by Michael Hollister
Exclusive published at Michael Hollister on August 09, 2026
5.209 words * about 28 minutes readingtime
Briefing Format of the In-Depth Analysis – 10 minutes readingtime:
ActBlue, WinRed, and the Dead Referee
Independently researched. Clearly explained. Regularly delivered.
On June 10, 2026, Regina Wallace-Jones, CEO of ActBlue, sits before the U.S. House Administration Committee. ActBlue is the Democratic Party’s central online fundraising platform – practically every Democratic campaign at the federal, state, and local levels in recent years has run through it. In the 2024 election cycle alone, ActBlue processed $3.5 billion in donations across 52 million individual transactions, with an average contribution of $50 or less. Around 23,000 candidates and organizations used the platform in 2025 alone. That morning, Wallace-Jones refuses to testify. She invokes the Fifth Amendment, the constitutional right against self-incrimination, 22 times – including in response to a lawmaker asking whether she prefers to be addressed as “Ms. Jones” or “Ms. Wallace-Jones.” Not a single Democratic member of the committee asks her even 1 question (Roll Call, June 10, 2026; GV Wire/NYT, June 10, 2026).
On the same day, 3 senior Democratic members of Congress – Joseph Morelle, Jamie Raskin, and Robert Garcia – send a letter to Ryan Lyk, CEO of WinRed, the Republican counterpart to ActBlue. WinRed processes donations for more than 7,800 Republican campaigns and committees, including every Republican senator and 97 percent of Republican members of the House. The Democrats demand documents, sworn testimony, and answers about WinRed’s own fraud-detection practices and alleged foreign donations (committee members’ letter to WinRed CEO Lyk, June 10, 2026). The committee’s Republican majority ignores the demand.
What happens in Congress that day is a miniature version of the entire scandal: each party investigates only the fundraising platform on the other side. No one investigates the system as a whole. And the agency created to do precisely that – the Federal Election Commission, the United States’ independent campaign-finance regulator – cannot do so because it has been incapacitated for more than a year. The central analytical question, therefore, is not whether ActBlue or WinRed is guilty. It is this: What happens when the digital fundraising infrastructure of the world’s largest democracy is compromised on both sides – and the only regulator meant to oversee it has been deliberately disabled?
ActBlue: “Knowing and Willful” – The Documented Breakdown
The story begins not with a congressional hearing but with an internal review that, according to the New York Times, landed like a bombshell. In late 2024, while 3 congressional committees were already demanding documents, ActBlue retained the prominent Washington law firm Covington & Burling – led by Dana Remus, former White House counsel under Biden – to review its fraud-detection practices and its previous statements to Congress. According to the congressional interim staff report, the findings presented in 2 memoranda in early 2025 were devastating: because of ActBlue’s weak fraud controls, there was “a significant risk” that some of the money collected during the 2024 cycle – “and potentially before then” – consisted of “impermissible contributions from foreign nationals.” The firm went further: ActBlue personnel knew that the systems were not sufficiently robust. The violations therefore appeared “knowing and willful” (NYT, April 2, 2026; Congressional Report Part II, pp. 9–10).
What Wallace-Jones Told Congress – and What the Firm Found
Specifically, CEO Wallace-Jones had informed the House Administration Committee in writing in November 2023 that “passport information is required from donors providing an address outside of the United States” – meaning that every donor with a foreign address had to provide passport details. She also said donations linked to foreign addresses were “set aside for manual review.” According to ActBlue’s own outside counsel, neither claim was true. Donors paying through third-party applications such as Apple Pay, PayPal, or Venmo were never asked for passport information. And the supposed manual review of every foreign donation covered only a fraction of them in practice: just 28 countries were included in the screening system, while donations from roughly 170 other countries received no additional scrutiny at all (Congressional Report Part I, April 2025, Exhibit 1; NYT, April 2, 2026).
According to the New York Times account of the Covington memoranda, the firm wrote that Wallace-Jones’s letter to Congress could be viewed “not merely as a false statement, but as an effort to conceal the foreign contributions” – a cover-up intended to prevent Congress from uncovering ActBlue’s earlier misconduct. The firm advised Wallace-Jones to “correct the record with Congress” and warned of the “risks” of failing to do so. Remus even advised Wallace-Jones to retain personal counsel to navigate her own legal exposure. Instead, Wallace-Jones fired the firm that had produced the review (NYT, April 2, 2026). Kimberly Peeler-Allen, chair of ActBlue’s board of directors, later acknowledged that as much as $38 million in donations during the 2024 cycle “showed indications that they came from abroad” (NYT, April 2, 2026).
The Compliance Team Exodus
What followed the Covington review is documented in internal emails, chat messages, and resignation letters disclosed across 19 exhibits in Part II of the congressional report. The chronology reads like a record of institutional collapse.
On November 22, 2024, ActBlue fired its general counsel, Darrin Hurwitz. He received a severance payment of $168,187.50 – shown on his final pay statement, attached to the congressional report as Exhibit 1 – and signed a separation agreement promising to “cooperate with ActBlue and its legal counsel in any current or future investigation relating to matters” in which Hurwitz “was involved” or of which he “had knowledge” (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibit 2). Since June 2025, ActBlue has refused to cooperate voluntarily with the congressional committees. Hurwitz’s contractual obligation to cooperate with ActBlue in investigations therefore effectively prevents him from testifying independently. The congressional report concludes that the pattern – a large severance payment in exchange for a cooperation commitment – is consistent with a cover-up.
On February 14, 2025, associate general counsel Aaron Ting resigned. He had been designated as interim successor and offered the permanent position as head of the legal department. His resignation letter – which ActBlue withheld from the committees despite a subpoena, even though it plainly fell within the requested document categories – cited “past practices for reviewing foreign political contributions” and “past representations to Congress,” according to the New York Times. Ting was concerned that management was “not fully interested” in presenting the board transparently with “the gravity of the most pressing issues” (NYT, April 2, 2026; Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 3 and 4). Internal messages among ActBlue employees were more direct: Ting was “really unhappy with what he had seen,” and 1 employee described his departure as “a middle finger to all of us” (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 3 and 5).
On February 25, 2025, his first full day as the last remaining attorney, legal counsel Zain Ahmad forwarded the Covington memoranda to the board of directors and executive management (NYT, April 2, 2026). That same day, he went on “leave,” which the human resources department internally classified as “something different” from the officially stated medical reason. The leave request was approved within 1 hour, even though ActBlue’s internal policy specified a processing time of 5 to 7 days. An HR employee informed Wallace-Jones by email that Ahmad would retain access to “essential tools,” including email and Slack (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 17, and 20).
Chief People & Culture Officer Candace King nevertheless ordered Ahmad’s email access blocked – a documented violation of ActBlue’s own leave handbook, which explicitly classifies email access as “essential” and states that it must “remain available to ensure continuity” (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 18 and 20). Ahmad then posted a Slack message noting that ActBlue had anti-retaliation and whistleblower policies “for good reason.” An employee on King’s team immediately deleted the message. Another employee told King that Ahmad’s treatment was “shameful” and looked like “obvious retaliation” – and resigned shortly afterward (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 9 and 18). When King restored Ahmad’s email access after an internal uproar, she simultaneously ordered his communications monitored through internal security tools. She wanted to “focus on him” – according to the congressional report, to ensure that he could not further jeopardize the cover-up (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibit 10).
Two days after Ahmad’s departure, Director of Compliance Eric Hoke left ActBlue after more than 12 years. The internal messages do not make clear whether he resigned or was fired. Employees attributed his departure to the “unstable situation” in the legal and compliance department: “The whole department is falling apart” (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibits 11 and 12). A week later, on March 4, 2025, the last remaining compliance employee submitted her resignation (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibit 13). On February 27, 2025, the ActBlue union wrote to the board of directors that employees who worked with the legal and compliance team had “no clear direction on how to proceed with their work.” The union described an “alarming pattern of constant turnover” and demanded an outside investigation into whether the CEO was performing her job “appropriately, competently, and responsibly” (Congressional Report Part II, Exhibit 14).
ActBlue faces scrutiny over inadequately vetted foreign donations, conflicting statements to Congress, and the collapse of its compliance department. WinRed, meanwhile, employed manipulative fundraising mechanisms that pushed donors – particularly elderly Americans – into unintended payments. While both parties investigate only their opponents, the Federal Election Commission remains unable to act, just months before the 2026 US midterm elections.
“The Fundraising Machine” is an exclusive Deep-Dive-Analysis for Supporter
Readers who support my work will receive this analysis exclusively as a PDF by email on the day of publication.
If you support my work after publication and would also like to read the article, simply send a short message to:
mh@michael-hollister.com
I will be happy to send you the PDF afterwards.
Michael Hollister
is a geopolitical analyst and investigative journalist. He served six years in the German military, including peacekeeping deployments in the Balkans (SFOR, KFOR), followed by 14 years in IT security management. His analysis draws on primary sources to examine European militarization, Western intervention policy, and shifting power dynamics across Asia. A particular focus of his work lies in Southeast Asia, where he investigates strategic dependencies, spheres of influence, and security architectures. Hollister combines operational insider perspective with uncompromising systemic critique – beyond opinion journalism. His work appears on his bilingual website (German/English) www.michael-hollister.com and in investigative outlets across the German-speaking world and the Anglosphere.
© Michael Hollister – All rights reserved. The distribution, publication or use of this text requires the express written permission of the author. If interested in reuse, please contact the author via www.michael-hollister.com.
