It was a political tsunami, and no one saw it coming—except maybe those pulling the strings. Just a day and a half after President Joe Biden finally threw in the towel on his second term ambitions, Kamala Harris, his vice president and the anointed heir to the Democratic throne, reported an astonishing campaign contribution haul. More than $100 million flooded in, with $80 million raised within the first 24 hours alone. By the end of July, just 11 days after Biden’s exit, Harris had raked in an eye-watering $310 million, dwarfing the cash the Biden-Harris campaign had in the bank.
But let’s be real here. How did one of the most unpopular vice presidents in U.S. history, whose time in office has been more comedic than competent, suddenly transform into a fundraising juggernaut? Is this really about newfound enthusiasm for the former “border czar,” or could there be something more sinister at play?
The mainstream media, always eager to cover for their favorites, chalked it up to a sudden rush of “Kamala fever” or the release of “pent-up Democratic panic.” According to The Washington Post, it was a “historic flood” of donations from 1.1 million donors in the first 41 hours. Sure, that’s one way to spin it.
But there’s another explanation that’s gaining traction: the possibility that this massive fundraising surge might have been aided by “fraudulent, deceptive, and potentially illegal behavior” from the Democratic Party’s favorite fundraising platform, ActBlue. A few Republicans, including Representatives Bryan Steil and Claudia Tenney, are starting to dig deeper into allegations of “smurfing”—a not-so-innocent term referring to political money laundering. In simpler terms, it’s the practice of breaking down large donations into smaller amounts to circumvent campaign finance laws.
Steil, who chairs the House Committee on Administration, has pointed out that lax identity verification practices at ActBlue might be allowing bad actors to bypass election integrity laws. And it’s not just speculation; some argue that this might already be happening on a large scale for various Democrat campaigns.
But don’t hold your breath for any serious investigation by federal election regulators. In the current political environment, it seems that accountability is a one-way street. Smurfing, in criminal terms, involves breaking up large transactions into smaller ones to avoid detection. In campaign finance, it’s about disguising the true source of large-scale donations to skirt contribution limits. As former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky recently explained, it could also involve widespread fraud using the identities of unsuspecting citizens to violate federal and state laws.
Senator Marco Rubio was one of the first to sound the alarm about ActBlue, labeling the operation as nothing short of a “money laundering scheme” during an interview on Charlie Kirk’s podcast. And with ActBlue having funneled more than $14.6 billion into Democratic coffers since its inception, you have to wonder if he’s onto something. That’s a fundraising empire with a GDP on par with a small nation.
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is also digging into this, demanding answers from ActBlue about allegations that some donors have been making “multiple daily contributions over the course of multiple years”—sums that are “facially implausible and appear suspicious.”
So, while Kamala Harris may be riding high on a tidal wave of cash, it’s worth asking: Is it really grassroots enthusiasm, or is there something murkier lurking beneath the surface? As usual, the media isn’t asking these questions, but perhaps it’s time someone did.
