A House investigation alleges ActBlue weakened fraud controls despite detecting fraudulent campaigns, including activity originating overseas, while the Democratic fundraising platform denies wrongdoing and calls the investigation politically motivated.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
House Republicans investigating ActBlue accused the Democratic fundraising platform Wednesday of concealing information about potentially fraudulent and foreign political contributions while weakening internal safeguards that investigators say were intended to detect suspicious transactions.
The allegations were detailed in an update from the House Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary and Administration committees, which have jointly investigated ActBlue’s donation-processing and fraud-prevention practices. ActBlue denies wrongdoing and disputes the committees’ characterization of its conduct.
“Our investigation found that ActBlue weakened fraud safeguards despite detecting significant fraud campaigns, including several from foreign sources,” the House Oversight Committee said.
The Republican-led committees allege ActBlue adopted what its own internal documents described as “a more lenient approach” to fraud prevention during the 2024 election cycle, even after internal assessments indicated the changes could result in additional fraudulent transactions.
“The Committees’ oversight has found that ActBlue, in its own words, decided to take ‘a more lenient approach’ to fraud prevention in 2024, weakening its fraud-prevention policies at least twice even though internal assessments showed that these changes would result in a measurable increase in fraudulent contributions,” the report stated.
Congressional investigators said ActBlue raised thresholds in the fraud-detection system it used to determine which donations warranted additional scrutiny.
An earlier committee report said an April 2024 policy change increased fraud-score thresholds “across the board,” resulting in fewer transactions being sent for manual review. According to the committees, an internal ActBlue analysis estimated that between 14 and 28 additional fraudulent contributions were missed during the first month following that adjustment.
The committees also cited internal July 2024 meeting notes stating that changes made during the preceding year had resulted in ActBlue “accepting” more fraud.
ActBlue’s internal materials presented a more nuanced explanation for the changes, according to documents made public through the investigation. The organization said its previous rules had been “historically too strict,” resulting in legitimate donors being incorrectly flagged and requiring unnecessary manual reviews.
The committees nonetheless contend that ActBlue knowingly accepted an increased fraud risk while attempting to reduce obstacles to political contributions.
Investigators also pointed to training materials directing fraud-prevention employees to “look for reasons to accept contributions” when assessing suspicious transactions.
The committees said ActBlue had detected at least 22 significant fraud campaigns on its platform in recent years, including several associated with foreign sources.
Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or donations in connection with federal, state or local elections. The congressional findings are allegations from the committees’ investigation and do not by themselves establish that ActBlue knowingly accepted illegal foreign political contributions.
The committees have also focused on how ActBlue verified contributions associated with overseas addresses.
Investigators cited previous representations from ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones stating that donors using foreign addresses were required to provide a U.S. passport number.
Republicans contend the system did not actually verify that the number entered belonged to a valid U.S. passport. According to the report, the mechanism checked whether a submitted number contained the appropriate number of characters rather than independently confirming that it was an authentic passport number.
ActBlue has said it maintains extensive protections against foreign donations and fraudulent activity.
The organization has stated that contributions indicating a foreign address can be placed into manual review and that potentially foreign donors can be contacted for U.S. passport information. It has also described using an outside fraud-detection system that analyzes more than 140 signals, including card issuer country, address information and transaction behavior.
The House report cited specific internal communications that Republicans say demonstrate employees sometimes approved donations despite indicators that could have suggested foreign activity.
One example highlighted by investigators described a contribution as a “great accept” while noting, “Donor sometimes has an IP in Hong Kong, but none of their other signals raise any eyebrows.”
Another internal communication discussed a contribution that had been rejected but that an employee believed “should have been accepted.”
“It is a foreign contribution, but the name/email match, the IP/billing match, a full address with the correct country code, and there were previously accepted and successful contributions,” the message stated, according to the report.
“The donor uses an Arkansas state code, which isn’t great, but [the] system can be wonky with requiring state codes for foreign donors,” it continued.
Fox News, which first reported Wednesday’s congressional findings, said it had not independently verified the underlying communications cited by Republican investigators.
ActBlue rejected the latest allegations and characterized the congressional investigation as an attempt by Republicans to weaken a fundraising organization heavily used by Democratic candidates and progressive groups.
“There’s nothing to see here. After we released findings of a third-party forensic analysis that completely undermined a central claim that they have made against ActBlue, Republicans are refusing to move on. Instead, they are orchestrating another political stunt before rushing out of town weeks early to go campaign. This coordinated campaign against ActBlue isn’t about the facts, or legislating, it’s about Republicans’ efforts to silence organizations they believe threaten their agenda,” ActBlue said in a statement following publication of the report.
ActBlue has previously argued that congressional Republicans have misrepresented both its fraud controls and its cooperation with investigators.
In an April response to the committees, the organization disputed claims that it had misled Congress concerning foreign-donation safeguards and said an outside legal review had concluded that disputed statements made by ActBlue were accurate when considered in context.
ActBlue has also said the congressional inquiry is politically motivated because of the platform’s central role in raising money for Democratic campaigns.
The organization says more than $10 billion has been raised through its platform since its founding in 2004.
Republican investigators reject ActBlue’s characterization of the inquiry and say their objective is determining whether online fundraising platforms have adequate controls to prevent foreign money and fraudulent donations from entering American elections.
The investigation has included subpoenas, document requests and closed-door depositions involving current and former ActBlue personnel.
Several ActBlue-affiliated officials have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights during congressional questioning.
ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones invoked the Fifth Amendment during a June congressional appearance. ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis subsequently invoked the right during an August deposition, and board member Kimberly Peeler-Allen did so during questioning in September.
Earlier depositions of five ActBlue employees resulted in Fifth Amendment assertions on numerous questions involving the organization’s fraud-prevention policies, foreign donations and internal operations. ActBlue has defended those employees’ use of their constitutional rights and said invoking the Fifth Amendment should not be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.
“The Fifth Amendment is one of America’s most foundational constitutional rights,” an ActBlue spokesperson previously said. “ActBlue employees who invoked their rights in the face of a partisan investigation are doing exactly what the founders intended.”
The committees have also examined internal turmoil at ActBlue following the 2024 election.
Their earlier report noted reporting that at least seven senior employees, including senior legal personnel, resigned or were dismissed in early 2025. Investigators subsequently sought documents concerning those departures and allegations that an internal employee had faced retaliation after raising compliance concerns.
ActBlue has contested congressional claims that it obstructed the investigation.
In correspondence with the committees, the organization said it continued voluntarily producing nonprivileged records and disputed allegations that it improperly withheld documents covered by congressional subpoenas. ActBlue also argued that some material sought by investigators was protected by attorney-client or other legal privileges.
The congressional investigation has therefore produced competing accounts of the platform’s conduct.
Republican investigators say internal documents demonstrate ActBlue loosened fraud controls despite knowing those decisions could result in more fraudulent transactions and that the platform failed to provide Congress with an accurate picture of its safeguards against foreign donations.
ActBlue says its systems have been designed to identify fraudulent and prohibited contributions, that the committees have taken internal documents out of context and that an outside forensic review undermined a central allegation made against the organization.
No finding cited in the congressional report itself constitutes a criminal conviction or judicial determination that ActBlue knowingly processed illegal foreign political contributions.
The committees say their investigation is continuing as lawmakers examine whether additional federal requirements are necessary for online political fundraising platforms.
Original article
Comments