SOMERVILLE, MA- Kamala Harris' presidential campaign has experienced an extraordinary and rapid fundraising boost, sparking significant controversy and scrutiny. Within just five hours of her campaign announcement, small donations through ActBlue, a prominent fundraising platform associated with progressive causes, surged to $27.5 million.
This impressive figure almost doubled to $46.7 million a few hours later, setting a new record for ActBlue during the 2024 election cycle. By the end of the first 24 hours, Harris had reportedly raised over $90 million, a startling contrast to her relatively low support during the 2020 Democratic primary.
This unexpected fundraising success has raised several red flags. Critics are questioning whether the influx of donations reflects genuine grassroots support or if it indicates possible manipulation or irregularities. Kamala Harris, who was notably unpopular during the 2020 primary— receiving minimal support compared to her competitors— now appears to be attracting significant financial backing seemingly overnight.
The controversy surrounding Harris’ fundraising is compounded by concerns about ActBlue's practices. During the "Summer of Rage" protests in 2020, ActBlue's website included a disclaimer stating that if a campaign failed to cash a check within 60 days or refused a contribution, ActBlue could reallocate the funds.
Specifically, if a campaign did not cash a check or refused a contribution, ActBlue could use the funds for its own activities or donate them to charities. This provision led to suspicions about the potential for misuse or redirection of donations. Notably, this disclaimer was removed on August 1, coinciding with the peak of Harris' fundraising efforts, fueling further concerns about the timing and transparency of the change.
ActBlue’s website under a section titled “The Fine Print”: "In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities."
Further investigation into Harris' fundraising has uncovered troubling patterns. For instance, Cindy Nowe, a resident of Maryland, allegedly contributed over 1,000 times to ActBlue in 2022, totaling $18,849.77. This would have required her to make donations at least three times a day, every day, for an entire year. Nowe has denied making these contributions beyond an initial donation.
Moreover, there are reports of unusual donation patterns involving identical names and amounts. On June 8, donations were made using a name and address that were repeated five times, each donation for the same amount. Similar anomalies were observed, where names differed by a single letter, and donation amounts were identical, such as $5.26 or $5.27. These specific amounts could potentially be an attempt to evade detection or regulatory triggers.
Federal Election Commissioner Allen Dickerson has confirmed that his team found similar suspicious donation patterns. Citizen journalists across the country have reported comparable issues, raising questions about the integrity of the donation process.
“My team conducted its own research, finding donations to ActBlue under names that differ only by a single letter with identical contributions,” Dickerson said. “Citizen journalists across the country have found similar trends, and we’re seeing similar cases pop up in more states all over the country.”
The revelations have drawn attention from lawmakers, including Senator Marco Rubio and other Republicans, who are raising concerns about the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has previously fined ActBlue for facilitating illegal contributions, highlighting ongoing issues with the platform’s handling of campaign funds.
Interestingly, despite Kamala Harris entering the presidential race later than other candidates, she has managed to out-fundraise prominent figures like Donald Trump. Data from the FEC shows that funds raised during Joe Biden’s candidacy have been transferred to Harris’ campaign, leading to questions about the legality and fairness of this practice. Many supporters of Biden in the primary are now questioning how their contributions are being used.
The situation underscores a broader debate about the role of money in politics and the need for transparency in campaign financing. The unusual donation patterns and potential for fund mismanagement raise significant concerns about the influence of money on the electoral process and the integrity of democratic institutions. As investigations continue, the implications for the 2024 election and future campaign finance practices remain uncertain.
This impressive figure almost doubled to $46.7 million a few hours later, setting a new record for ActBlue during the 2024 election cycle. By the end of the first 24 hours, Harris had reportedly raised over $90 million, a startling contrast to her relatively low support during the 2020 Democratic primary.
This unexpected fundraising success has raised several red flags. Critics are questioning whether the influx of donations reflects genuine grassroots support or if it indicates possible manipulation or irregularities. Kamala Harris, who was notably unpopular during the 2020 primary— receiving minimal support compared to her competitors— now appears to be attracting significant financial backing seemingly overnight.
The controversy surrounding Harris’ fundraising is compounded by concerns about ActBlue's practices. During the "Summer of Rage" protests in 2020, ActBlue's website included a disclaimer stating that if a campaign failed to cash a check within 60 days or refused a contribution, ActBlue could reallocate the funds.
Specifically, if a campaign did not cash a check or refused a contribution, ActBlue could use the funds for its own activities or donate them to charities. This provision led to suspicions about the potential for misuse or redirection of donations. Notably, this disclaimer was removed on August 1, coinciding with the peak of Harris' fundraising efforts, fueling further concerns about the timing and transparency of the change.
ActBlue’s website under a section titled “The Fine Print”: "In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities."
Further investigation into Harris' fundraising has uncovered troubling patterns. For instance, Cindy Nowe, a resident of Maryland, allegedly contributed over 1,000 times to ActBlue in 2022, totaling $18,849.77. This would have required her to make donations at least three times a day, every day, for an entire year. Nowe has denied making these contributions beyond an initial donation.
Moreover, there are reports of unusual donation patterns involving identical names and amounts. On June 8, donations were made using a name and address that were repeated five times, each donation for the same amount. Similar anomalies were observed, where names differed by a single letter, and donation amounts were identical, such as $5.26 or $5.27. These specific amounts could potentially be an attempt to evade detection or regulatory triggers.
Federal Election Commissioner Allen Dickerson has confirmed that his team found similar suspicious donation patterns. Citizen journalists across the country have reported comparable issues, raising questions about the integrity of the donation process.
“My team conducted its own research, finding donations to ActBlue under names that differ only by a single letter with identical contributions,” Dickerson said. “Citizen journalists across the country have found similar trends, and we’re seeing similar cases pop up in more states all over the country.”
The revelations have drawn attention from lawmakers, including Senator Marco Rubio and other Republicans, who are raising concerns about the fairness and transparency of the electoral process. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has previously fined ActBlue for facilitating illegal contributions, highlighting ongoing issues with the platform’s handling of campaign funds.
Interestingly, despite Kamala Harris entering the presidential race later than other candidates, she has managed to out-fundraise prominent figures like Donald Trump. Data from the FEC shows that funds raised during Joe Biden’s candidacy have been transferred to Harris’ campaign, leading to questions about the legality and fairness of this practice. Many supporters of Biden in the primary are now questioning how their contributions are being used.
The situation underscores a broader debate about the role of money in politics and the need for transparency in campaign financing. The unusual donation patterns and potential for fund mismanagement raise significant concerns about the influence of money on the electoral process and the integrity of democratic institutions. As investigations continue, the implications for the 2024 election and future campaign finance practices remain uncertain.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-08-13T08:15-0400 | Comment by: EDWARD
Federal elections (at least) should be 'non-money' campaigns. Media sources should donate an amount or blocks of time during the election cycle (as defined under law) in equal amount to all verified candidates to be used as each sees fit with no supplemental purchase of advertising or marketing allowed. No PACS or other form of money should enter the election.