Last Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns issued a powerful decision effectively shutting down Texas Attorney General and Senate candidate Ken Paxton’s naked partisan assault against ActBlue. As AG, starting in December 2023, Paxton began a broad investigation, demanding access to myriad documents at ActBlue’s headquarters in Somerville, Massachusetts, including the identity of donors.

Paxton’s stated purpose was to determine “whether ActBlue’s operations are compliant with all applicable laws.” ActBlue acceded to most of the requests, but filed suit in U.S. District Court in Boston, contending that Paxton’s investigation was a partisan sham.

More from Robert Kuttner

The partisan nature became even clearer after James Talarico became the Democratic Senate candidate and then Paxton’s opponent. As Judge Stearns wrote in his order denying Paxton access, “the timing of events alone speaks volumes about Paxton’s underlying motivation. The investigation against ActBlue sat dormant for more than a year and a half, until the day after Talarico announced his fundraising results.”

In addition, Stearns added, Paxton revealed his true motivation when he attacked ActBlue in campaign-related podcasts and in his own fundraising material against Talarico. “The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations. The lawsuit [against ActBlue] was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund Talarico’s campaign.”

This is good news for ActBlue. But the platform’s troubles are far from over. Two Republican-led House committees, which are more circumspect about their motivations than the blabbermouth Paxton, are intensifying their own investigations. Last week, the prime witness was ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, who repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

So what’s really at work here?

The takedown of ActBlue, if it occurs, would be a temporary setback in the context of the November election.

Since its founding in 2004 by two graduate students, Matt DeBergalis and Ben Rahn, ActBlue has grown into the near-monopoly platform for small political donations in the Democratic ecosystem. Contributions totaling $3.5 billion flowed through its portal in 2024. (Disclosure: The Prospect uses ActBlue to process a small number of recurring donations.)

ActBlue has been under attack from multiple Republicans, including an April 2025 executive order by President Trump calling for its criminal prosecution, but has also been criticized by its own stakeholders for being too careless in its compliance with campaign finance laws, too lax in its policing of PACs that use its platform, and for extensive internal chaos.

During and after the 2020 elections, when all Democratic presidential candidates and countless down-ballot Democrats used its platform, ActBlue suffered growing pains. The staff in its Somerville offices grew from about 40 to nearly 400 in just two years.

In 2022, the small board brought in a new CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones, who has degrees in both electrical engineering and public policy. After a career in Silicon Valley, where she worked for several tech firms including eBay, Facebook, and Yahoo, she also worked as a field organizer in the 2008 Obama campaign and served as mayor of East Palo Alto.

Seemingly, Wallace-Jones had just the right combination of tech and political skills to streamline its platform and rationalize its sprawling staff. But she seems to have been a somewhat autocratic leader and too cavalier about leaving ActBlue vulnerable to the charge of breaking campaign finance laws, as well as less than responsive to long-standing criticisms about how well ActBlue polices the use of its platform.

In 2024, a series of articles published by Sam Stein in The Bulwark detailed scammy emails and text messages soliciting donations to various political action committees via ActBlue. Most of the money ended up in the pockets of PAC organizers. In December 2024, about a hundred leaders of Democratic grassroots groups wrote an open letter to ActBlue asking for better standards and more policing, as well as other reforms such as limits on deceptive hype in fundraising appeals.

General commitments were made, but little change ensued. In August 2025, Adam Bonica, a Stanford-based elections expert, wrote a widely cited investigative piece in his Substack, On Data and Democracy, showing how some sham PACs use ActBlue to deceive donors into giving money to the PAC, nearly all of which goes to the consultants to run the PAC and hardly any to actual candidates. The solicitations, which use ActBlue’s platform, sometimes include fake matches and endorsements.

Critics have also faulted ActBlue as a missed opportunity. “ActBlue has the contact information for the 15 to 20 million people who are most inclined to support Democratic and progressive causes,” says Micah Sifry, who has long covered the intersection of tech and politics. “But instead of working creatively to strengthen the whole Democratic ecosystem it has seen its sole job as making it easier for campaigns to farm those people for money.”

“Imagine if whenever someone donated via ActBlue, they were given the opportunity to connect with like-minded people near them with similar concerns,” Sifry adds, “or if they were shown a calendar of upcoming local civic events. ActBlue could be a true platform rather than a vending machine.”

Such is the dependence of Democratic candidates on ActBlue that none of these deficiencies is likely to destroy the platform. But what might destroy it is its carelessness in complying with campaign finance laws, a lapse that gives legitimacy to what would otherwise be dismissed as pure Republican fishing expeditions.

Today On TAP

This story first appeared in our free Today On TAP newsletter, a weekday email featuring commentary on the daily news from Robert Kuttner and Harold Meyerson.

In March 2025, the organization’s internal conflicts spilled messily into public view. In November 2023, Wallace-Jones had written a detailed letter in response to questions from Rep. Bryan Steil, chair of the Committee on House Administration, providing details on all the steps ActBlue had taken to ensure that no illegal foreign donations passed through its platform. But ActBlue’s outside counsel, the blue-chip law firm Covington & Burling, after a review, sent memos warning that Wallace-Jones’s letter contained many inaccuracies and exposed ActBlue to potential criminal prosecution.

The substance of the allegations was a tempest in a teapot. A relatively small number of possibly foreign donations used prepaid credit cards, gift cards, or third-party apps like Apple Pay, PayPal, or Venmo that could not be traced. In a different era, with criminal prosecution less politicized, ActBlue might have gotten a slap on the wrist.

But in the donnybrook that followed, the entire ActBlue in-house legal staff resigned or was fired, and ActBlue dismissed Covington & Burling. In a shocking move that may have violated attorney-client privilege, Covington’s memos ended up in the hands of The New York Times, giving Covington’s side of the story.

The House Committee staff has written two book-length reports detailing ActBlue’s apparent failure to ensure compliance with the legal prohibition against campaign donations by foreigners, as well as its internal turmoil. After extensive failed negotiations on what additional documents ActBlue would provide to the committee, the result was last week’s hearing at which Wallace-Jones took the Fifth Amendment.

Wallace-Jones has also been criticized for a top-down brand of management and a regal travel style more befitting a tech CEO. She is paid close to a million dollars a year in salary and benefits, nearly four times what her predecessor made as recently as 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal, under Wallace-Jones, outlays on security and travel have exploded from less than $500,000 a year before she took over to nearly $8 million since 2023, and $2.7 million on travel in 2025 alone.

According to the Journal, in one staff retreat last February, ActBlue booked hundreds of rooms at the InterContinental San Francisco. Wallace-Jones was comped in a two-story presidential suite. The organization spent roughly $700,000 for the retreat, according to Federal Election Commission disclosures.

The most damaging outcome would be for the Justice Department to use material unearthed by the House committee for a criminal indictment, say in late October, and to freeze ActBlue’s bank accounts in which donations intended for candidates are temporarily parked. The takedown of ActBlue, if it occurs, would be a temporary setback in the context of the November election—there are plenty of other ways to make campaign contributions. But it would be an unfortunate squandering of infrastructure that took three decades to build.

With Trump in the White House and the attorney general weaponizing criminal prosecutions, it is best not to hand the Justice Department a loaded gun. Democrats deserve better from their own.

Before you go.

I hope that you found this article interesting and thought-provoking. The reason we’re able to publish stories like this — free of programmatic ads and never behind a paywall — is because readers like you step up to support our work. 

The Prospect doesn't answer to advertisers or billionaire owners. We answer to you and to our commitment to pursuing the truth, wherever that leads us. 

Independent, reader-supported journalism is critical at a time when the free press is under assault. 

If you believe this kind of reporting should exist and remain free to read, we hope you'll consider chipping in. Every contribution, however modest, makes a real difference.

David Dayen
Executive Editor