The state attorneys general stated that ActBlue should address serious concerns raised by the apparent irregularities of ActBlue’s FEC submissions.

ActBlue, the online fundraising platform, is being investigated in 19 states. Attorneys general from across the nation are pressing the company to explain its security practices as well as whether Democrats may be cheating on their election donations.

The investigation began in a few states, and then spread to a House Committee. Now investigators from all 50 states are trying to find out if Democrats used ActBlue to launder money from abroad or to make donations under people’s names. This practice is known as “straw donation.”

The state attorneys general sent a letter to ActBlue’s CEO and president Regina Wallace-Jones last week, highlighting potential security concerns with the online fundraising platform. This could allow donations to be made in the names of people who did not donate.

The attorneys general stated that “recent reports suggest that there may be donors in the United States who have been identified by the Federal Election Commission (and other affiliated entities) as having made donations to candidates via ActBlue, but who didn’t actually make these donations.”

“Smurfing”

The letter stated that “this raises concerns as to whether ActBlue is being used for smurfing”–a form of money laundering where donors split up large donations to submit them under different name to conceal who the money came from, and thus skirt contribution limits and violate state and federal laws.”

Independent investigations have revealed that donors in the United States who appear on FEC forms as having contributed to candidates via ActBlue and other affiliated entities, but deny making those contributions. ActBlue has a prominent role in our elections and it’s incumbent upon them to answer the serious questions raised by the apparent irregularities of ActBlue FEC filings.

ActBlue is one the largest platforms for fundraising election-related donations. ActBlue has already raised billions in the 2020 election cycle. There are questions about the source of those dollars. It is essential that we know whether political donations–particularly in such large volumes–are being solicited, made, and processed consistent with campaign finance, consumer protection, and other state and federal laws.”

ActBlue denies any wrongdoing, but says it will cooperate with investigators.

As other investigations, both civil and criminal, are underway, the letter from attorneys general is timely. Just the News confirmed that some Americans believe their names were misused to make donation for others and are considering a private suit. Congress is attempting to determine if federally regulated financial institutions reported any suspicious transactions flowing from ActBlue’s platform to its clients.

Security protocols

Wallace-Jones was asked by the top law enforcement officials in each state to verify ActBlue’s security protocols, and to ensure that the donors were who they claimed to be.

In addition to Iowa and Indiana, the letter was signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Arkansas Florida Idaho, Kansas Mississippi Missouri, Montana Nebraska North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Utah Virginia West Virginia and Wyoming. Wallace-Jones was asked to reply by October 23.

ActBlue’s spokesperson told The Des Moines Register, following the release of this letter, that the platform has been trusted for digital fundraising over the past two decades. It also contributes legally to candidates and organisations.

The spokesperson said, “We protect donor information rigorously by maintaining a robust program of security and strict fraud prevention — often exceeding what is required by the law.” “We’re aware of recent efforts to spread misinformation regarding our platform. It is important to provide accurate information so that donors and voters are not misled. Visit actblue.com for accurate information.

Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) of the House Administration Committee, who conducted an investigation into ActBlue last month, referred the matter to the attorneys generals in Arkansas, Missouri Texas Virginia and Florida. Steil stated that a computer analysis by his committee revealed a suspicious pattern whereby individuals with net wealth too low to donate the amount credited to them through ActBlue reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission made donations.

Steil wrote that the investigation was focused on possible unlawful exploitation by unwitting “straw donors” whose identities could have been used to funnel illicit funds to campaigns in your state.

The final analysis revealed a list of donor profiles that were anomalous, and ranked according to the severity of inconsistencies. “After reviewing the analysis, it was clear that there are suspicious activities occurring which warrant further review,” said he.

Straw donors are people who either receive money from others and donate it to federal candidates, or their identity is used by others in order to avoid federal campaign contribution limits.

ActBlue was investigated by the Texas Attorney general Ken Paxton (R) in December last year after allegations that it had engaged in fraudulent activities regarding donations. ActBlue was also questioned by Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares in August this year after accusations of fraud were affecting Virginia.

Paxton announced in August that he had reached an agreement with ActBlue to begin using CVV codes for all donations. The CVV is the three-digit security code on the backs of debit and credit cards. It’s a key security measure to prevent fraud.

Steil has been pushing H.R. The SHIELD Act (H.R.

It is also illegal to “aide or abet” someone else in making campaign contributions.

Steil said in August on the TV program “Just the News, No Noise”, “The real concern is that these donations could come from anywhere in the world, because they are made online.” Cash is no longer used to engage in illegal activities. We can now do this online.

He added, “My concern is individuals outside of the United States’ jurisdiction who may be involved in this.”