The Scandal of ActBlue and "Democracy" as a Weapon

There is an oft-overlooked connection between political funding and cultural change. It is something that rattles us to seriously consider because we are so individualistic that we don’t like to ponder that our own opinions could be influenced by funding to the right location. Other people, perhaps, but not us. We imagine ourselves as unswayable silos, resolute in our convictions. Political campaigners and marketers see us rather differently.

ActBlue is the primary outlet through which online funds are distributed to Democrat causes. It boasts collecting and distributing $16 billion since its founding in 2004. Want to support a Democrat candidate for county commissioner? ActBlue is ready to make it happen. Do you have a Democrat presidential candidate that you would like to donate to? They’re ready for you. Want to fund bail money for rioters in Portland, Oregon? ActBlue has a page for that. Yes, really. (Kamala Harris even linked to it from her X account.)

Now, ActBlue is in trouble over the allegation that some (and perhaps a lot) of its funding comes from overseas, thus amounting to foreign election interference. A Congressional investigation is ongoing, accusing the company of not appropriately vetting foreign donations and of facilitating smurfing. Smurfing is the breaking up of large sums of money into lots of smaller ones to avoid detection. It’s usually part of money laundering operations, but can also be done to avoid the donation limits that cap how much money an individual (or company) can give to a political candidate.

While these accusations have not yet been fully proven in court, seven senior officials have resigned from ActBlue since February. Only one lawyer remains on their general counsel, and the New York Times reported that the organization is in turmoil, which could have an effect when the midterm elections take place.

The Obama Administration prosecuted Dinesh D’Souza under campaign finance laws, and he was incarcerated for eight months—for exceeding those donation limits. That was one of the politically motivated prosecutions of the administration, for such shenanigans almost never result in criminal charges, let alone jail time. Similarly, there was a massive witch hunt and smear campaign over the allegation that Russian actors had contributed mass sums to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. That was later proven false, for Russians had donated to both sides in the 2016 presidential campaign, but neither gave enough money to meaningfully change any outcomes.

The temptation is to simply shrug about ActBlue’s activities and ascribe any corruption to the nature of politics. However, a closer look can show something more interesting.

One of the biggest claims of those on the political Left is that they are principally in favor of “Democracy”, which they have raised to almost deified extremes. Hence, they wield so many slogans like “saving democracy”, “democracy matters”, and so on. Yet these screeches are actually grossly misleading. The democratic process is a mere means of achieving what they already believe needs to happen. So, to them, it’s just a matter of convincing the people of that. Democracy is thus a mere club against any minority (smaller) group, and one which can be used to claim moral superiority due to the breadth of its numbers. “We achieved X democratically” therefore insinuates “We have moral authority,” ignoring the traditional understanding that what is moral is not based on majority rule, but on what is right.

ActBlue provides funding to even the smallest battles: local judge and district attorney elections in seemingly insignificant cities. By doing so, they play a role in shaping the nation, by changing so many cities and the culture within them. For example, the prosecutory choices by a district attorney can have a trickle-down effect on a community. It changes the culture of policing, and of social responses to law enforcement. It affects how likely people are to commit offenses, because the criminal class engages in risk equations. Further, more criminals being free and on the streets affects the success (or failure) of businesses. When businesses leave, unemployment soars, and those households become more likely to use social programs that they are then motivated to vote in favor of.

If this were a political strategy, could we assert that it was moral? It would, after all, result in more votes in a particular direction. So, it’s “democratic”, but it’s certainly not good. Remember that in recent years, the phenomenon of using out-of-state cash for small races has been normalized, as well as races in economically poorer locales. This is seemingly ActBlue’s primary purpose.

People get affected by political dollars through various side-means too, which is to say, outside of election funding. While plenty of funding goes to direct advertising, which besmirches the reputation of the opposing candidate, more subtle methods include:

• Social media manipulation, in which posts expressing a particular viewpoint are artificially favored and those of another perspective are buried. This emboldens some by convincing them they are in a dominant position, and isolates others by convincing them that their opinions are extreme or out-of-touch.

• News agencies receive funding from partisan groups, and then deliver information that is falsely presented as unbiased, despite their inability to approach anything like objectivity. So-called “factcheckers” fall into this category too.

When those on the Left start screeching about the demands of “democracy”, their opponents often retreat, as if a moral high ground has been staked. Yet, it is not true that careful funding to coerce opinions confers moral authority, nor that if the whole world were wrong, that there would cease to be a right. Thus, we must not cast our allegiance with a political process, but with what is good and true.