Last Sept. 9, TBR published an article that detailed how Michigan Democrats’ ability to raise ‘outside’ money from donors who have no real idea whom they’re giving to in a distant state had reached unprecedented levels. Michigan Democrats were garnering a huge majority of their donations in small dollar amounts from outside the state, and cumulatively that added up to an overwhelming impact, and it had been going on for years.
And Democrats in Michigan and nationally were having it both ways. They had their cake, and they were eating it, too.
It is Democrats who, after the historic 2010 Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, have decried the use of BIG MONEY (both ‘dark’ and otherwise) in political campaigns. Democrats have assumed the mantle of the ‘reform’ party, claiming that Citizens United gave the GOP an instant boost in fundraising because Republicans could immediately begin raking in contributions from ‘billionaires’ and Wall Street and ‘big money’ interests that were out of reach of the ‘little guy’s’ party (the Democrats).
Ironically, that’s proving to be the exact opposite of what has happened. Democrats have developed a plan to tap into campaign donations, from both large and small donors, that Republicans have been unable to match. The GOP, on the other hand, has been more supportive of the Citizens United decision on philosophical ‘free speech’ grounds but has proven far less capable than the Democrats in taking advantage of it.
Amazingly, Michigan Republicans were able to overcome their financial disadvantage and recapture control of the state House of Representatives, 58-52 — Michigan was the only state in the country to flip a Democratic advantage in a legislative chamber to a Republican majority. Levine-Woodman, Wright, and Martini mentioned above all lost. So did four Democratic incumbents.
Now, predictably, there is an attempt by national Republicans to destroy ActBlue. This week, TBR presents an article from THE BULWARK online that documents what is going on:
Inside the Democrats’ Attempts to Stave Off Financial Death
Major efforts are underway to plan for Trump killing the party’s main online giving platform, even as the committees rush to defend it.
Seeing Red. Feeling Blue.
AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, Democrats had no shortage of things to panic over—including DOGE, the rise of anti-vaccine skepticism, and an aggressive deportation regime targeting immigrants.
But for the political-operative class, it was a specific, tactical matter that was causing a unique kind of stress. In their circles, it was taken as a fait accompli that Donald Trump, with his penchant for political vengeance, would move to dismantle a critical piece of their party infrastructure: the online giving platform ActBlue.
On Sunday, Trump did just that, using a social media post to instruct “authorities” to investigate ActBlue for unsubstantiated allegations that it allowed foreign contributions to find their way to Democratic campaigns. He vaguely suggested that officials at the company “should all be in jail.”
It was the most direct threat to date issued by the president against ActBlue—and, for those already panicky operatives, the surest sign yet that he will move to dismantle the platform, which is used by just about every Democratic campaign to process and collect online donations.
“The party needs to be prepared for an alternative were there to be a long, dragged-out lawsuit or if it were shut down, even if in the short term,” warned Rufus Gifford, who served as the campaign finance chair for the Biden-turned-Harris presidential campaign. “We have to put all the options on the table, because that engine needs to continue to exist.”
The threat to ActBlue became so acute during the 2024 campaign that Democratic operatives who specialize in digital fundraising privately began talking with clients about developing contingency plans. They urged candidates and advocacy groups to set up backup options for processing payments and donations—such as NGP VAN and GoodChange—or by simply building their own donation platform via Stripe.
In recent months, different consultant groups have been charting out what their own individual portals could look like and debating whether the party’s formal campaign committees could, in theory, house one of their own (the consensus was that it would pose an ethical dilemma for, say, the Democratic National Committee to run a portal where primary challengers raised money for campaigns against incumbents). Recently, digital operatives have begun testing fallback options, which have proven fairly successful in replicating ActBlue’s conversion rates (the percentage of people who make a donation after receiving a solicitation).
Last Thursday evening, those discussions took on a different dimension when the president signed a memorandum aimed at investigating ActBlue for possible illegal donations. He directed the Justice Department to conduct the investigation and report its findings within 180 days. It was a clear escalation in the Republican party’s effort to destroy the Democrats’ ability to fundraise.
But instead of ditching the fundraising platform, or putting into action the plans to build alternatives to it, Democrats are, for now, rallying behind ActBlue.
Strategists who spoke with The Bulwark said that while they feel that they can ultimately stand up those fallback options in the 180-day window, they believe bigger considerations are currently at play than the more technical concern of how to best raise money online.
After watching universities and law firms give in to Trump’s threats, the party felt it had little choice but to rally behind ActBlue, convinced that accommodation for the sake of putting off a fight ultimately does little good.
“If he’s successful in disrupting ActBlue, or hurting ActBlue, or causing chaos in the Democratic party—what’s to stop them from coming up with some bullshit reason to go after another vendor?,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic consultant and the founder of the digital agency Authentic. “It’s important for Democrats to stop and say, ‘This is not okay, this is not normal, and we’re not going to allow it to happen.’”
Following Trump’s executive order, Democratic candidates sent out a flurry of fundraising emails last week attempting to raise money off the targeting of ActBlue. In an email from the Democratic National Committee, chairman Ken Martin wrote that the move was a “blatant power grab designed to undermine democratic participation” and said Trump was “panicking” amid his softening approval ratings. “Now, we’re asking for your support right now to help us send a message: Democratic donors aren’t going anywhere,” Martin added, directing people to click on links to ActBlue’s donation landing page.
The messages seem to be working. According to Ryan Murphy’s ActBlue tracker, Thursday was ActBlue’s highest-performing day in three weeks. And donations to Democratic candidates and groups increased by nearly 50 percent on Thursday from the day before.
MANY DEMOCRATIC STRATEGISTS told The Bulwark that they were relieved to see the reaction among the committees and donors to Trump targeting ActBlue. They also said they were somewhat comforted that Trump had instructed the Justice Department only to investigate ActBlue rather than shut it down outright.
In a statement, ActBlue said it would “pursue all legal avenues to protect and defend itself against the Administration’s baseless claims,” adding that the Democratic party should “unite and create a blue wall against the oppressive use of power by this White House and their accomplices in Congress.”
But no one appears to think that this standoff will end without some dramatic confrontation or action. Nor do they regard Trump as the only threat. House Republicans launched an investigation into the firm’s security practices last year, and they have made repeated demands for information about its operations. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Committee on Administration, subpoenaed ActBlue for documents in October that dealt with how it verifies donors and how it ensures that foreign actors do not “use the platform to launder illicit money into U.S. political campaigns.”
Democrats’ instinct to rally around ActBlue might be in part due to their belief that they must stand up to Trump, but it also betrays the fact that they do not currently have a good alternative that can service the party and its grassroots army as efficiently. ActBlue was founded in 2004, and it has been the backbone of the Democratic grassroots fundraising operation for years.
But even as the party defends ActBlue, some digital strategists view the moment as an opportunity to develop better fundraising tools and new ways of reaching online donors. Tim Tagaris, the digital fundraising director for Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign, predicted this week that Trump’s attacks on ActBlue will “unleash a torrent of short-term fundraising and long-term innovation that Republicans will come to regret.”
Others want to use the current moment as an inflection point in which they can purge the online fundraising community of some of the party’s worst actors. Democratic strategist Murshed Zaheed said there’s ample evidence that people are tired of “grifty” fundraising text message appeals or corny emails asking for money, and there hadn’t been any game-changing innovation in the world of online fundraising in decades.
“It’s a big opportunity to block and build. You stay calm, you defend, the law is on your side, and ActBlue will stay strong and hum on. But at the same time, Democrats and progressives should be thinking about new techniques, new technologies, and how they can diversify their infrastructure,” he said. “It’s never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.”
*******************************************************
Nice article, Bill. And welcome back! Hope you hoisted a few pints for us down under!
In my comments you will see lots of capital letters. I am not internet shouting, but I have yet to figure out how to italicize my comments, or change their color, but I can use all caps, so all CAPS is a quote from the story.
An interesting article from “The Bulwark”, but there have been others, especially from Byron York and Robert Schmad, both from The Washington Examiner on March 10, 2025 and March 17th respectively, and David Catron in The American Spectator (March 9, 2025) that give a wee bit more detail.
In his column, Mr. Catron writes, “BEFORE THE RECENT ELECTION, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ASKED THEN-TREASURY SECRETARY JANET YELLEN TO TURN OVER ALL SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY REPORTS (SARS) RELATING TO ACTBLUE – NOT MUCH HAPPENED. AN S.A.R. IS A DOCUMENT THAT BANKS FILE WITH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT OR ILLICIT FINANCIAL ACTIVITY. YELLEN STALLED, PRESUMABLY IN THE HOPE THAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD WIN THE HOUSE BACK IN NOVEMBER AND HALT THE INVESTIGATION. THAT OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T HAPPEN AND THE NEW SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, SCOTT BESSENT, IS OF COURSE COOPERATING WITH THE COMMITTEE.
THIS MAY WELL BE WHAT PRECIPITATED THE SUDDEN DEPARTURE OF SEVEN SENIOR OFFICIALS FROM ACTBLUE IN FEBRUARY. THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS THAT THE EXODUS INCLUDED “THE ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL – WHO WAS THE HIGHEST-RANKING LEGAL OFFICER AT ACTBLUE, THE ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTOR, A HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICIAL, THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER AND AN ENGINEER WHO HAD SPENT 16 YEARS BUILDING AND MAINTAINING THE ELECTRONIC PIPES THROUGH WHICH THE GROUP’S DONATIONS FLOW.” THESE “ELECTRONIC PIPES” ARE CLEARLY OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE, REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY.), WHO INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING FOREWARNING IN HIS LETTER TO ERSTWHILE TREASURY SECRETARY YELLEN:
RECENT REPORTS HAVE RAISED THE SPECTER OF FRAUD AND EVASION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW BY INDIVIDUALS EXPLOITING ONLINE CONTRIBUTION PLATFORMS, ESPECIALLY ACTBLUE. FOR EXAMPLE, ACTBLUE HAD NOT IMPLEMENTED STANDARD PROCEDURES TO GUARD AGAINST IDENTITY THEFT AND FRAUD SUCH AS REQUIRING A CARD VERIFICATION VALUE (CVV) TO PROCESS ONLINE TRANSACTIONS UNTIL IT RECEIVED CRITICISM FOR NOT DOING SO. ACTBLUE IS ALSO BEING INVESTIGATED BY SEVERAL STATES’ OFFICIALS IN RELATION TO CONTRIBUTIONS ALLEGEDLY MADE VIA THE PLATFORM FRAUDULENTLY WITHOUT THE REPORTED CONTRIBUTOR’S AWARENESS.
THIS PRACTICE IS KNOWN AS “SMURFING.” IT IS A TYPE OF IDENTITY THEFT WHEREBY THE NAMES OF SMALL DOLLAR DONORS ARE REPEATEDLY USED WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE TO MASK LARGE DOLLAR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT BY LAW MUST BE REPORTED TO THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC). THE WEBSITE, ELECTION WATCH, FEATURES A “SMURF SEARCH” TOOL THAT ALLOWS USERS TO SEARCH FEC DATA FOR IMPLAUSIBLY LARGE NUMBERS OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO INDIVIDUAL DONORS. AN EXAMINATION OF THE DATA, FOR EXAMPLE, INDICATES THAT A SINGLE COLORADO RESIDENT ALLEGEDLY MADE 57,138 CONTRIBUTIONS – ONE TRANSACTION EVERY 1.3 DAYS – TOTALING NO LESS THAN $234,441.
AND THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN OUTLIER. THE FEC DATA SHOWS A FLORIDA RESIDENT WHOSE INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS PURPORTEDLY COME TO 52,591 – AN AVERAGE OF ONE TRANSACTION EVERY 1.8 DAYS – TOTALING $387,720. ONE CALIFORNIA RESIDENT LISTED HAS SUPPOSEDLY MADE 52,501 SEPARATE CONTRIBUTIONS – AN AVERAGE OF ONE TRANSACTION EVERY 2.9 DAYS – TOTALING $884,152. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. THERE ARE QUITE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF EXAMPLES WITH SIMILARLY IMPLAUSIBLE CONTRIBUTION PATTERNS. THUS, 19 STATES HAVE OPENED INVESTIGATIONS INTO ACTBLUE. THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT OF A LETTER THE STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL SENT TO ITS PRESIDENT AND CEO, REGINA WALLACE-JONES.
RECENT REPORTING SUGGESTS THAT THAT THERE MAY BE DONORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHO ARE IDENTIFIED IN FILINGS WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AS HAVING DONATED TO CANDIDATES THROUGH ACTBLUE (AND OTHER AFFILIATED ENTITIES), BUT WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE DONATIONS. THAT RAISES A HOST OF CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER ACTBLUE’S PLATFORM IS BEING USED TO FACILITATE “SMURFING” – A TYPE OF MONEY LAUNDERING IN WHICH DONORS BREAK UP LARGE DONATIONS AND SUBMIT THEM UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES TO DISGUISE WHO THE MONEY COMES FROM AND THEREBY SKIRT CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
NONE OF THIS SHOULD SURPRISE ANY STUDENT OF DEMOCRATIC FUNDRAISING TACTICS. AS FAR BACK AS MARCH OF 2023, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST JAMES O’KEEFE LOOKED INTO ACTBLUE AND INTERVIEWED A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THIS FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATION REPORTED TO THE FEC AS HIGH VOLUME, LOW DOLLAR CONTRIBUTORS. HE SUBSEQUENTLY POSTED THIS X VIDEO SUBSTANTIATING THE RESULTS. HE KNOCKS ON DOORS, SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO ALLEGED DONORS AND RECEIVES RESPONSES RANGING FROM DOORS SLAMMING IN HIS FACE TO CURIOUS CITIZENS SIMPLY ANSWERING HIS QUESTIONS. THE LATTER EMPHATICALLY DENY DONATING MONEY IN THE AMOUNTS OR WITH THE FREQUENCY REPORTED BY ACTBLUE TO THE FEC IN THEIR NAMES.”
If the GOP is going after smurfing. Clicking on the “Election Watch” link in the Catron story can take you to folks who made lots of these donations that would appear to be “smurfing”.
Byron York echoes some of this writing, “LAST WEEK, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED THAT AT LEAST SEVEN SENIOR ACTBLUE OFFICIALS HAVE RESIGNED IN RECENT DAYS, WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE RESIGNATIONS MIGHT BE RELATED TO THE ACTIONS OF A WHISTLEBLOWER INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION. THE NEW YORK TIMES CITED AN ANGRY LETTER SENT BY TWO UNIONS WHO SAID THE DEPARTURES ARE “ERODING OUR CONFIDENCE IN THE STABILITY OF THE ORGANIZATION.” ACCORDING TO THE LETTER, CITED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, ACTBLUE’S CUSTOMER SERVICE DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIPS DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTOR, AND CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER, PLUS AN ENGINEER AND HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICIAL, ALL LEFT.
NOBODY WILL SAY A WORD TO REPORTERS. BUT THEN CAME ONE ADDITIONAL PIECE OF INFORMATION. A MAN NAMED ZAIN AHMAD, WHO THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID IS THE “LAST REMAINING LAWYER IN THE ACTBLUE GENERAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE,” WROTE AN INTERNAL MESSAGE SAYING THAT HIS ACCESS TO EMAIL AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS HAD BEEN CUT OFF. HE IS NOW APPARENTLY ON LEAVE. AND THEN, ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, AHMAD WROTE, “PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE ANTI-RETALIATION AND WHISTLEBLOWER POLICIES FOR A REASON.” THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST AHMAD IS SAYING HE IS BEING RETALIATED AGAINST FOR BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON SOMETHING THAT LED TO THE MASS EXODUS. BUT WE DON’T KNOW.”
Schmad’s story dealt mostly with potential fraud. In his writing, Schmad notes, “IN 2023, REP. BRYAN STEIL (R-WI) AND THEN-SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL) RAISED CONCERNS OVER THE FACT THAT ACTBLUE WAS NOT REQUIRING DONORS TO INPUT CREDIT VERIFICATION VALUE, THE THREE NUMBERS ON THE BACK OF CREDIT CARDS, WHICH THEY CLAIMED INCREASED THE RISK OF FRAUDULENT CONTRIBUTIONS.
THE IDEA WAS THAT BAD ACTORS COULD PURCHASE VISA GIFT CARDS, WHICH LACK TRACEABLE OR IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION, AND USE THEM TO MAKE DONATIONS UNDER FALSE NAMES TO GET AROUND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITATIONS. CRITICS SPECULATED THAT SUCH A WORKAROUND COULD BE USED TO FUNNEL FOREIGN DOLLARS INTO AMERICAN ELECTIONS OR TO CIRCUMVENT DONATION LIMITS TO CAMPAIGNS BY ALLOWING ONE PERSON TO MAKE MULTIPLE DONATIONS UNDER DIFFERENT ALIASES.
ACTBLUE ACTED RELATIVELY QUICKLY TO PATCH THE MATTER UP, ADDING A BOX TO ITS DONATIONS PAGE REQUIRING A CVV INPUT. THERE WAS ONE PROBLEM, HOWEVER.
PEOPLE COULD STILL MAKE DONATIONS THROUGH PAYPAL, GOOGLE PAY, OR VENMO ACCOUNTS — AND PREPAID GIFT CARDS, AS WELL AS OTHER FORMS OF UNTRACEABLE FUNDS, COULD BE UPLOADED TO THOSE PLATFORMS. STEIL AND HIS CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES PROPOSED THE SECURE HANDLING OF INTERNET ELECTRONIC DONATIONS ACT IN SEPTEMBER 2024, WHICH ADDRESSED THIS APPARENT LOOPHOLE.
STEIL WASN’T ALONE IN HIS PUSH. NINETEEN REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL PENNED A LETTER IN LATE 2024 TO ACTBLUE DEMANDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PAYMENT PROCESSOR’S SECURITY PROTOCOLS. THE REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF VIRGINIA AND TEXAS BOTH OPENED INVESTIGATIONS INTO WHETHER BAD ACTORS WERE EXPLOITING ACTBLUE’S CVV REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE FRAUDULENT DONATIONS.”
Catron, quoting the New York Times, notes a lot of folks leaving what may be a sinking ship. He also links to “Election Watch” where you can find residents of various states – including Michigan – who made lots and lots of donations, some of which could be described as smurfing and represent the sort of questionable activity that Mr. Schmad references.
The real question in my mind, at least for the upcoming election in 2026, has any of the money previously raised and now lined up to spend for the US Senate and House seats, and the state offices up in 2026, is tainted from this activity or not. And whether anyone besides you will cover it.
Film at 11?
Thanks for mentioning the Zain Ahmad story. This was their own in-house legal counsel who perceived violations in ACTBLUE’s operations. The mass resignations of other important ACTBLUE officials also reinforces the perception that their own insiders are materially dissatisfied with the conduct of the platform.
There was also a concern that ACTBLUE had been soliciting funds from prospective donors under the pretense that the monies would be expended purely on technical operations – but the raised funds later being re-routed to other activities.
Once one reads literary works such as, “The Man Behind the Curtain”, by Matt Palumbo, one gets an impression of just how large the organization needs to be to conduct a money filtering service for various political candidates throughout the US. Who is large enough to maintain a data base of hundreds of thousands of “unemployed” individual names providing $5 and $10 donations on a periodic basis election after election? Not Act Blue. Act Blue only serves as the conduit through which the donations are directed. Money flows “through”, not “to”. Only organizations large enough to direct the (hundreds of thousands of) individual donations can perform a process this investigation is suggesting. Organizations this large can only be directed by seed organizations such as those set up and maintained by Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Look to one of those to come rolling out if/when this investigation really begins to strike pay-dirt . . .
President Trump and AG Pam Bondi are still not in effective charge of the Department of Justice due to the overwhelming number of Democratic partisans in its ranks. The U.S Senate has confirmed only 7 out of 219 DoJ officials requiring confirmation as of May 1st. AG Bondi is also dealing with 226 TROs and 90+ PROs; lawfare numbers never, ever before seen. The poor woman probably gets less sleep than Elon Musk.
Act Blue is safe until AG Bondi gets more of her team in place and they get a handle on the Fifth Column within DoJ. The permissible durations of Senate holds is running out and DoJ appointments will start to roll in the federal Fourth Quarter. Until then. Act Blue will get scrutiny from the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and its Chairman, James Comer, but the legacy media will continue to black list their findings.
There is a legal case out of Wisconsin where a GOP political operative alleged his e-mail address was used by someone to make a donation to liberal causes via ACTBLUE.
A judge in December of 2024 ordered ACTBLUE to turn over records to the plaintiff that were relevant to investigating who authorized these activities.
Thank you, Tim Sullivan! I’ve been following this for years. I tracked what happened to a one hundred dollar donation to Onondaga Dragway some years back that I made to Go Fund Me. I unknowingly made four twenty five dollar donations to NORML for the legalization of Cannabis, not the Onondaga Dragway legal fund. It was routed by a far left wing fund raising site that I can’t remember the name of. As far as the Democrats go, they are crookeder than a barrel of snakes. Buy popcorn for what’s coming!
You’re welcome. How much beer to go with the popcorn?
A case of Colorado Kool Ade should do it.
I would prefer a Michigan beer.
E&B was a great beer that was brewed in Jackson years ago. Due to Bidenomics, I had to scale back on expenses, though. Colorado won the price war.
Ed Brockler says
(Edit)I loved Arbor Brewing products myself.
It’s that kind of B. S. And brainwashing that makes for the Republican way! Lies lies and more Lies
Now that response is some funny stuff! Herr Goebbels would have a following even today!
It’s getting to the point where money is not the big factor here. The big factor is lie after lie after lie the public is starting to rebel to the barbarity of it!
The Michigan Democratic Party learned this the hard way in 2024 when their well-financed Michigan House nominees were trounced in the general election.
Their August of 2024 convention in Lansing was a public display of internal dissension.
Shadia Martini outspent her GOP opponent by a 4-1 margin but still was beat by almost 5% in the November 5, 2024 general election. Incumbent Nate Shannon lost his Michigan House seat by a significant margin despite outspending him by a 5-1 margin.
Money cannot buy happiness nor can it buy a Michigan House of Representatives seat.
Tim Sullivan appears to have done even more assiduous reporting than Monsieur Ballenger…who is painstakingly assiduous.
Bill has been down under for a while. When I am on vacation, I try mightily to avoid the evil machine (it helps if you forget your mouse at home). I trust his approach is similar to mine.
Hope he got to Hobbiton!
Wow! Dawson Bell – there’s a name I had not heard since the late 1980s when you were reporting on government matters for the Free Press.
Remember Jackie Boyle way back then? You all did a lot of Lansing stories.
All of the political fundraising is out of control. Whatever ActBlue has done wrong, consequences should follow. I am wondering though, what happened to the Republican/Trump problems? As I recall, people were signing up for a single donation, and the single donation turned into monthly donations in the same amount without the payor’s agreement. During the campaign I got solitations from Republican groups, usually Trump’s, saying that my donation would be matched five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times over. Was that true or a misrepresentation? I am betting on misrepresentation, at least when you got beyond a two or three times contribution match. Then we also have dark money, which enables all of the dangers referred to in Bill’s article. I am also tired of soliciations (by both parties) that ask for my opinion, and are nothing but contribution solicitations. That’s my rant on this subject.
Roll Call had an article in 2017 which explained these political fund raising tactics beloved by both Democrats and Republicans in equal measure, titled:
‘Unlocking the Truth about ‘Matching’ Fundraising Emails’ by Simone Pathé
Bottom line: They do not violate FEC limits because their are many “matchers” who are kept within their individual limits.
Fundraising is a form of psychological warfare. Matching, locks, and monthly donation conversions are just a few of the weapons used.
Some points regarding the Michigan House District 54 race between GOP nominee Donni Steele and Shadia Martini in 2024:
(A) the 54th House district is composed of Lake Orion, Bloomfield and Auburn Hills;
(B) Auburn Hills is strongly Democrat, Lake Orion is heavily republican and Blooomfield is evenly split between the GOP and Dems among its grassroots electorate;
(C) Donni Steele and Shadia Martini have similar backgrounds in that both are real estate brokers – Martini, further, is a University of Michigan MBA who also is a builder and is the daughter of a doctor and dentist;
(D) the affluent Martini, despite solid pro-business credentials, ran as Democrat and received labor union endorsements, including the UAW, and received massive support from ACTBLUE donations, as the TBR article correctly posits;
(E) despite outspending her opponent by $600,000 to $150,000, Martini actually performed worse in 2024 than her 2022 match-up – losing by 4.8% to Steele in the November of 2024 election.
The primary moral of the story is that “Democrat” in many cases is a mere title that bears no relation to actual political beliefs – Martini and Steele have very similar political views and backgrounds. Voters are not stupid – and grassroots activists and the electorate will avoid casting their ballots for someone whose values are not aligned with their own. Democrats who withheld their vote from Martini did so out of moral conviction.
A second moral of the story is that campaign finance successes do not always translate into electoral successes. The Michigan Democratic Party painfully learned this lesson in many Michigan House districts in the 2024 general election.
Ed Brockler says
(Edit)This happened across the board in Michigan House elections.
ACTBLUE did a bang-up job in raising funds for Democrats who:
(A) did not know how to spend monies raised in an effective manner;
(B) literally could not spend the funding fast enough.
Incumbent Rep. Jamie Churches downriver raised an unheard of amount of funding for a Wayne County MI House race – $746,000 – and was defeated in her re-election bid by a 22-year old GOP nominee who relied heavily on door-to-door campaigning and barely spent $100,000 for her campaign. Rylee Linting, a college student is now the youngest sitting member of the Michigan House.