ActBlue scandal proves Democrats are the real ‘dark money’ party

New York Post - Apr 6th, 2025

A recent report by three House committees has unveiled that ActBlue, a major fundraising platform for Democrats, lowered its fraud prevention standards during the 2024 election cycle. This led to hundreds of fraudulent donations, including from countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia. Despite internal warnings about increased fraud risks, ActBlue continued to weaken its screening systems. The ensuing scandal has resulted in the resignation of seven senior officials and a leave of absence for a top lawyer, allegedly due to whistleblower retaliation.

The revelations have significant implications for the Democratic Party, which has positioned itself as a defender of democracy against alleged Republican malpractices. This situation has exposed vulnerabilities in their fundraising practices, undermining their narrative of reliance on grassroots, small-donor contributions. The incident highlights the substantial influence of dark money and foreign donations in U.S. elections, traditionally criticized by Democrats, and raises questions about the integrity and oversight of political fundraising mechanisms.

Democratic Party Whistleblower 2024 Election Fraud Prevention Act Blue Foreign Donations Dark Money

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a provocative narrative that challenges the integrity of a major political fundraising platform, ActBlue, and accuses the Democratic Party of hypocrisy regarding 'dark money.' While the story is timely and addresses significant public interest issues, it suffers from a lack of direct sourcing and balanced perspectives. The absence of transparency and verifiable evidence undermines its accuracy and credibility. The article's opinionated tone and one-sided presentation further detract from its balance. Despite these weaknesses, the engaging narrative and controversial subject matter have the potential to spark discussions and influence public opinion. To enhance its reliability, the article would benefit from more thorough sourcing and a balanced exploration of the issues at hand.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as ActBlue lowering its fraud standards during the 2024 election cycle and receiving fraudulent donations from foreign countries. These claims are based on a report from three House committees, which lends some credibility. However, the article lacks direct citations or links to this report, making independent verification challenging. The claim that ActBlue's fraud prevention team was aware of the high likelihood of fraud yet weakened their measures is significant but requires more evidence. The story also mentions a racketeering lawsuit and resignations within ActBlue, which are verifiable but not substantiated with specific sources in the article. Overall, while the article makes bold claims, the lack of direct sourcing and specific evidence limits its accuracy score.

Balance

The article exhibits a clear bias against the Democratic Party and ActBlue, portraying them as hypocritical and complicit in illegal activities. It heavily criticizes Democrats for their alleged use of 'dark money' while suggesting that their accusations against Republicans are unfounded. The story lacks a balanced perspective, as it does not include any responses or counterarguments from ActBlue or Democratic representatives. Additionally, it does not explore the broader context of political fundraising across both parties, focusing solely on alleged Democratic improprieties. This one-sided presentation diminishes the article's balance.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a strong narrative that captures the reader's attention. However, the tone is highly opinionated, which can affect the neutrality and objectivity of the information presented. The structure is straightforward, but the lack of direct evidence and sourcing can lead to confusion about the veracity of the claims. The article's clarity suffers from its failure to provide a balanced view or sufficient context for the allegations made.

Source quality

The article does not provide direct citations or links to primary sources, such as the mentioned House committee report or the lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Republican strategist. This lack of attribution makes it difficult to assess the credibility and reliability of the information presented. The story relies on unnamed sources and general allegations without offering verifiable evidence or quoting authoritative figures. This weakens the source quality and raises questions about the reporting's impartiality and validity.

Transparency

The article does not offer transparency regarding its sources or methodology. It fails to disclose how the information was obtained or whether there are any potential conflicts of interest affecting the reporting. The lack of direct citations or links to the primary sources mentioned leaves readers without a clear understanding of the basis for the claims made. This absence of transparency undermines the article's credibility and makes it difficult for readers to evaluate the impartiality of the information presented.