ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos

[RandySF]

ActBlue, the online fund-raising organization that powers Democratic candidates, has plunged into turmoil, with at least seven senior officials resigning late last month and a remaining lawyer suggesting he faced internal retaliation.

The departures from ActBlue, which helps raise money for Democrats running for office at all levels of government, come as the group is under investigation by congressional Republicans. They have advanced legislation that some Democrats warn could be used to debilitate what is the party’s leading fund-raising operation.

The exodus has set off deep concerns about ActBlue’s future. Last week, two unions representing the group’s workers sent a blistering letter to ActBlue’s board of directors that listed the seven officials who had left. The letter described an “alarming pattern” of departures that was “eroding our confidence in the stability of the organization.”

What prompted so many longtime ActBlue officials to leave is not clear — none of the former officials agreed to be interviewed on the record.




https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/actblue-democrat-fundraising-resignations.html

[SleeplessinSoCal]

1. Oy....

[LeftInTX]

2. Yikes! I'm too tired to understand any of this.

But sounds like the GOP just wants to shut it down and cripple Democrats.
I just assumed the GOP had something similar....

I'm sure there are some on here that are happy about this....

[Hekate]

3. So am I, it being 1:30. Jeez, we really do not need this.

[sarchasm]

4. My fear is if they have exposed themselves somehow ...

to the advantage of their enemy’s blackmail perhaps.

[AmericaUnderSiege]

5. Innuendo from a paywalled media outlet.

Who benefits from "chaos" at a potent grassroots fundraiser for Democrats?

[Celerity]

13. Archive, non-paywalled link:

https://archive.ph/JLC6f

[AmericaUnderSiege]

14. Fair enough.

But the timing is interesting, to say the least.

[Celerity]

15. Everything and anything the Rethugs do is usually sus AF

[rainy]

6. I just sent them money yesterday!

[Think. Again.]

7. I didn't realize actblue did fundraising...

...I thought they just collected and distributed the funds raised by others.

[SunSeeker]

8. Republicans are investigating it for foreign donations - more projection!

From the NY Times article:

In recent weeks, congressional Republicans have demanded answers from ActBlue about its security and fraud-prevention measures, as well as how the group prevents certain foreign donors from illegally contributing to candidates. The letter from the ActBlue unions warned that the group was “under increasing scrutiny” and “the target of bad-faith political attacks at the hands of ill-intentioned operators.”

[Irish_Dem]

12. Only the GOP is allowed to accept foreign donations.

[Mike 03]

9. If the ActBlue folks have done nothing wrong, I just wish they'd

stop resigning, because that is throwing another layer of suspicion and anxiety on this story that may not need to be there. It could be these are intelligent people that just don't want to deal with another Mike Johnson witch-hunt, which I totally understand.

The loss of ActBlue, with their success, would have detrimental consequences even beyond the logistical and name brand loss--it would be psychically damaging.

[progree]

10. LINK

https://archive.is/JLC6f

a couple excerpts from the full article:

ActBlue, which is based in Somerville, Mass., says it has raised more than $16 billion for Democratic candidates and causes since its founding in 2004.

In recent weeks, congressional Republicans have demanded answers from ActBlue about its security and fraud-prevention measures, as well as how the group prevents certain foreign donors from illegally contributing to candidates. The letter from the ActBlue unions warned that the group was “under increasing scrutiny” and “the target of bad-faith political attacks at the hands of ill-intentioned operators.”

. . . The letter from the ActBlue unions expressed particular worry about the departures of staff members who are experts on legal and compliance issues.

There's not anything more specific than what's above and in the OP's post...

[ancianita]

11. Also from the Bulwark this past December...

...In a letter to the leadership of ActBlue, these Democrats said they feared that “questionable” fundraising tactics by unscrupulous groups and operatives were damaging the party’s reputation and hindering its ability to keep voters engaged. The signatories, who say they have collectively raised or donated $1.14 billion on ActBlue since it launched in 2004, called for a number of new features and policies designed to protect donors from exploitation.

The most significant of those changes would involve ending notorious practices designed to deceive donors into believing that they are giving to official party entities, that they had limited time to donate, or that their donation would be matched by a major contribution from other donors. Such practices have become common among political action committees and even party entities in recent years.

But they became particularly prevalent over the summer as a number of so-called “scam PACs” attempted to take advantage of the groundswell of support for Kamala Harris after she emerged as a presidential candidate. Those groups had generic sounding names that left the impression they were sanctioned party committees. They also sent fundraising solicitations pledging anywhere between 400 percent and 700 percent matching donations—though such matches likely never occurred.

Leaders at those same groups would often take the money they raised through these solicitations and spend it on themselves, often by paying for the services of other groups they ran or controlled. Such self-dealing eventually led ActBlue to boot those scam PACs from its platform this past fall.

But in an effort to prevent copycats, the Democratic operatives, in their letter, offered a novel recommendation: that ActBlue “set a maximum threshold for the percentage of total expenditures entities using ActBlue for donation processing can spend with companies they own or control.”

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/dems-urge-fundraising-gurus-to-put

[reACTIONary]

17. Interesting... Thanks!

[DFW]

16. Though no fan of Act Blue myself, I am nevertheless surprised by this

Any organization taking in billions for Democratic causes, quite aside from what they take as their cut, HAS to be on constant vigilance for Republican scams to make them vulnerable to verifiable claims of fraud. If Act Blue has been as effective as they claim, they HAD to know that the Republicans would only too gladly invest a couple of hundred thousand in some scheme to make it look like they were accepting foreign contributions on a regular basis. If a few watchdogs within Act Blue noticed this, and were told to shut up because it was nothing, they were right to speak up if they really did find something.

The reason I initially stopped using them was because I was tired of being called an idiot for not making sure every time to uncheck the automatically checked "make it monthly" box. I didn't think it was the responsibility of the contributor to look for that every time and uncheck it. They disagreed with me, although it was my understanding that they discontinued the practice soon after, quite independently of my trivial complaint. My objection to the large amount they took out (when combined with what their credit card partners took out, which amounted to close to 8%) came later when I found out how much it was. Several Democratic Congresspeople and Senators acknowledged that 8% was a big chuck to be deprived of, but said that there was no replacement for Act Blue's wide umbrella of small contributors, and I had to agree with that.

I had no idea that they had raked in $16 billion over the last 20 years, or how big they were. With that kind of size and turnover, it's no wonder they were ripe juicy targets for a Republican infiltration and scam if they weren't being constantly vigilant about the danger. The more effective they were, and the more they raised for Democrats, it had to have been obvious to them that they were a prime target for sabotage and retaliation. Like another poster said above, only Republicans are allowed to receive illegal contributions.

I'll be on the lookout for more specifics about the who and what (including to see if this turns out to be nothing at all, other than Republican troublemaking about a major thorn in their side.

[DeepWinter]

18. Not a fan

I donated with ActBlue ONCE and I was then spammed with other organizations asking for money. ActBlue sold my contact info.

Never never never use ActBlue. You'll regret it.

[Littlered]

19. Same here.

It’s my understanding (from contacting them about this) they do not “sell” contact info. They merely report it to the candidate, who in turn, shares it with every tom, dick and harry out there. As I’ve told them on multiple occasions. There is no law that compels them to do this. And there also is no law compelling them to list small donors information to the FEC if it’s under 200 per. It took forever but I’ve finally got the spam under control. For the most part. Kamala has been hitting me up for other causes.