Patrick Colbeck

No Independent Third-Party Fraud Audit Published for 2020 Cycle (US)

Established Fact As of the compilation of this report, ActBlue has not published an independent third-party audit of its fraud detection performance for the 2020 election cycle, nor has it produced complete responsive records to all congressional inquiries. Citations Letter from Rep. Bryan Steil to ActBlue, Oct. 31, 2023 (on file, House Committee on Administration),

No Independent Third-Party Fraud Audit Published for 2020 Cycle (US) Read More »

ActBlue Disputes Adequacy-of-Fraud-Controls Characterizations (US)

Disputed Fact ActBlue has publicly stated it employs machine-learning fraud detection, velocity checks, and proprietary controls. It disputes characterizations of its fraud controls as inadequate. No independent third-party audit of 2020-cycle fraud performance has been publicly released. Citations ActBlue, Statement on Fraud Prevention Practices (Sept. 2023), https://support.actblue.com/campaigns/faq/fraud-prevention/

ActBlue Disputes Adequacy-of-Fraud-Controls Characterizations (US) Read More »

ActBlue Did Not Consistently Require CVV for Card Donations (US)

Disputed Fact Unlike WinRed and most major e-commerce platforms, ActBlue reportedly did not consistently require Card Verification Value (CVV) entry for credit/debit donations during the 2020 cycle, removing a standard fraud-prevention control for card-not-present transactions.  Citations John Solomon, ‘Questions mount about ActBlue’s security,’ Just the News, Aug. 14, 2023, https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/questions-mount-about-actblues-security-after-complaints-unauthorized ActBlue confirmed to Congress in

ActBlue Did Not Consistently Require CVV for Card Donations (US) Read More »

Sub-$200 Non-Itemization Threshold Creates Structural Audit Gap (US)

Established Fact Federal law does not require campaigns to itemize contributions below $200 aggregate per donor per cycle. This threshold creates a structural incentive to keep individual fraudulent transactions sub-threshold, rendering them invisible to public FEC disclosure. Citations 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a)(4)(i) (specifying that authorized committees must report itemized individual contributions in Schedule A, Line

Sub-$200 Non-Itemization Threshold Creates Structural Audit Gap (US) Read More »

Scale — 15.3 Million Unique Donors; 165 Million Transactions (US)

Established Fact ActBlue reported 15.3 million unique donors and over 165 million individual transactions in the 2020 cycle. This volume makes individual-transaction fraud detection and post-hoc audit exceptionally difficult without automated forensic tooling. Citations ActBlue, 2020 Year-End Report (Jan. 2021), https://actblue.com/updates/posts/2020-year-end-report

Scale — 15.3 Million Unique Donors; 165 Million Transactions (US) Read More »

2020 Cycle Transaction Volume — ~$3.8 Billion Processed (US)

Established Fact During the 2020 federal election cycle ActBlue processed approximately $3.8 billion in total contributions — more than double its 2018 cycle total — creating an audit environment of exceptional complexity for regulators and recipient committees. Citations ActBlue, 2020 Year-End Report (Jan. 2021), https://actblue.com/updates/posts/2020-year-end-report OpenSecrets.org, ActBlue 2020 Cycle Summary, https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00401224

2020 Cycle Transaction Volume — ~$3.8 Billion Processed (US) Read More »

ActBlue PAC Registration & Conduit Structure (US)

Established Fact ActBlue is registered with the FEC as a qualified non-connected committee (C00401224) and operates as a conduit fundraising platform, collecting and transmitting contributions to Democratic candidates while retaining a 3.95% processing fee per transaction. Citations FEC Committee Profile, ActBlue (C00401224), FEC.gov, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00401224/ Presidential Memorandum, Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in

ActBlue PAC Registration & Conduit Structure (US) Read More »

High‑Velocity ActBlue Smurf Activity into PA Contests (PA)

Disputed Fact FEC‑based analyses cited in the national memo show Pennsylvania federal races receiving substantial flows from ActBlue accounts that appear to function as aggregation points for unusually high volumes of small donations (dozens or hundreds of contributions per cycle) from single nominal donors. The pattern is consistent with the possibility that larger actors are

High‑Velocity ActBlue Smurf Activity into PA Contests (PA) Read More »

The Silent Architecture of Digital Vote Manipulation (US)

Established Fact In this testimony before Congress, Dr. Robert Epstein warns that Big Tech companies like Google pose a monumental threat to democratic integrity through hidden psychological influence. His research highlights the search engine manipulation effect, a phenomenon where biased algorithms can silently shift the preferences of undecided voters without leaving a visual trail. Epstein

The Silent Architecture of Digital Vote Manipulation (US) Read More »

ActBlue “Smurf” Micro‑Donations into Federal Races (US)

Disputed Fact A review of public Federal Election Commission records, combined with independent data analysis and congressional investigation, has identified unusually dense patterns of small-dollar contributions routed through ActBlue donor accounts associated with elderly or low-income individuals, some with hundreds or thousands of transactions attributed to their names in a single election cycle. In several

ActBlue “Smurf” Micro‑Donations into Federal Races (US) Read More »