Reportedly Plans $120 Million Midterm Blitz, Setting Stage For Renewed Left-Wing War On Elon

The New York Times reports that Elon Musk’s America PAC plans to spend as much as $120 million to help Republicans in November’s midterm elections, signaling that the world’s richest man is preparing to reenter the political game with fewer than 100 days until voters head to the polls.

America PAC’s spending surge will likely spark a coordinated opposition campaign from Democratic groups and left-wing NGOs, ranging from protests and activist pressure to sustained negative press coverage of Musk, as well as attempts to damage his brands, including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI.

The Democrats’ playbook could resemble their coordinated pressure campaign against Musk when he was involved with DOGE and the dismantling of most of USAID. This sparked street demonstrations by left-wing and far-left activist networks supported by left-wing NGOs, along with an aggressive left-leaning media campaign that sought to make him the public face of the administration’s agenda.

The NYT report is based on “two people briefed on the plans,” and like many stories run by left-leaning corporate media. Musk usually denies the reports on X, but if this report is correct, it says Musk authorized America PAC to build a field operation across at least eight states, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, while considering contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas.

Keep reading

Elderly Michigan Widow in Trailer Shocked to Learn She’s a ‘Mega-Donor’ to Dems – ‘Gave’ $150K via ActBlue Over 5 Years While Living on Modest Pension

An 88-year-old widow living in a trailer in rural Michigan has been listed as funneling over $150,000 to Democrat causes through ActBlue.

Nearly 15,000 separate donations averaging eight per day, every single day, for five years, Michigan Enjoyer first reported.

The latest allegations come as ActBlue continues to face intense scrutiny from congressional investigators and federal authorities over its donor verification practices and allegations of potentially fraudulent contributions.

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Charlie LeDuff, 88-year-old Elizabeth Waffle was stunned after learning Federal Election Commission records attribute 14,696 separate donations totaling nearly $150,000 to her name over the past five years.

The records indicate she averaged roughly eight donations every single day during that period, including 47 donations to Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed over the last two years.

She admitted making a few small, legitimate donations as a “true believer” in liberal causes, including some to El-Sayed. But 47 donations to him alone over two years? The avalanche of $150K total? Impossible. Some were tied to old addresses. Others went to candidates she’d never heard of.

Waffle told LeDuff she had no knowledge of the donations.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court’s AI Collision Course

Imagine a tight House race in a swing state. In the final weeks of the campaign, a new super PAC begins spending heavily against the incumbent. It runs ads on local television and reaches individual voters with highly tailored texts. The messaging is hard-hitting and seems to be swaying the electorate. None of it traces back to the opposing campaign.

It also doesn’t trace back to any human operative. The super PAC is funded by a single LLC whose donor cannot be identified, and its spending decisions are being made by an AI agent that has been given a budget and a political objective and is now operating without any meaningful human direction. The “consultants” placing the ads are software. The text messages were crafted by the AI.

This is not a hypothetical we will face in some distant future. The technology already exists. A wealthy person, foreign government, or corporation that wants to influence an election without ever exposing themselves to scrutiny could set up such a campaign operation today. And under the Supreme Court’s current campaign finance doctrine, the states and Congress may have little power to stop it.

The AI industry has emerged as one of the largest forces in American politics. Super PACs funded by AI companies and their investors have raised well over $100 million to shape the 2026 midterms, backing candidates in both parties who share the industry’s preferred approach to regulation, and attacking those who don’t. So far, their ads rarely mention artificial intelligence at all. They talk about issues like immigration, corruption, and cost of living, and it isn’t obvious to the average viewer that these ads were funded by a multi-billion dollar industry with its own unspoken legislative wish list.

But there’s a deeper, less-obvious dynamic operating in the background. The constitutional doctrine that currently protects the right of these companies to spend millions in our elections is the same doctrine that will be asked to protect something even stranger: The “speech” of artificial intelligence itself.

Modern campaign finance doctrine has been established, affirmed, and extended by Supreme Court decisions over the last 50 years. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), it held that raising and spending money in political campaigns is tantamount to speech itself, and, therefore, that most legislative efforts to address the influence of money in elections would be subject to strict judicial oversight. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) extended this framework to corporations, and then, most famously, Citizens United v. FEC (2010) extended it further to independent spending.

The court’s campaign finance jurisprudence was not built with artificial intelligence in mind, but its logic isn’t confined to the campaign finance context. If “speaker identity” does not matter for corporations and unions and super PACs, why should it matter when it comes to AI platforms?

Keep reading