Full text of the official published hearing record. Extracted from the source document — verify against the official record for citation.
[House Hearing, 119 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] PREVENTING FRAUDULENT DONATIONS: TRANSPARENCY, VERIFICATION, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 10, 2026 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] www.govinfo.gov www.cha.house.gov _______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 63-978 WASHINGTON : 2026 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair JOSEPH MORELLE, New York, BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia Ranking Member H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama GREG MURPHY, North Carolina NORMA TORRES, California STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma JULIE JOHNSON, Texas MARY MILLER, Illinois MIKE CAREY, Ohio Mike Platt, Staff Director Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Opening Statements Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin. 1 Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil................... 3 Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of New York....................................................... 4 Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 13 Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan, Representative from the State of Ohio......................................... 14 Prepared statement of Chairman Jim Jordan.................... 15 Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin, Representative from the State of Maryland...................... 16 Prepared statement of Ranking Member Jamie Raskin............ 18 Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Robert Garcia, Representative from the State of California..... 19 Prepared statement of Ranking Member Robert Garcia........... 21 Witnesses Regina Wallace-Jones............................................. 22 Submissions for the Record Letter to Attorney General Paxton................................ 7 Letter to WinRed, Inc............................................ 10 PREVENTING FRAUDULENT DONATIONS: TRANSPARENCY, VERIFICATION, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ---------- June 10, 2026 Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, Murphy, Bice, Carey, Miller, Morelle, Sewell, and Johnson. Also present: Representatives Jordan, Raskin, and Garcia of California. Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins, General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso, Clerk; Sage Dobbs, Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Sam Iacobellis, MInority Senior Advisor; and Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Policy Director. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will come to order. The title of today's hearing is ``Preventing Fraudulent Donations: Transparency, Verification, and Accountability.'' I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. Also without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish to be included therein. Further, without objection, Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Raskin of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will waive on to the Committee on House Administration for this hearing for the purpose of providing opening statements and questions for the witness. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the Committee, and our witnesses, for participating in today's hearing. Let me also thank Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer for joining us today and their partnership in this investigation. We believe in a principle that only Americans should decide American elections. ActBlue has violated that principle. Ms. Wallace-Jones is here today because there is a significant concern that ActBlue may have allowed foreign donations on their platform, lied to Congress, and withheld responsive documents from a congressional subpoena. All three of those actions are illegal. In 2023, I opened an investigation into ActBlue following reports that foreign actors were exploiting the platform to funnel money to--to funnel the money to American political campaigns. As part of that investigation, I sent this letter to ActBlue asking basic questions about its fraud-prevention practices. In response, ActBlue's CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones, wrote to me in this letter, claiming that ActBlue had a robust approach to rooting out potential foreign contributions. However, according to The New York Times, ActBlue's outside legal counsel reviewed Ms. Wallace-Jones's response and found that it proposed--that it posed a substantial risk for ActBlue. Specifically, the concern was that Ms. Wallace-Jones's letters may have been false or misleading. In her letter, Ms. Wallace-Jones identified three steps ActBlue takes to prevent foreign donations: One, donors using a foreign address must provide U.S. passport information. Two, if a contribution appears to be from a foreign address, ActBlue contacts the donor to request U.S. passport information. And, three, the contribution is refunded if ActBlue is unable to contact the donor. The New York Times reported that ActBlue's outside counsel determined those three steps are not always followed. In fact, outside counsel warned that passport information was never requested for transactions made through third-party apps like PayPal and Venmo. Outside counsel also warned ActBlue that some of the funds received were impermissible contributions from foreign nationals. This Committee issued subpoenas for documents related to fraudulent and foreign donations and alleged misconduct by ActBlue staff. The documents provided by ActBlue revealed alarming directives from its leadership to lower fraud standards. In ActBlue meeting notes turned over to this Committee, staff were instructed, quote, ``Remember that we want to look for reasons to accept contributions. Do not reject contributions for a single suspicious characteristic. Look for the forest and not the trees,'' end quote. According to those same notes, ActBlue staff was told that this guidance was ``a bit antithetical'' to prior feedback about contributions deemed highly suspicious. Further, an ActBlue memo titled ``Fraud Prevention 101 for New Associates in the Workflow'' advises that, quote, ``if an otherwise-legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donation,'' end quote. We have additional evidence of ActBlue detecting at least 22 significant fraud campaigns. Nine of those fraud campaigns had a foreign nexus. After receiving this information, we deposed and interviewed five former ActBlue employees. When deposed, ActBlue employees refused to answer a single question. Instead, they invoked the Fifth Amendment 146 times. We gave ActBlue employees an opportunity to answer our questions, but they refused. Now, Ms. Wallace-Jones, you have a real opportunity to explain how this occurred. Ms. Wallace-Jones agreed--originally agreed to appear voluntarily before us this morning, but late Monday afternoon, her lawyers requested a subpoena in order for her to appear. A subpoena was provided. Ms. Wallace-Jones is now before us. I look forward to your answers to our questions. Congress and the American people deserve the truth. With that, I will now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for the purpose of his opening statement. [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the Committee, and our witnesses, for participating in today's hearing. Let me also thank Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer for joining us today and their partnership in this investigation. We believe in a principle that only Americans should decide American elections. ActBlue has violated that principle. Ms. Wallace Jones is here today because there is a significant concern that ActBlue may have allowed foreign donations on their platform, lied to Congress, and withheld responsive documents from a congressional subpoena. All three of those actions are illegal. In 2023, I opened an investigation into ActBlue following reports that foreign actors were exploiting the platform to funnel money to--to funnel the money to American political campaigns. As part of that investigation, I sent this letter to ActBlue asking basic questions about its fraud prevention practices. In response, ActBlue's CEO, Regina Wallace Jones, wrote to me in this letter, claiming that ActBlue had a robust approach to rooting out potential foreign contributions. However, according to The New York Times, ActBlue's outside legal counsel reviewed Ms. Wallace Jones's response and found that it proposed--that it posed a substantial risk for ActBlue. Specifically, the concern was that Ms. Wallace Jones's letters may have been false or misleading. In her letter, Ms. Wallace Jones identified three steps ActBlue takes to prevent foreign donations: One, donors using a foreign address must provide U.S. passport information. Two, if a contribution appears to be from a foreign address, ActBlue contacts the donor to request U.S. passport information. And, three, the contribution is refunded if ActBlue is unable to contact the donor. The New York Times reported that ActBlue's outside counsel determined those three steps are not always followed. In fact, outside counsel warned that passport information was never requested for transactions made through third-party apps like PayPal and Venmo. Outside counsel also warned ActBlue that some of the funds received were impermissible contributions from foreign nationals. This Committee issued subpoenas for documents related to fraudulent and foreign donations and alleged misconduct by ActBlue staff. The documents provided by ActBlue revealed alarming directives from its leadership to lower fraud standards. In ActBlue meeting notes turned over to this Committee, staff were instructed, quote, ``Remember that we want to look for reasons to accept contributions. Do not reject contributions for a single suspicious characteristic. Look for the forest and not the trees,'' end quote. According to those same notes, ActBlue staff was told that this guidance was ``a bit antithetical'' to prior feedback about contributions deemed highly suspicious. Further, an ActBlue memo titled ``Fraud Prevention 101 for New Associates in the Workflow'' advises that, quote, ``if an otherwise legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donation,'' end quote. We have additional evidence of ActBlue detecting at least 22 significant fraud campaigns. Nine of those fraud campaigns had a foreign nexus. After receiving this information, we deposed and interviewed five former ActBlue employees. When deposed, ActBlue employees refused to answer a single question. Instead, they invoked the Fifth Amendment 146 times. We gave ActBlue employees an opportunity to answer our questions, but they refused. Now, Ms. Wallace Jones, you have a real opportunity to explain how this occurred. Ms. Wallace Jones agreed--originally agreed to appear voluntarily before us this morning, but late Monday afternoon, her lawyers requested a subpoena in order for her to appear. A subpoena was provided. Ms. Wallace Jones is now before us. I look forward to your answers to our questions. Congress and the American people deserve the truth. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The integrity of our democracy depends on the integrity of our campaign finance system. Corruption in campaigns yields corruption in Government. When corporations and billionaires can buy politicians, Americans everywhere recognize that our campaign finance system is corrupt. The proof is right in front of us. The President's campaign accepted piles and piles of dark money from corporations and billionaires while Republicans cheered him on. In fact, the nonpartisan professional staff at the Federal Elections Commission found potential campaign finance violations in 32 instances involving President Trump. Yet, in all 32, Republican FEC Commissioners blocked any investigation into potential violations of law. Knowing that Republicans will shield them from accountability, the administration is awash with insider trading and self-enrichment. Look no further than the $1.8- billion slush fund, a fund to reward criminals who assaulted Capitol Police officers on January 6th, the President is trying to force on the American people. Look no further than the Republican majority, which slashed healthcare for millions of Americans while cutting taxes for their billionaire donors. The American people understand that Congressional Republicans and this administration willingly tolerate corruption when it benefits them. It is outrageous but hardly surprising that this Republican majority has flat-out refused to investigate critical, credible reports of fraud, abuse, and corruption on the Republican fundraising platform WinRed--refused to investigate WinRed for facilitating documented illegal foreign contributions that flowed through WinRed to President Trump's campaign. Why haven't Republicans attempted to investigate the Chinese national who reportedly contributed thousands to President Trump via WinRed? According to public reporting, a Chinese businessman illegally contributed $5,000 to the Trump campaign in 2024. What do House Republicans have to say about this corruption? Not a word. Deafening silence. It does not end there. Public reporting shows that WinRed, quote, ``victimized hundreds of elderly Americans and misled those battling dementia.'' An examination of a Trump campaign account shows that numerous donors listed their address as ``999 Anonymous Drive'' when contributing to the President. That is clear evidence of fraud. Those donors could be foreign nationals. These donors possibly committed crimes. House Republicans have done nothing to investigate that. The cost of corruption is real. It hurts Americans in so many ways, including their bank accounts. President Trump simply does not care about regular Americans. Do not believe me? Take him at his word. The President conceded just last month he does not think about the financial pain of American citizens. Yet House Republicans will do anything to protect him, even as gas and grocery prices skyrocket, as our economy crumbles and Americans lose faith in their ability to achieve the American Dream. Republicans will not investigate the clear pattern of fraud and criminality on WinRed, precisely because the fraud benefits Donald Trump, because the money goes to the Trump campaign and to other Republican campaigns. Republicans' investigation today is not about safeguarding American elections. It is not about protecting American voters. It is about punishing enemies of the President and shielding his allies. This all fits a pattern. Just look at this corrupt DOJ's vindictive, politically motivated prosecutions, which have been repeatedly thrown out of court. Just look at the President's attempted slush fund for insurrectionists and criminals, for people who violently attacked police. The corruption is visible to everyone, but Republicans refuse to do anything to end it. Owing to the majority's dereliction of duty, House Democrats have stepped into the gap. We sent a letter asking the Treasury Department for information related to financial irregularities on WinRed. We sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission seeking information on allegations of fraud and abuse on WinRed. The Trump administration stonewalled both requests. We sent letters to the Republican attorneys general of Virginia and Texas seeking information on potential crimes committed by WinRed. Neither responded. This morning, we sent a letter to WinRed asking for information related to foreign contributions and fraud on their platform. Critically, our letter made it clear that WinRed must retain all information relevant to future investigations into fraud, abuse, or criminality on behalf of WinRed. When there is clear evidence of fraud, deceptive fundraising methods, or potential foreign contributions in American elections, Congress has a duty to investigate. House Republicans have not taken that duty seriously, but next year, rest assured, Committee Democrats will. The American people deserve confidence that our elections belong to Americans, not to foreign actors, not to fraudsters, and not to special interests. That is the standard Congress should demand. It is the standard House Democrats will uphold next year. Before I yield back, I would ask for unanimous consent to enter two things into the record: the June 1st letter Ranking Members Raskin, Garcia, and I sent to Attorney General Paxton regarding WinRed; and today's letter to WinRed seeking documents and a transcribed interview. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman Steil. Without objection, so ordered. [The letters referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE The integrity of our democracy depends on the integrity of our campaign finance system. Corruption in campaigns yields corruption in Government. When corporations and billionaires can buy politicians, Americans everywhere recognize that our campaign finance system is corrupt. The proof is right in front of us. The President's campaign accepted piles and piles of dark money from corporations and billionaires while Republicans cheered him on. In fact, the nonpartisan professional staff at the Federal Elections Commission found potential campaign finance violations in 32 instances involving President Trump. Yet, in all 32, Republican FEC Commissioners blocked any investigation into potential violations of law. Knowing that Republicans will shield them from accountability, the administration is awash with insider trading and self enrichment. Look no further than the $1.8 billion slush fund, a fund to reward criminals who assaulted Capitol Police officers on January 6th, the President is trying to force on the American people. Look no further than the Republican majority, which slashed healthcare for millions of Americans while cutting taxes for their billionaire donors. The American people understand that Congressional Republicans and this administration willingly tolerate corruption when it benefits them. It is outrageous but hardly surprising that this Republican majority has flat out refused to investigate critical, credible reports of fraud, abuse, and corruption on the Republican fundraising platform WinRed--refused to investigate WinRed for facilitating documented illegal foreign contributions that flowed through WinRed to President Trump's campaign. Why haven't Republicans attempted to investigate the Chinese national who reportedly contributed thousands to President Trump via WinRed? According to public reporting, a Chinese businessman illegally contributed $5,000 to the Trump campaign in 2024. What do House Republicans have to say about this corruption? Not a word. Deafening silence. It does not end there. Public reporting shows that WinRed, quote, ``victimized hundreds of elderly Americans and misled those battling dementia.'' An examination of a Trump campaign account shows that numerous donors listed their address as ``999 Anonymous Drive'' when contributing to the President. That is clear evidence of fraud. Those donors could be foreign nationals. These donors possibly committed crimes. House Republicans have done nothing to investigate that. The cost of corruption is real. It hurts Americans in so many ways, including their bank accounts. President Trump simply does not care about regular Americans. Do not believe me? Take him at his word. The President conceded just last month he does not think about the financial pain of American citizens. Yet House Republicans will do anything to protect him, even as gas and grocery prices skyrocket, as our economy crumbles and Americans lose faith in their ability to achieve the American Dream. Republicans will not investigate the clear pattern of fraud and criminality on WinRed, precisely because the fraud benefits Donald Trump, because the money goes to the Trump campaign and to other Republican campaigns. Republicans' investigation today is not about safeguarding American elections. It is not about protecting American voters. It is about punishing enemies of the President and shielding his allies. This all fits a pattern. Just look at this corrupt DOJ's vindictive, politically motivated prosecutions, which have been repeatedly thrown out of court. Just look at the President's attempted slush fund for insurrectionists and criminals, for people who violently attacked police. The corruption is visible to everyone, but Republicans refuse to do anything to end it. Owing to the majority's dereliction of duty, House Democrats have stepped into the gap. We sent a letter asking the Treasury Department for information related to financial irregularities on WinRed. We sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission seeking information on allegations of fraud and abuse on WinRed. The Trump administration stonewalled both requests. We sent letters to the Republican attorneys general of Virginia and Texas seeking information on potential crimes committed by WinRed. Neither responded. This morning, we sent a letter to WinRed asking for information related to foreign contributions and fraud on their platform. Critically, our letter made it clear that WinRed must retain all information relevant to future investigations into fraud, abuse, or criminality on behalf of WinRed. When there is clear evidence of fraud, deceptive fundraising methods, or potential foreign contributions in American elections, Congress has a duty to investigate. House Republicans have not taken that duty seriously, but next year, rest assured, Committee Democrats will. The American people deserve confidence that our elections belong to Americans, not to foreign actors, not to fraudsters, and not to special interests. That is the standard Congress should demand. It is the standard House Democrats will uphold next year. Before I yield back, I would ask for unanimous consent to enter two things into the record: the June 1st letter Ranking Members Raskin, Garcia, and I sent to Attorney General Paxton regarding WinRed; and today's letter to WinRed seeking documents and a transcribed interview. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman Steil. I now yield 5 minutes to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan, for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM JORDAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ``Everything is fine. Everything is fine. We are not taking foreign contributions.'' That is what Ms. Wallace-Jones said in November 2023, responding to a letter from the Chairman. She said, ``Passport information is required from donors providing an address outside the United States.'' Quote, ``We have multi-layered screenings in place to root out foreign contributions.'' She put it in a letter--put it in writing in a letter to Congress. Now, the only problem is, ActBlue's outside counsel, as the Chairman said, sent a memo to Ms. Wallace-Jones where they said things were a little different than what she described to Congress. They said ActBlue's response to Congress was not entirely accurate. They said, quote, ``ActBlue did not have the rigor in its review of overseas donations that was required or that it described to Congress.'' Quote, ``There is a substantial risk some of the funds were impermissible contributions from foreign nationals.'' And, ``ActBlue's staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary,'' making these contributions appear-- listen here--``knowing and willful''--there is intent right there--``knowing and willful'' and ``an effort to conceal.'' Wow. Knowing and willful, not entirely accurate response to Congress, in an effort to conceal. You know what they call that? They call that lying. The question is, who are you going to believe, the law firm or ActBlue? Now, a few things to consider when you are asking--when you are evaluating that question that we have uncovered, the committees have uncovered. First, there is just the general suspicious activity: foreign IP addresses with 237 contributions in 1 day; 1,700 transactions in 7 days where the donor's country did not match the country of the donor's IP address. That seems fishy. Second, the documents the Committee obtained--obtained did not square with Ms. Wallace-Jones's response to Congress. We had one ActBlue employee who in an email said, ``Changes we have made over the last year have already meant we are accepting more fraud.'' There was already some fraud; they changed their standards so they were accepting more fraud. ActBlue Board Member Kimberly Peeler-Allen admitted up to, quote, ``$38 million in ActBlue contributions in 2024 had signs of a foreign origin.'' Third, as the Chairman said, there were five people on the fraud-prevention team at ActBlue who were concerned about foreign contributions, and all five have either resigned, been fired, or been placed on leave--all five. The manager of the day-to-day fraud prevention? Resigned. Vice president of customer service in charge of fraud prevention for 2024? Resigned. Top lawyers at ActBlue: General counsel Darrin Hurwitz? Fired. Given a $170,000 severance package as long as he did not say anything without first checking with ActBlue. Aaron Ting, associate general counsel? Resigned. ActBlue refuses to give us, even though we have asked for it, his resignation letter. Legal counsel Zain Ahmad resigns after being retaliated against for blowing the whistle to the board about what was going on. As the Chairman mentioned, we deposed all five of them, and every single one of them, 146 times, took the Fifth. This is a tale as old as time. You get caught doing something wrong, and when you are questioned about it, you deny it. When evidence emerges and questions persist, you take the Fifth--take the Fifth. Now, why would all that happen? Why would all that happen? Well, I think there is probably 3.8 billion reasons why all that happened: $3.8 billion ActBlue took in in the 2024 election cycle. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money. We know that there is something going on here, and that is why the investigation persists. Our investigation is different than what the Justice Department's doing, but we appreciate what they are doing too. Mostly, I want to thank this Committee. I want to thank Chairman Steil and this Committee for the work they have done. But for that letter sent, we might not have figured this out. I appreciate the Chairman and the good work he is doing. I yield back. [The prepared statement of Chairman Jordan follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JIM JORDAN ``Everything is fine. Everything is fine. We are not taking foreign contributions.'' That is what Ms. Wallace Jones said in November 2023, responding to a letter from the Chairman. She said, ``Passport information is required from donors providing an address outside the United States.'' Quote, ``We have multi-layered screenings in place to root out foreign contributions.'' She put it in a letter--put it in writing in a letter to Congress. Now, the only problem is, ActBlue's outside counsel, as the Chairman said, sent a memo to Ms. Wallace Jones where they said things were a little different than what she described to Congress. They said ActBlue's response to Congress was not entirely accurate. They said, quote, ``ActBlue did not have the rigor in its review of overseas donations that was required or that it described to Congress.'' Quote, ``There is a substantial risk some of the funds were impermissible contributions from foreign nationals.'' And, ``ActBlue's staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary,'' making these contributions appear-- listen here--``knowing and willful''--there is intent right there--``knowing and willful'' and ``an effort to conceal.'' Wow. Knowing and willful, not entirely accurate response to Congress, in an effort to conceal. You know what they call that? They call that lying. The question is, who are you going to believe, the law firm or ActBlue? Now, a few things to consider when you are asking--when you are evaluating that question that we have uncovered, the committees have uncovered. First, there is just the general suspicious activity: foreign IP addresses with 237 contributions in 1 day; 1,700 transactions in 7 days where the donor's country did not match the country of the donor's IP address. That seems fishy. Second, the documents the Committee obtained--obtained did not square with Ms. Wallace Jones's response to Congress. We had one ActBlue employee who in an email said, ``Changes we have made over the last year have already meant we are accepting more fraud.'' There was already some fraud; they changed their standards so they were accepting more fraud. ActBlue Board Member Kimberly Peeler Allen admitted up to, quote, ``$38 million in ActBlue contributions in 2024 had signs of a foreign origin.'' Third, as the Chairman said, there were five people on the fraud prevention team at ActBlue who were concerned about foreign contributions, and all five have either resigned, been fired, or been placed on leave--all five. The manager of the day to day fraud prevention? Resigned. Vice president of customer service in charge of fraud prevention for 2024? Resigned. Top lawyers at ActBlue: General counsel Darrin Hurwitz? Fired. Given a $170,000 severance package as long as he did not say anything without first checking with ActBlue. Aaron Ting, associate general counsel? Resigned. ActBlue refuses to give us, even though we have asked for it, his resignation letter. Legal counsel Zain Ahmad resigns after being retaliated against for blowing the whistle to the board about what was going on. As the Chairman mentioned, we deposed all five of them, and every single one of them, 146 times, took the Fifth. This is a tale as old as time. You get caught doing something wrong, and when you are questioned about it, you deny it. When evidence emerges and questions persist, you take the Fifth--take the Fifth. Now, why would all that happen? Why would all that happen? Well, I think there is probably 3.8 billion reasons why all that happened: $3.8 billion ActBlue took in in the 2024 election cycle. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of money. We know that there is something going on here, and that is why the investigation persists. Our investigation is different than what the Justice Department's doing, but we appreciate what they are doing too. Mostly, I want to thank this Committee. I want to thank Chairman Steil and this Committee for the work they have done. But for that letter sent, we might not have figured this out. I appreciate the Chairman and the good work he is doing. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMIE RASKIN, RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Morelle, for the invitation. It is great to be back here in the intimate quarters of the House Administration Committee. The hearing is called ``Preventing Fraudulent Donations: Transparency, Verification, and Accountability.'' That sounds like a valuable inquiry to me. The problem is that, as we all know, that is not what the hearing is really about. If it were, our colleagues would have first demanded testimony from the CEO of WinRed, the fundraising platform that has generated hundreds and hundreds of serious fraud complaints from individual Americans, mostly Republicans, including a lot of elderly Americans and Americans with disabilities, who say they have been robbed blind, hoodwinked by WinRed, in many cases fleeced out of their life savings. The Republican chairs of our three committees have repeatedly refused to conduct any oversight or investigation into the WinRed platform that processes donations for over 7,800 GOP campaigns and committees across the United States, including all the GOP Senators and 97 percent of GOP House Members. Well, that is just not a serious approach to the problem. This hearing is really part of a political vengeance and vendetta campaign that, yesterday, came to the House Judiciary Committee in the form of a 4-hour hearing interrogating the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. After the 2020 election, banks and credit-card issuers estimated that WinRed fraud cases constituted as much as 3 percent of their total national fraud workload across all transactions. That is a shockingly large share given that there are 150 million credit-card transactions that American consumers and businesses engage in every single day in the country. Between January 2022 and June 2024, the FTC received more than 800 complaints about WinRed--nearly 7 times the number it got about ActBlue. In the final months of 2020 alone, the Trump campaign, RNC, and their shared accounts had to issue more than 530,000 refunds worth more than $64 million. That is more than 11 times the amount that the Biden campaign and the Democratic committees had to refund. Yet who have the administration and our GOP colleagues focused on exclusively from the beginning? ActBlue, the company that primarily processes contributions for Democratic campaigns around the country. Last April, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the AG and Treasury to, quote, ``use all lawful authority to investigate ActBlue,'' which, according to the White House, facilitated `` `straw' or `dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees.'' As Americans can see each day, every accusation by this administration is an admission; every allegation, a confession; every charge, a self-indictment. The arraignment of ActBlue is an admission about WinRed's continuing, serious fraud against their donors. An Associated Press review of President Trump's political committees found more than 1,600 contributions from unverified donors who lived abroad, had close ties to foreign interests, or failed to disclose basic identifying information. Many of those contributions came through WinRed. AP reported that one Chinese businessman gave $5,000 to Trump through WinRed while listing a La Quinta Inn as his home address. Other contributions came from unnamed donors listing ``999 Anonymous Drive'' as their address. Another series of WinRed contributions listed the donor's address as a vacant building in Washington that turned out to be a defunct funeral home. Where is all of the righteous outrage about these abuses? Where is the mobilization of taxpayer resources to investigate WinRed? Where is Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives for bribery, securities fraud, abuse of office, and obstruction of justice? Attorney General Paxton sued ActBlue in April, but his office has ignored complaint after complaint from Texas constituents about the allegations of fraud and abuse related to WinRed. Who are the victims of WinRed that Ken Paxton deliberately ignores? Well, one Texas woman tried to make small, one-time contributions to Republican candidates that she supported. WinRed emptied more than $15,000 out of her bank account, including charging her account 29 times in 1 day. She wrote to Attorney General Paxton that she, quote, ``did not realize they were sucking my life savings out of my bank account.'' He never even wrote her back. If that is how partisan Republicans treat Republicans, you can imagine how they are going to treat everybody else in the country. [The Chairman bangs the gavel.] Mr. Raskin. You do not want me to discuss these other complainants in Texas? Chairman Steil. The gentleman's--the gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Raskin. Oh. OK. [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Raskin follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE JAMIE RASKIN Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Morelle, for the invitation. It is great to be back here in the intimate quarters of the House Administration Committee. The hearing is called ``Preventing Fraudulent Donations: Transparency, Verification, and Accountability.'' That sounds like a valuable inquiry to me. The problem is that, as we all know, that is not what the hearing is really about. If it were, our colleagues would have first demanded testimony from the CEO of WinRed, the fundraising platform that has generated hundreds and hundreds of serious fraud complaints from individual Americans, mostly Republicans, including a lot of elderly Americans and Americans with disabilities, who say they have been robbed blind, hoodwinked by WinRed, in many cases fleeced out of their life savings. The Republican chairs of our three committees have repeatedly refused to conduct any oversight or investigation into the WinRed platform that processes donations for over 7,800 GOP campaigns and committees across the United States, including all the GOP Senators and 97 percent of GOP House Members. Well, that is just not a serious approach to the problem. This hearing is really part of a political vengeance and vendetta campaign that, yesterday, came to the House Judiciary Committee in the form of a 4 hour hearing interrogating the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. After the 2020 election, banks and credit card issuers estimated that WinRed fraud cases constituted as much as 3 percent of their total national fraud workload across all transactions. That is a shockingly large share given that there are 150 million credit card transactions that American consumers and businesses engage in every single day in the country. Between January 2022 and June 2024, the FTC received more than 800 complaints about WinRed--nearly 7 times the number it got about ActBlue. In the final months of 2020 alone, the Trump campaign, RNC, and their shared accounts had to issue more than 530,000 refunds worth more than $64 million. That is more than 11 times the amount that the Biden campaign and the Democratic committees had to refund. Yet who have the administration and our GOP colleagues focused on exclusively from the beginning? ActBlue, the company that primarily processes contributions for Democratic campaigns around the country. Last April, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the AG and Treasury to, quote, ``use all lawful authority to investigate ActBlue,'' which, according to the White House, facilitated `` `straw' or `dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees.'' As Americans can see each day, every accusation by this administration is an admission; every allegation, a confession; every charge, a self indictment. The arraignment of ActBlue is an admission about WinRed's continuing, serious fraud against their donors. An Associated Press review of President Trump's political committees found more than 1,600 contributions from unverified donors who lived abroad, had close ties to foreign interests, or failed to disclose basic identifying information. Many of those contributions came through WinRed. AP reported that one Chinese businessman gave $5,000 to Trump through WinRed while listing a La Quinta Inn as his home address. Other contributions came from unnamed donors listing ``999 Anonymous Drive'' as their address. Another series of WinRed contributions listed the donor's address as a vacant building in Washington that turned out to be a defunct funeral home. Where is all of the righteous outrage about these abuses? Where is the mobilization of taxpayer resources to investigate WinRed? Where is Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives for bribery, securities fraud, abuse of office, and obstruction of justice? Attorney General Paxton sued ActBlue in April, but his office has ignored complaint after complaint from Texas constituents about the allegations of fraud and abuse related to WinRed. Who are the victims of WinRed that Ken Paxton deliberately ignores? Well, one Texas woman tried to make small, one time contributions to Republican candidates that she supported. WinRed emptied more than $15,000 out of her bank account, including charging her account 29 times in 1 day. She wrote to Attorney General Paxton that she, quote, ``did not realize they were sucking my life savings out of my bank account.'' He never even wrote her back. If that is how partisan Republicans treat Republicans, you can imagine how they are going to treat everybody else in the country. Chairman Steil. The Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Garcia, is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT GARCIA, RANKING MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA Mr. Garcia of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate being here. I want to just begin by echoing, of course, Ranking Member Morelle and Ranking Member Raskin. Look, the biggest fraud in this country that we should be talking about is happening at the White House. We are not talking about the $1.8-billion slush fund. We are not talking about the clear selling or influence of pardons and what is happening at the White House. We are not talking about the $2 billion that Jared Kushner got 2 months after leaving the White House foreign investment fund that is made no return. We are not talking about the possible Trump-family pay- to-play schemes and scandals that are happening across the world as President Trump tries to do diplomacy and the Trump family follows up with real estate deals. We are here because Republicans want to talk about ActBlue, not because they are serious about strengthening campaign finance laws or actually strengthening the abuse or fraud in this country. Now, we should all support and work to strengthen security, prevent fraud, stop interference in foreign elections. Certainly, if there are ways to improve platforms across this country, public or private, that should be the focus. If Republicans were serious about that goal, they would not be exclusively focused on ActBlue. They would also be examining the WinRed platform with the exact same level of scrutiny. Now, a real investigation into WinRed would raise serious questions. The Trump campaign, as has been mentioned, through WinRed, has accepted thousands of contributions that reportedly lacked basic identifying information required under campaign finance law. Now, according to reporting, President Trump received more than 1,000 contributions that omitted key identifying information, such as city, State, address, county. He also received contributions from donors whose names were incomplete, listed as ``Anonymous,'' or marked ``Name not provided.'' There are concerns. Sure, there are concerns about foreign-source donations, as well, as it relates to WinRed. Now, one example involved a Chinese businessman whose contribution to the Trump campaign listed an address in La Quinta (sic), California. Now, public records identified him as actually living in China and described him as a Chinese national. Now, if Republicans are concerned about foreign money in politics, they should be investigating those allegations with the same enthusiasm that they are bringing to ActBlue. Perhaps the most troubling allegations involving WinRed actually do not even concern foreign money. They concern WinRed victimizing American donors themselves--in fact, Republican donors, as was raised by Ranking Member Raskin. Now, CNN reported that there was one 82-year-old woman, living in a modest Baltimore apartment, who unknowingly gave more than $350,000 to Republican causes through recurring donations. Another donor, an 80-year-old Californian, who later died of lung cancer, contributed more than $180,000 and just had $250 left in her bank account when she passed away. Now, these stories raise real concerns about WinRed's use of pre-checked recurring-donation boxes and confusing solicitations that many consumers--seniors and others--have had a hard time understanding. Now, according to CNN, WinRed has been the subject of hundreds of complaints to the Federal Trade Commission--far more, by the way, than comparable complaints involving any Democratic fundraising platforms. Yet it is interesting that we are only focused on ActBlue. Now, WinRed also faced scrutiny over aggressive text- messaging practices, and multiple State attorneys general have investigated its recurring-donation policies. Yet today's hearing ignores, of course, all of that, because this is not a serious effort to improve campaign finance compliance. It is a partisan exercise designed to protect Donald Trump, to protect WinRed, and attack Democrats and political opponents. If this Committee wants a real investigation into campaign fundraising practices, let us examine everyone and let us follow the facts where they lead, not pretend to have some kind of investigation that only really is going after one side. With that, I yield back. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Garcia of California follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE ROBERT GARCIA Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate being here. I want to just begin by echoing, of course, Ranking Member Morelle and Ranking Member Raskin. Look, the biggest fraud in this country that we should be talking about is happening at the White House. We are not talking about the $1.8 billion slush fund. We are not talking about the clear selling or influence of pardons and what is happening at the White House. We are not talking about the $2 billion that Jared Kushner got 2 months after leaving the White House foreign investment fund that is made no return. We are not talking about the possible Trump family pay to play schemes and scandals that are happening across the world as President Trump tries to do diplomacy and the Trump family follows up with real estate deals. We are here because Republicans want to talk about ActBlue, not because they are serious about strengthening campaign finance laws or actually strengthening the abuse or fraud in this country. Now, we should all support and work to strengthen security, prevent fraud, stop interference in foreign elections. Certainly, if there are ways to improve platforms across this country, public or private, that should be the focus. If Republicans were serious about that goal, they would not be exclusively focused on ActBlue. They would also be examining the WinRed platform with the exact same level of scrutiny. Now, a real investigation into WinRed would raise serious questions. The Trump campaign, as has been mentioned, through WinRed, has accepted thousands of contributions that reportedly lacked basic identifying information required under campaign finance law. Now, according to reporting, President Trump received more than 1,000 contributions that omitted key identifying information, such as city, State, address, county. He also received contributions from donors whose names were incomplete, listed as ``Anonymous,'' or marked ``Name not provided.'' There are concerns. Sure, there are concerns about foreign source donations, as well, as it relates to WinRed. Now, one example involved a Chinese businessman whose contribution to the Trump campaign listed an address in La Quinta (sic), California. Now, public records identified him as actually living in China and described him as a Chinese national. Now, if Republicans are concerned about foreign money in politics, they should be investigating those allegations with the same enthusiasm that they are bringing to ActBlue. Perhaps the most troubling allegations involving WinRed actually do not even concern foreign money. They concern WinRed victimizing American donors themselves--in fact, Republican donors, as was raised by Ranking Member Raskin. Now, CNN reported that there was one 82-year-old woman, living in a modest Baltimore apartment, who unknowingly gave more than $350,000 to Republican causes through recurring donations. Another donor, an 80-year-old Californian, who later died of lung cancer, contributed more than $180,000 and just had $250 left in her bank account when she passed away. Now, these stories raise real concerns about WinRed's use of pre-checked recurring-donation boxes and confusing solicitations that many consumers--seniors and others--have had a hard time understanding. Now, according to CNN, WinRed has been the subject of hundreds of complaints to the Federal Trade Commission--far more, by the way, than comparable complaints involving any Democratic fundraising platforms. Yet it is interesting that we are only focused on ActBlue. Now, WinRed also faced scrutiny over aggressive text messaging practices, and multiple State attorneys general have investigated its recurring donation policies. Yet today's hearing ignores, of course, all of that, because this is not a serious effort to improve campaign finance compliance. It is a partisan exercise designed to protect Donald Trump, to protect WinRed, and attack Democrats and political opponents. If this Committee wants a real investigation into campaign fundraising practices, let us examine everyone and let us follow the facts where they lead, not pretend to have some kind of investigation that only really is going after one side. With that, I yield back. Thank you. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. Without objection, all other Members' opening statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today. As our witness today, we have Ms. Regina Wallace-Jones, the CEO of ActBlue. Ms. Wallace-Jones, will you please stand and raise your right hand? [Witness sworn.] Chairman Steil. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. I will begin our questions today, followed by the Ranking Member. Foreign funds have no place in American political campaigns. American elections are for American citizens only. Ms. Wallace-Jones, in 2023, I sent you this letter with five straightforward questions with a goal of confirming that foreign funds are not in our elections and that ActBlue had adequate fraud-prevention measures in place. You replied a month later with a four-page letter describing your fraud-prevention policies and procedures that you had in place at ActBlue. According to The New York Times, your response to this Committee may have been false and misleading. Ms. Wallace-Jones, when you signed this letter to me, did you believe that this letter was false and misleading? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. Ms. Wallace-Jones, before you sent this letter, did you believe--was it--was it brought to your attention that this letter that you sent me was false and misleading? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. Well, I think it is important for everybody here to know that, according to The New York Times, you have been aware for quite a while that the response you made was likely false or misleading. Did you ever consider correcting the record for this Committee when it was brought to your attention that your letter to me was false and misleading? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. It is pretty interesting. Now you are following the advice of your legal counsel, but you did not when they warned you that your letter to me was false and misleading. Your letter claimed that passport information is required from donors providing an address outside the United States. In November 2023, when you wrote that letter, did every ActBlue donation that provided an address outside the United States require passport information? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. OK. Your letter also claimed that ActBlue would contact a donor to request passport information if the contribution appeared to be from a foreign address. You told this Committee that the contribution would be refunded if ActBlue was unable to make contact with the donor. Is that correct? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. Well, we have reason to believe that your letter in 2023 was not correct, because, according to The New York Times, donations that were made through third-party apps like PayPal or Venmo--that passport information was not always required. What is true, the 2023 letter you sent me or the New York Times article? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. After you sent me the 2023 letter, ActBlue weakened its fraud-prevention rules twice in 2024, quote, ``even after internal assessments confirmed that these policy changes would lead to more fraudulent donations,'' end quote. Did you weaken fraud-prevention standards to increase donations on the ActBlue platform? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. Ms. Wallace-Jones, I want to make clear for the hearing record, you have been asked legitimate questions that are intended to elicit information the Committee has the right to have to aid our inquiry. You have refused to answer the questions. Are you formally asserting your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination today? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Chairman Steil. For the record, I think it is important to know that we invited you to come here today to testify. Originally, you were coming voluntarily. On Monday, your attorneys reached out to this Committee and requested a subpoena for you to testify. We provided you that subpoena. You are here today. You have an opportunity to testify. You have chosen to take your Fifth Amendment constitutional right. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking his questions. Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When it comes to upholding the integrity of American elections, when it comes to protecting and defending the rule of law, sadly, Republicans are absent without leave. Distracted by their pretextual, partisan investigation into Democratic fundraising, Republicans ignored the fire raging in their own house. If Republicans on this Committee, afraid of crossing Donald Trump, refuse to investigate this corruption, Democrats will. Let us begin with the Chinese businessman who used WinRed to illegally funnel money to President Trump. Public reporting indicated that Jiajun ``Jack'' Zhang, a jet-setting Chinese businessman, used WinRed to illegally send $5,000 to President Trump's campaign, listing a California hotel as his address. How did WinRed's internal legal compliance system allow this? Why was not this contribution and potentially scores of others like it blocked? Committee Republicans do not seem to care about the answers to these questions, so Democrats have stepped up. We began our own investigation. What did we find? Democrats found that, while Mr. Zhang was corruptly funneling money through WinRed, he was allegedly involved in a poker tournament at a casino that once owed a $3.1-million settlement to the California Justice Department for violating the Bank Secrecy Act--a casino that also paid, incidentally, a $2.8-million penalty to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a casino that, on a separate occasion, admitted that it failed to properly follow Federal anti-money-laundering laws. What was this Chinese national who we know was channeling illegal money to President Trump really doing at the casino? Who was he meeting with? Why do House Republicans refuse to investigate this egregious violation of Federal law? Is it because the corrupt, illegal money flowed through WinRed to President Trump? Let us take another example. A no-doubt-imaginary person identified only as ``Alex A.'' gave nearly $5,000 to President Trump's campaign in 2024 through WinRed. This Alex person listed an address, 420 H Street NE, just a few blocks from where we are sitting right now. This was not a one-off mistake or a clerical error. This was someone using a false name to explicitly break the law, to the tune of over 40 problematic donations through WinRed over the course of more than a year. This is not one of those hard-to-find cases where someone tries to cover their tracks. This is clear as day. Anyone could tell you that ``Alex A.'' is a pseudonym; that Alex A. does not, in fact, reside at 420 H Street NE, because 420 H Street NE is a defunct funeral home in a vacant building near Union Station, a building that has been vacant for over 7 years. How did WinRed not catch any of this? Why aren't we investigating this clear pattern of fraud, of illegality, of corruption? What are House Republicans covering up? It is as clear as day why we are actually here today. Anyone watching today knows a hearing on, quote, ``preventing fraudulent donations'' without looking into WinRed is not a serious proceeding. If we, as a Committee, are truly interested in combating fraudulent political donations, we would be undertaking a good-faith effort to understand the problem and to discuss solutions. Republicans are not interested in solutions. They are interested in a partisan witch hunt. Last week, Democrats on House Judiciary--on Judiciary and on Oversight and Government Reform sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking information related to his investigations, if any, on WinRed. We set a deadline for a response; it was this past Monday, June 8th. Attorney General Paxton ignored us. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is time for this Committee to start taking our duty to protect American voters, protect American elections seriously. Americans deserve to know what WinRed is hiding, what Republicans are hiding. It is time for us to draw a line in the sand to make clear that, regardless of partisanship, no one is above the law. With that, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 2(k)(6) of rule XI, I move that the Committee subpoena Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., the attorney general of Texas. Chairman Steil. I recognize the motion and hold it in abeyance until the end of the hearing. Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. In deference to the Chair of the--and the Ranking Member of the other full committee, I now recognize the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes. Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Garcia, in his opening statement, said we are here because Republicans are playing politics. Let us be clear: We are here because ActBlue's legal counsel said Ms. Wallace-Jones lied to Congress, willfully and knowingly misled the Congress of the United States. That is why we are here. Oh, by the way, who was her--who was the legal counsel at Covington Burling? Who was her counsel? Dana Remus. Not some Republican. She was former White House Counsel for Joe Biden. That is who said that. That is why we are here. I just have a couple questions for you, Ms. Wallace-Jones-- just a couple. Your board chairman said ActBlue accepted up to $38 million in contributions in 2024 that had the signs of foreign origin. How much fraud is too much fraud? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. How many foreign contributions did ActBlue accept? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. How much money did ActBlue accept from Russia? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. Why did your entire legal team quit? Your in- house legal team. Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. Did your legal team quit because of reduced fraud standards? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. I understand. We will not keep you here all day, but let me just do one more. Did you weaken your fraud standards to help Democrats? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the good work you and your Committee are doing. With that, I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina. Dr. Murphy. Thank you for appearing today. I am sorry that this has turned into a partisan exercise. The American people deserve truth--truth in everything. I am not going to disagree with some of my Democratic colleagues that say they want truth from other fundraising platforms. I want this too. The fact is, these were egregious practices that were put forth by ActBlue that are well-documented. Do you regret any of the things that you said or any of the things that ActBlue has done in the past in regards to foreign and--donations? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Dr. Murphy. If you had the chance to pick another place to be employed, would you have joined ActBlue? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question---- Dr. Murphy. Boy, you seem very happy. Ms. Wallace-Jones.--pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Dr. Murphy. I am amazed at the number of attorneys that are behind you to be able to coach you to say these things. That is really--that is quite an expense ActBlue is going to have. It is just a tragedy that we are here today on partisan grounds. We cannot get to the truth. This is what the American people have asked Congress to do. They ask us to get to the truth. They do not talk about money to go into Ukraine; they do not talk about, you know, Joe Biden wanting to make sure that he gets paid. They just want the truth. The fact that you guys have literally allowed, continued, and agreed with foreign intervention in our elections just because of monetary consequences which help certain types of candidates, in my opinion, is horrible, disgusting, egregious, and, sadly, unpatriotic and un-American. I wish I could ask you more, but I know what the answers are going to be. I pray we get to this. Maybe we will get to this in a court of law. It seems like that is where things are going these days. If you have got to plead the Fifth, that is where, I guess, we end up. Thank you for coming today. I will yield back the reminder of the time. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Raskin, for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. A Republican donor from Fort Worth complained that WinRed siphoned $11,000 from his account without any personal authorization from him. He wrote, ``I am 81 years old, and I have been taken advantage of.'' He is still waiting for a response from Attorney General Paxton. Why isn't he here today testifying about what is actually taking place to our people? CNN reported that one 82-year-old woman, wearing pajamas with holes in them when they interviewed her because she did not want to spend money on new pajamas, was swindled of more than $350,000 of her life savings that she had no idea she was giving to Republicans through WinRed. This is what real fraud looks like. Why do not we investigate it? Attorney General Paxton, who himself uses WinRed, systematically ignored all of these desperate constituent complaints. Somehow, the day after James Talarico, Mr. Paxton's opponent in his Senate race, raised a remarkable $2.5 million in a 24-hour period from ActBlue, Mr. Paxton suddenly decided to investigate ActBlue and dispatch undercover investigators to trawl ActBlue's business practices. Meantime, Paxton has consistently ignored oversight letters Ranking Members Morelle, Garcia, and I have sent to him. Whistleblowers come forward every day about WinRed's fraud. Just this week, my office got a whistleblower tip from a woman in Colorado, a registered Republican, who said she gave $100 through WinRed, which WinRed turned into recurring weekly $100 contributions without her permission. She is been fighting over these fraudulent charges since February, contacting WinRed and the Republican National Committee, but has gotten absolutely nowhere, so she reached out to my office for help. If that is the way that Republicans treat Republicans, it makes sense to me that Donald Trump has the lowest opinion ratings of any President in decades. It is not just Paxton covering up WinRed's fraud. Last summer, we asked the Treasury Department to turn over all Suspicious Activity Reports its financial monitors have gotten related to WinRed and we asked FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson to turn over all complaints related to WinRed. CNN has revealed that WinRed has been used to defraud hundreds of elderly Americans and mislead specifically people battling dementia and other cognitive impairments, including Alzheimer's disease, into giving away millions of dollars--far more than they ever intended, far more than their families could afford. The Treasury Department and the FTC have refused to turn over any documents or even answer our letters. They refuse to explain why they will not turn over these documents. One detail in CNN's report provides a hint. The single biggest beneficiary of all these small-dollar donations from these unwitting recurring donors was none other than Donald Trump, the founder of Trump University. There are some obvious things that we can and should do to stop online fundraising abuse across the board politically. In 2021, the FEC recommended that Congress ban pre-checked recurring-donation boxes so we would know that any recurring donations are unauthorized and illegal. That would have prevented many, if not most, of the deplorable fraudulent practices that have swindled millions and millions of dollars of people's life savings in Texas and all across the country. That was common sense when it was unanimously recommended by the FEC, and it is common sense today. Can we agree to that? How about today? I would support that today. I fear this hearing is not about making any positive policy changes; it is about hauling in the CEO of ActBlue, forcing her to take the Fifth Amendment. You know, Donald Trump has taken the Fifth Amendment 440 times. Before anybody starts denouncing the Constitution of the United States, think about what you say about people who invoke the Fifth Amendment against petty political vendettas and prosecutions. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Fifth Amendment was designed to be there for. The Supreme Court has said the Fifth Amendment protects the innocent as well as the guilty-- people who might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances and, we can see today, also ensnared by political vendettas and partisan investigations instead of seriously looking at a problem and trying to address it. That is what we should be doing. There are obviously problems across the board. Most of them relate to WinRed, but I am sure some of them could relate to ActBlue too. Why aren't we seriously addressing that? Why does everything have to be the occasion for partisan exploitation and persecution instead of actually doing the business of the public? We are waiting for a lot of answers from WinRed. I hope that we will get them. I hope that we can have real change with a real investigation and a real hearing. I yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, there is serious allegations that have been made against ActBlue, and they are--they are exceptional, in these allegations. Either they are true or they are not. This is part of what we are here trying to determine. What is amazing to me is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not addressed one of these allegations. If I was you, I would be a little bit offended, because not a single one of them has come to your defense. Every one of them have deflected to something else. Let us look a little bit at some of the allegations. A fact: ActBlue, in its own words, decided to take a, quote, ``more lenient'' approach to fraud prevention leading up to the 2024 election. Instead of addressing that, Mr. Morelle decides to talk about a Chinese man gambling in a casino. Another fact: ActBlue took action despite detecting at least 22 significant fraud campaigns on its platform in recent years. Instead of addressing that, Mr. Raskin wanted to talk about some Texas buying--Texan buying pajamas. Another: In the wake of the 2024 election, almost the entirety of ActBlue's legal and compliance department was either fired, resigned, or left the company, alleging retaliation for highlighting vulnerabilities and unseriousness in addressing fraudulent donations. Instead of addressing that or clarifying that, Mr. Garcia wanted to talk about the President's slush fund, even though-- which he left off--President Obama had the same type of fund, called the Keepseagle fund. How did that help you in your position here? What that shows me is, they are not willing to defend against these allegations because likely they know that they are true. This is called deflection. This is politics at its ugliest and its dirtiest. I do have a series of questions for you, but I want to make sure I am respectful. Is it Ms. Jones or Ms. Wallace-Jones? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Loudermilk. OK, wow. OK. Did not expect--expect that one. I think I see where this is going. Let me go ahead and ask questions. What role do you play in the process of ActBlue--well, let me back up. I think I want to ask these first. Ms. Wallace-Jones, has the FEC ever completed an audit of ActBlue during the 2020 election cycle? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. I just want to bring up, Mr. Chairman, that was a simple ``yes'' or ``no.'' There was no allegation in that. It was just whether an audit of ActBlue took place in the 2020 election cycle. Does ActBlue have an application programming interface with the FEC database? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Loudermilk. OK. This Committee just passed bipartisan legislation that requires donors to include their CVV or CVC when donating to a political campaign online. The Committee originally passed the same legislation last Congress and pointed out that ActBlue did not require the CVV for online donations. Soon after that, ActBlue changed its policies to require the CVV. What was that deci--what was that decision connected to to what this Committee was doing? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Loudermilk. All right. What role do you play in the process of ActBlue changing fraud-prevention policies, such as requiring a CVV or increasing the thresholds for risk tolerance? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Chairman, it appears that, since I cannot even--that her name is protected under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, I do not--I do not think my time is going to be more well-spent, so I yield back. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman, Representative Sewell, is recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. Ms. Sewell. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by unequivocally stating that guaranteeing the authenticity of campaign donations requires series and honest engagement. I believe Congress should be making deliberate efforts to prevent foreign donors from attempting to influence our democracy. Any investigation that would be a serious use of our time and our resources here in this Committee would include an investigation not just of ActBlue but of WinRed as well. We are holding a hearing today--quote/unquote, an ``investigation''--to prevent fraudulent donations, but it is nothing more than a hyper-partisan witch hunt. This investigation is just one example--one more example of Republicans and President Trump using the power of his office to harass and intimidate anyone willing to challenge him. The Trump Department of Justice has used its power to intimidate and victimize communities of color, especially Black Americans. Just look at their targeted harassment of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has worked tirelessly for decades to counter White-supremacist organizations. Over and over again, Donald Trump's Department of Justice has harassed Black women with bogus lawsuits. We should not forget the harassment of the Federal Reserve Board of Directors--Board of Governors, Lisa Cook; the harassment of the New York attorney general, Tish James; and their harassment of our colleague, New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver. It is not surprising that this Republican-led Committee is now attacking ActBlue and its CEO, Ms. Wallace-Jones. Why? Because ActBlue is a platform that holds--that helps empower voices of thousands of millions of American voters and supports the electoral efforts of a racially and ideologically diverse group of Americans that are willing to stand up against the harmful actions of this President. This investigation is clearly just an extension of President Trump's retribution tour--and I want to apologize to you, Ms. Wallace-Jones, for having to be here under these very hyper-partisan circumstances--and not in any way looking into an investigation of fraudulent foreign donors that would include both Republican and Democratic organizations. This investigation is clearly an extension of President Trump's retribution tour. In April of last year, the President issued an executive order targeting ActBlue and demanding a Department of Justice investigation into the platform. Less than 2 weeks after the executive order, a group of committee chairmen jointly sent a letter to Attorney General Bondi that detailed their committees', quote, ``ongoing investigations into ActBlue,'' unquote, while pledging to, quote, ``work collaboratively with DOJ,'' end quote--let me repeat that again: pledging to ``work collaboratively with DOJ''--clearly committing to using legislative tools and information to advance the executive branch's law enforcement vendetta. This is clearly an attempt by those with power to go after those who do not have power. These are tactics of an authoritarian regime. This is clearly an attempt to use the powers of the Federal Government to go after Donald Trump's political opposition. Any meaningful investigation, Mr. Chairman, would also include WinRed. This Committee should be conducting serious work. We would be better spent--time better spent trying to provide grant funding for election systems across this country. Or we could be considering approaches to improving the day-to-day operations of the House of Representatives, which is a core jurisdictional function of this Committee, instead of spending this time--using invaluable time and resources of this Committee to go after a witch hunt. I am embarrassed that we are using our Committee time in such a way. I want to again apologize to Ms. Wallace-Jones for her having to be here and listen to this craziness. With that, I yield back my time. Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. Murphy, is recognized for 5 minutes. Dr. Murphy. I will defer my time. I am not going to waste my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. The gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Johnson, is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has to be one of the most brazen, political, desperate acts I have seen in Congress, this hearing today. It is disappointing, it is disgusting, and it is offensive. We have seen this administration and Republicans in Congress systematically go on an attack to attack every aspect of elections in this country because Donald Trump is terrified that he is going to lose the party's election control in 2026, terrified that Democrats are going to take the gavels back in this building to hold his administration accountable for the horrific damage they have done on the American people, to the economy, to our deficit, to everything that this Government is supposed to be responsible. Instead, what they have done is attack--well, they have gone at it at every level. They have offered the SAVE Act-- right?--to keep people from voting, to restrict access to the ballot box, to attack mail-in voting, to attack people of color, to attack people from being able to legally cast their ballot. That was not good enough, so what they have done is partisan gerrymandering to redraw the lines, to make it so extreme for people to cast ballots for--because they are so terrified that they are going to lose elections. We have spent billions of dollars in this country responding to redrawing maps because Donald Trump and Republicans are afraid. Now what are we doing? Now we are going to go after the money scheme, the money path. If this was a legitimate exercise in politics, we would have WinRed and ActBlue here together. They both serve a purpose, which is to seek a vehicle for people to give small- dollar contributions to the political candidates of their choice. We are not here to have a legitimate, responsible dialog. We are here, again, because Republicans are desperate and afraid. They are coming to attack Ms. Wallace-Jones, the head of ActBlue, out of a lack of seriousness, because WinRed is a corrupt organization, and I have seen firsthand what Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has done to abuse his authority and the overwhelming depth of corruption that that man has put on the State of Texas and through WinRed. We have seen examples highlighted by my colleagues. I am the only Member of this Committee that was in the State legislature that had the privilege to convict and impeach Ken Paxton when I was in the Texas House, and I have seen up close and personal the depth of his corruption. What--he did that through WinRed. The fact that WinRed is not here, the fact that Republicans have no desire to police their own side of the street, their own house, just highlights again the political desperateness by which we are here. Because, at the end of the day, now they are so scared they have redrawn the maps, they have tried to restrict people's access to the polls, they are not investing in election integrity and election security to make sure that we have the appropriate number of machines, the appropriate number of offices, they are doing everything they can to keep our overseas people from being able to cast a ballot. Now they are trying to go after the money of Democratic small donors, the little mom-and-pops, the little teachers, who send their $25 a month in to elect the candidates of their choice, because they are terrified that they are going to lose in November. My comment to the American people is: Vote. Contribute through ActBlue. Send money to your Democratic candidates. Make sure that Democrats win in November so we can stop this nonsense once and for all. I yield back. Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Representative Miller, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman. I want to take a moment to highlight a section of an ActBlue employee training document, ``Fraud Prevention 101 for New Associates in the Workflow.'' Your company's memo states, and I quote, ``If an otherwise- legitimate donor uses a fake name, we would want to accept their donation,'' end quote. Can you confirm whether this is the advice that you give to your employees? Ms. Wallace-Jones. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution. Mrs. Miller. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back. This Committee is engaged in a legitimate inquiry of possible serious violations of Federal election law. These are issues that are clearly within the jurisdiction of this Committee, the Committee on House Administration, and the information we are seeking is important to assist us in our legislative and oversight responsibilities. You have invoked your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That is your constitutional right. I am disappointed to say that it is clear you are not going to answer the Committee's questions today. I can assure everyone, though, that the Committee will continue to take every appropriate step to obtain the information that we are seeking. Without objection, the witness is excused. It is now in order to consider the motion offered by Mr. Morelle from New York. Dr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Chairman Steil. The gentleman's recognized. Mr. Morelle. May I be heard on the--on the motion? Chairman Steil. The gentleman is recognized. Dr. Murphy. I have a motion to table the motion to subpoena. Chairman Steil. The motion to table is not debatable. All those in favor of tabling, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, signify by saying no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The motion to table---- Mr. Morelle. I would ask---- Chairman Steil [continuing]. is agreed to. Mr. Morelle. Yes. Chairman Steil. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will please call the roll. The Clerk. Chairman Steil? Chairman Steil. No. The Clerk. Chairman Steil votes no. Chairman Steil. Yes. Yes. The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk? Mr. Loudermilk. Yes. The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk votes yes. Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith. Yes. The Clerk. Mr. Griffith votes yes. Dr. Murphy? Dr. Murphy. Yes. The Clerk. Dr. Murphy votes yes. Mrs. Bice? [No response.] The Clerk. Mr. Carey? [No response.] Mrs. Miller. Yes. The Clerk. Mrs. Bice (sic) votes yes. Mrs. Miller? Mrs. Miller. Yes. The Clerk. OK. Oh, OK. Mr. Morelle? Mr. Morelle. No. The Clerk. Mr. Morelle votes no. Ms. Sewell? Ms. Sewell. No. The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no. Mrs. Torres? [No response.] The Clerk. Ms. Johnson? Ms. Johnson. No. The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no. Chairman Steil. Ms. Clerk, I would like to be recorded as yes. Have all Members voted? Does any Member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are five yeses and three noes. Chairman Steil. The motion carries. I would like to thank our Committee Members for joining us today. Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days to insert additional material into the record and to revise and extend their remarks. If there is no further business, I want to thank the Members for their participation. Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [all]