Millions of Tiny, Suspicious Political Donations Questioned by Watchdog Group

A Midwesterner 80 years old According to federal election records, a woman from an affluent suburb made almost 9,000 small donations to political causes and candidates over four years.

She claims she didn’t.

“That would not slip by me,” She spoke to The Epoch Times. “If I was losing money, I’d know it. It wasn’t my money.”

“I am a frequent and generous giver. I estimate I contribute about 50 times per year. I know every penny I donate.”

Surprised to discover that small donations had appeared in her name even after she stopped giving, the woman also contacted Federal Election Commission.

“There’s a hole somewhere that needs to be plugged and I’d like to see that done. I’d like to know if this is elder abuse,” She said.

Election Watch, a national integrity watchdog, has raised questions about over 10,000 individual donors listed on the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) database. They are shown as having contributed thousands of dollars in just four years.

Investigators are sceptical about the data because it is consistent with surveys that show that American political contributors give far less per year.

The following examples are taken directly from FEC.

Election Watch has cited the following example: A 77-year old Colorado woman, who is called “Alison.” “Donor A.” In total, she contributed over 59,000 dollars in donations in addition to $279,000 for the 2020 and 2022 elections.

Donor B (74), a Kansas woman, contributed 65,489 times and donated over $223,000 during the same time frame.

FEC’s explanation

Christian Hilland, FEC’s spokesperson, responded to questions by The Epoch Times concerning Donor C’s current situation and the comments made above. He did so via email. “I wouldn’t be able to speculate or comment on specific financial activity.

“If they were not earmarked by a conduit committee, however, duplicate contributions could appear in our database.

“The same contribution is reported by both the conduit committee and the recipient committee.

“Treasurers are responsible for monitoring contributions and ensuring that they conform to federal campaign finance laws and agency regulations.”

Christopher Gleason, an Election Watch computer analyst, responded to the FEC explanation, telling The Epoch Times, “Duplications are not the only thing we see. We are looking at thousands in transactions that FEC reports show individuals making small donations dozens of time per day to the same recipient.”

Repetitive Patterns

Another example from the Election Watch study is an individual referred to as Donor D.  The FEC database shows Donor D making more than 37,000 separate small contributions during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, including a few in early 2023, totaling more than $139,000.

Most of those contributions went to a handful of political action committees in increments of three and five dollars each. The same PAC is listed as receiving 10 to 15 three and five-dollar donations in a single day from Donor D, day after day.

FEC records show that many of Donor D’s multiple daily contributions were made on consecutive days or there may be an interval of a few days in between. The pattern repeats itself again and again throughout the course of several years.

Effective ‘Fund-Raging’

Eighty-four years old and hard of hearing, Donor D told The Epoch Times that his donating 20 times a day is possible because “We must get rid of the GOP!”

Donor D’s scenario may be a classic illustration of the internet fundraising phenomenon some pundits call “Fund-Raging.”

Fund-Raging is an online solicitation technique in which a single donor is emailed numerous politically or socially incendiary messages, followed by an urgent request for an immediate digital donation.

Donor D said of his online solicitors, “They love me.”

Donor D’s son told The Epoch Times in a phone interview, “My dad was an active donor. I knew that, but it wasn’t something I knew. He can click on any topic.”

Multiple Versions of the Same Name 

The FEC database shows several instances of scores of donations being attributed to a name or address remarkably similar to Donor D’s personal information.

“It raises many questions when thousands of names are listed in official FEC records, donating thousands of dollars each year. Derivations that are clearly derived from these original names also have to be considered.” said Gleason.

Derivations are other entirely separate contribution listings that appear with names and addresses that vary slightly from the main listing in spelling, the use of a middle initial, nickname, house number, street name spelling, or employer.

An individual contributor referred to as Donor E, 72, from Louisiana, is recorded by the FEC as donating 6,554 times in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles with contributions totaling $421,112.

Election Watch researchers discovered other contribution entries attributed to 24 different variations of Donor E’s personal identity information.

“These differences look deliberate. These are not errors that can be corrected in the next year’s report. They are the same year after year.

“These permutations are recognized by the human eye as being slight variants of an original, but a computer reads and treats them as a completely different entry,” Draza Smith is a computer control specialist and licensed engineer who works with the Election Watch team.

“We are seeing the same pattern on the Florida voter registration rolls.”

Smith claimed that she hasn’t found any violations to the campaign contribution limit.

“Maybe name and address derivatives are a way of keeping donors under the limit?” She said.

Computerized?

Gleason stated, “The frequency and sheer volume of the transactions over years makes me think the activity is not likely a little old man clicking his PC’s pay button 50,000 times.

“It is behaviorally impossible to expect thousands of Americans each year to make thousands of donations. It seems like a computer program because it is so structured and methodical.

“The beauty of our study is it is based on the FEC’s own data. When I asked them for an explanation, I heard nothing. What can they say?”

Profiling Donors

Gleason claimed that he and the Election Watch team had profiled hundreds more of the most prolific contributors to the country. They are mostly wealthy donors, the study revealed. “unemployed, elderly, white, flaming liberals that hate Trump,” You can live in affluent areas.

The five mentioned donors come from areas that have homes with values between $240,000 and $800,000.

“They are good prospects for bad actors because these people may not be very computer-savvy or financially vigilant and already have an established record of making numerous online donations.”

Election Watch encourages donors and their families, as well as their relatives, to access the FEC online database to view their listings. All information is public.

Digital payments

“Some of the largest credit card processing services dealing with the collection and distribution of political contributions do not verify credit cards. And some charge a small fee per transaction,” Peter Bernegger (Electricity Watch Investigator) said.

ActBlue (a Democrat fundraising powerhouse) and WinRed (the Republican side) are two of the most popular of these organizations.

An email sent by The Epoch Times to ActBlue was not returned. WinRed was unable to be reached for comment.

Walter Charlton, Maryland attorney and CPA and well-known election integrity crusader Walter Charlton, told The Epoch Times that he hired private investigators to reach his state’s most prolific small donors to find out if they are being used for political donations without their knowledge.