An investigation into ActBlue, the powerful online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates, has expanded across 19 states, raising concerns over potential fraud and illegal campaign donations. Led by attorneys general from Iowa and Indiana, the probe now includes nearly half of the U.S. as officials examine whether ActBlue has been used to launder foreign money or facilitate “straw donations”—a scheme where donations are made in someone else’s name without their consent.
This inquiry, initially launched by a handful of states and a House committee, has grown into a major bipartisan effort to scrutinize the platform’s security protocols and adherence to campaign finance laws. The expanding investigation comes in response to mounting concerns that ActBlue may be improperly attributing donations to individuals who didn’t actually make them, sparking fears that foreign or illicit money could be flowing into U.S. elections under the radar.
The investigation gained momentum after whistleblowers raised red flags, claiming that donors’ names have been used fraudulently to process campaign contributions. In a letter sent last week to ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, attorneys general cited potential security lapses within the platform that may have allowed unauthorized donations to occur.
“Recent reporting suggests there may be donors across the country who are identified in filings with the Federal Election Commission as having donated to candidates through ActBlue but who did not actually make those donations,” the letter stated.
These concerns align with claims from whistleblowers that ActBlue’s platform could be facilitating “smurfing”—a form of money laundering where large donations are split into smaller amounts under different names to disguise the true source. If true, this practice would violate both federal and state campaign finance laws.
While the investigation was originally launched in a few states, it has since expanded to include attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These states are now pushing ActBlue to provide information on how the platform ensures the legitimacy of its donors and how it safeguards against fraudulent donations.
In their letter to ActBlue, the attorneys general requested that Wallace-Jones respond by October 23 with details of the platform’s security measures. This includes specifics on how the company verifies the identities of donors, whether additional safeguards have been implemented to prevent fraud, and if there have been any reported breaches or suspicious activities on the platform.
ActBlue has firmly denied any wrongdoing, asserting that it has taken comprehensive steps to protect donors’ information and ensure compliance with campaign finance laws. A spokesperson for the platform responded to the growing scrutiny, stating:
“We rigorously protect donors’ information by maintaining a robust security program and strict fraud prevention measures—often beyond what is required by law. We are aware of recent attempts to spread misinformation about our platform. Facts are essential so that voters and donors are not misled.”
Despite ActBlue’s assurances, the investigation continues to focus on whether the platform’s security is sufficient to prevent fraudulent or unauthorized donations. As the attorneys general press for answers, the platform’s operations remain under heavy scrutiny amid concerns about the potential misuse of donor information.
Parallel to the state-level inquiries, House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI) has been leading his own investigation into ActBlue’s practices. Steil’s committee conducted a detailed computer analysis that reportedly uncovered suspicious donation patterns involving individuals whose financial situations suggested they could not have contributed the amounts attributed to them.
In a statement, Steil explained that the investigation focuses on the possible exploitation of “straw donors”—individuals whose identities may have been used to funnel illicit funds into political campaigns. Steil’s team identified a set of “anomalous donor profiles,” which showed significant discrepancies in donation amounts relative to the financial capabilities of the individuals involved.
“The real big concern here is that because these donations are made online, they could be coming from anywhere across the globe,” Steil said in an interview with Just the News in August 2024. His committee has also referred the case to attorneys general in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and Florida.
The current investigation isn’t the first time ActBlue has come under scrutiny. In December 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an inquiry into the platform, accusing it of engaging in fraudulent activity. That probe culminated in an agreement in August 2024, requiring ActBlue to use card verification value (CVV) codes for all donations—a security measure designed to prevent fraud by confirming that the person making the donation is in possession of the physical credit card.
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares also launched an investigation into ActBlue around the same time, after similar allegations surfaced in his state. These state-led inquiries are part of a broader effort to ensure that online campaign donations are being made legally and transparently.
Steil has been advocating for further reforms, specifically pushing for the passage of H.R. 9488, known as the SHIELD Act. This legislation aims to tighten safeguards on online campaign contributions by requiring the disclosure of CVV codes and banning donations made in someone else’s name. The goal is to prevent foreign or fraudulent money from flowing into U.S. elections undetected.
As the investigation into ActBlue’s fundraising practices continues to unfold, the platform faces increasing scrutiny from multiple levels of government. While the company denies any wrongdoing and maintains that its security measures are sufficient, the allegations of unauthorized donations and potential fraud raise critical questions about the integrity of online political fundraising. Whether ActBlue can successfully defend its operations remains to be seen as state attorneys general and lawmakers push for greater transparency and accountability in the platform’s financial practices.
