A recent viral video has drawn significant attention to allegations of large-scale fraud and money laundering involving ActBlue, a popular Democratic fundraising platform. The video suggests that the organization exploits small donors, particularly elderly individuals who contribute modest amounts, often just $5. They are depicted as being misrepresented in donor lists, with their small contributions inflated to reflect maximum donations funded by others. This practice, according to the video, is said to operate on a scale that outstrips even billionaires’ contributions, potentially totaling between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over the years.
The person featured in the clip points out a problematic aspect of this fundraising strategy. “Organizations like ActBlue,” the speaker explained, “are building a mailing list, but it’s more than just a mailing list. It’s a contribution list.” The implication here is that wealthy individuals can manipulate the system by associating their resources with unsuspecting small donors, thus amplifying their influence in politics without risking their capital. Mark Finchum, who presented insights in the video, put it plainly: “So they find a little old lady on 123, any street, who gave five bucks? Suddenly, she’s credited with giving a max donation to a particular candidate.” The act of inflating the contributions can mislead stakeholders about the actual support a candidate has and erodes the integrity of the electoral process.
Finchum further elaborated on the scheme, raising a critical question: “Where’s the money come from?” His discussion suggests that the influx of funds from these undisclosed sources considerably surpasses individual billionaire donations, which often come with attached reputations and risks. As he described it, these actors engage in a practice of spending “Other People’s Money” (OPM), meaning they use funds through intermediaries—often small, unsuspecting donors—to sway political campaigns and their outcomes.
This trend of misrepresentation leads to a situation where a single donor can make significant contributions across multiple races. Finchum presented a hypothetical scenario: “So now we multiply that by 35 races, 35 races times a million people making those donations, times how many years are we going back now? … Hold on to your hat.” His analysis indicates that when smaller donations are compounded in this manner, the total could reach staggering heights, further complicating the landscape of political fundraising.
The viral post accompanying the video emphasizes the significant implications of these findings, labeling the situation as potentially the largest fraud operation in the nation’s history. “We told you we were working on a MASSIVE investigation that was going to make the Minnesota fraud look like child’s play,” the post claimed. The alarm is clear: the actions surrounding ActBlue, if proven true, could reflect deep-seated issues in the mechanics of political financing.
Furthermore, the reactions elicited by the revelations highlight a growing concern over the relationship between fundraising platforms and social movements, particularly in relation to Black Lives Matter. “The relationship between ActBlue and Black Lives Matter needs to be investigated,” one user proposed, suggesting that the implications of these accusations reach far beyond just the realm of campaign finance. Another commentator added, “They’ve probably stumbled on where all that USAID money was ending up… Trillions isn’t billionaires from the coasts.” This broadening of scope indicates that questions of accountability and transparency are at the forefront of public discourse.
The examination of ActBlue raises significant questions regarding electoral integrity and the sources of political influence. As the investigation unfolds, it will be crucial to consider the validity of these claims and their implications for the future of political fundraising in America. Should these allegations be substantiated, the fallout could alter how campaigns raise and report their funding—and redefine the relationship between grassroots movements and large-scale financial contributions.
"*" indicates required fields
