Talk:ActBlue

Fundraising

The article mentions several times that "ActBlue raised $XX amount". As a technology platform, is this accurate, or is it more accurate to say that the amount "was raised through ActBlue"? Put another way, do they actually advertise their customers' causes, identify donors, etc., or do they just act as the payment processor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.120.135 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a great question which I was uncomfortable with while writing those parts of the article. I think you are correct that they work primarily as a payment processor. If you like the sound of what you suggested better, feel free to add it! Thanks for the suggestion. Jlevi (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

From the article: "ActBlue expect to raise more than $100 million for Democrats this cycle. The site is free to use, and ActBlue does not take a cut."

Actually, they do. They take 10% for administrative purposes.

This is not right. See http://actblue.com/faq. ActBlue doesn't take a cut.Impressive2 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They accept tips! —Pawyilee (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the tips. They answer their email too, even when it is a response to an automatically generated receipt for a donation. I wrote "How much of my donation goes to the candidate or campaign?" and clicked "reply" That was my entire reply because I did not expect an answer. I got this answer: "Thanks for writing! Your donation goes directly to the campaign or organization to whom you contribute, other than a 3.95% credit card processing fee. ActBlue does not profit off of any donation made through our site. If you have any further questions, please let me know!" Try replying to your utility company's email receipt. Of course, your utility doesn't accept tips. Anewcharliega (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ActBlue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420190717/http://www.fastcompany.com:80/articles/2007/07/debergalis.html to http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/2007/07/debergalis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Headquarters Location

As a ¾-time resident of Boston and a registered Democrat, I just read in a Mother Jones e-mail:

...ActBlue’s headquarters just outside Boston...

so I was disappointed not to find anything more specific on Wikipedia. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edits from user with COI

Hello, I work at ActBlue and would like to suggest some factual updates for this Wikipedia article. The organization has grown a lot in the past few years, so a fair number of the figures and other information in this article is out-of-date. I do not intend to actually edit any part of this article as I have a clear COI -- instead, I have provided suggestions below with up-to-date information about ActBlue for other editors to consider in accordance with all Wikipedia guidelines.

• Change "ActBlue is a payment technology system established in June 2004 that enables anyone to raise money on the Internet" to "ActBlue is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables Democrats, progressive groups, and nonprofits to raise money on the Internet by providing them with free online fundraising software. Its mission is to empower small-dollar donors."

1. I believe this clarifies who we are (a nonprofit) versus what we do (build technology). Additionally, "enables anyone to raise" could be misinterpreted to include Republican campaigns or other groups that cannot use our tools. This is why I have listed the groups that can use our platform.

• I would also suggest using updated figures in these two sentences so ActBlue's scale is accurately represented:

1. Current content: "ActBlue has grown quickly to become a major grassroots fundraising tool, with over 445 federal candidates and committees using the service during the 2014 election cycle.[2] As of April 2016, ActBlue had raised more than $1.1 billion for Democratic candidates and progressive organizations at various levels of politics, making it the largest fundraising tool in United States politics."
2. Updated content: "ActBlue has grown quickly to become a major grassroots fundraising tool, with nearly 8,000 groups using the platform in 2017. As of March 2018, ActBlue had raised more than $2.1 billion for Democratic candidates and progressive organizations at various levels of politics, making it the largest fundraising tool in United States politics."

• This sentence no longer accurately reflects who can use ActBlue: "The organization is open to all registered Democratic campaigns, candidates and 501(c)(4) organizations."

1. This is accurate: "The organization is open to Democratic campaigns, candidates, committees, and progressive 501(c)4 organizations. 501(c)3 organizations can also use ActBlue’s tools through its branch for nonprofits, AB Charities."

• This explanation is not very easy to understand: "ActBlue is a not-for-profit organization. ActBlue officially incurs costs of 3.95% of the gross contribution, and those fees are passed on to campaigns."

1. I would suggest changing it to something like this: "Groups that use ActBlue only pay a 3.95% credit card processing fee. As a nonprofit, ActBlue runs its own, separate fundraising program and accepts tips on contributions to pay for its expenses." , ,

• In the past few years ActBlue has hit some major milestones and has been part of some historic moments in American politics. I would suggest adding these points to the History section:

1. "In February 2016, ActBlue launched AB Charities, an arm of the organization that makes ActBlue’s fundraising tools available to nonprofits."
2. "On March 7, 2016, ActBlue officially hit $1 billion raised for groups on the left over the lifetime of the platform. On January 4, 2018, it crossed the $2 billion mark."
3. "Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign used ActBlue and broke several fundraising records. Sanders received more contributions in a presidential primary than any previous candidate and outraised Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary."

• Lastly, the final two sentences of this entry are inaccurate and not supported by credible sources: "ActBlue is also known for accessing credit card- and PayPal- accounts of former donors without the donors' knowledge and setting up recurrent withdrawals without the account holders authorization. There are currently 42 unresolved reported fraud cases on ActBlue. Source: ScamGuard"

1. ActBlue has a robust customer service program that is well-documented. We attempt to respond to every complaint or issue; for public examples of this, please see the Tweets and Replies section of the @ActBlue Twitter feed.
2. As part of our customer service, we have contacted ScamGuard regarding the posts about ActBlue but the site is not an honest representation of consumer experiences -- they want businesses to pay to resolve the reviews on the site. Others have noted that the site is dishonest and not credible.
3. Typically, for someone to be "known for" something in the public forum, that "thing" must be widespread and persistent. ActBlue processed over 16 million contributions in 2017. Even if the false "42 unresolved reported fraud cases on ActBlue" were accurate or true, they represent close to zero percent of ActBlue's business.

Thank you in advance for considering these suggestions, and please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions! BostonianMaggie (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 10-APR-2018

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request.  Spintendo      04:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ActBlue is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables Democrats, progressive groups, and nonprofits to raise money on the Internet by providing them with free online fundraising software. Its mission is to empower small-dollar donors.
Approved.
___________

ActBlue has grown quickly to become a major grassroots fundraising tool, with nearly 8,000 groups using the platform in 2017.[2]
 Partly done.
___________

The organization is open to Democratic campaigns, candidates, committees, and progressive 501(c)4 organizations. 501(c)3 organizations can also use ActBlue’s tools through its branch for nonprofits, AB Charities.
Approved.
___________

Groups that use ActBlue only pay a 3.95% credit card processing fee. As a nonprofit, ActBlue runs its own, separate fundraising program and accepts tips on contributions to pay for its expenses.
Approved.
___________

In February 2016, ActBlue launched AB Charities, an arm of the organization that makes ActBlue’s fundraising tools available to nonprofits.
Approved.
___________

As of March 2018, ActBlue had raised more than $2.1 billion for Democratic candidates and progressive organizations at various levels of politics, making it the largest fundraising tool in United States politics. On March 7, 2016, ActBlue officially hit $1 billion raised for groups on the left over the lifetime of the platform. On January 4, 2018, it crossed the $2 billion mark.
 Not approved.
___________

Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign used ActBlue and broke several fundraising records. Sanders received more contributions in a presidential primary than any previous candidate[10] and outraised Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary."
Approved.
___________

Lastly, the final two sentences of this entry are inaccurate and not supported by credible sources: "ActBlue is also known for accessing credit card- and PayPal- accounts of former donors without the donors' knowledge and setting up recurrent withdrawals without the account holders authorization. There are currently 42 unresolved reported fraud cases on ActBlue. Source: ScamGuard
 Unable to implement.
___________

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

The first sentence is inaccurate. See the Globe article referenced in the footnote.

Presently reads: "ActBlue is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables right-leaning nonprofits, Democrats, and Conservative groups to raise money on the Internet by providing them with online fundraising software."

Change to "ActBlue is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables left-leaning nonprofits, Democrats, and Liberal groups to raise money on the Internet by providing them with online fundraising software." Rev Lovejoy (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You’ve spotted some vandalism that occurred earlier in the day. I have reverted it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Contributions from Dominion Voting Systems

The FEC shows that virtually all of the employees of the Dominion Voting Systems company, the one involved in the accusations of fraud in the 2020 Presidential election, went to ActBlue. That seems a relevant part of the organization and how they are involved in elections, and receive corporate money. The FEC information is below, and I think it would be a good addition -- but my experience has told me that Wiki has a bias toward liberal politics, verging on outright left wing, so I thought I'd post the idea here first.

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_employer=dominion+voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:Reliable sources, and it is important that these sources be secondary and independent. Your suggestion constitutes WP:Original research based on primary-source documents and inferences. If any strong reliable sources have made this connection in the mainstream media, then it can certainly be added to the article. Jlevi (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Act blue 501c4

Can not claim a tax write off for a 501c4 and is classified as a progressive donation website from individuals while internet articles claim Walmart and walt Disney has more rights for donations of money. The individual voter has more voting rights than Walt Disney and Walmart but walt Disney and Walmart decide to fund these elections. If corporations are citizens why can't they vote also if they live down the block and pay two dollars an hour, just go away please.

Facts about donation https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/ https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/corporations-and-fixing-campaign-finance

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kenia Cameron (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emraeah.

— Assignment last updated by Emraeah (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

O'Keefe allegations

I reverted the James O'Keefe allegations. He produced one of his video attacks this past spring, targeting ActBlue.

The sources in the most recent addition are a) the right-wing activist group John Locke Foundation (which publishes under the title "Carolina Journal") and b) a press release from Senator Rubio. Hardly reliable sourcing.

The allegations have not been covered or investigated by any reliable sources, as far as I could tell with a few minutes of web-searching and searching a few news wire archives. O'Keefe famously manufactures hooey, see Project Veritas. It isn't responsible to put the allegations in a wikipedia article without any reliable backup.

It is possible that there is something notable in the allegation. It may be that O'Keefe and his imitators (he has encouraged people around the country to do the same thing he did) have uncovered a genuine problem in the campaign finance aggregator system. Which may or may not be specific to ActBlue. It is also quite possible there is nothing to it.

But repeating an allegation against ActBlue based on no reliable sourcing and coming from known-unreliable sources does not belong here. It is malpractice. So I encourage the IP editor to find reliable sources. And maybe the other editors watching this page can do likewise. -- M.boli (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

M.Boli you are the one who is attempting to hide at least Three sources uncovering OBVIOUS FRAUD by ActBlue.

- James O'Keefe (as you mention)

- Senator Marco Rubio (as another editor tried to add, but you prevented)

- The Carolina Journal (as another editor tried to add, but you prevented)

Quit with your corrupt fraud coverup-- Looks like you're part of the corruption & fraud problem. 173.224.9.144 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed again. Still no reliable sourcing. No news reportage. It seems quite possible that O'Keefe and others find anomalies looking through the FEC donor database. It would be good if there were a reliable, knowledgeable source checking it out. We have only the bald assertions of O'Keefe and his followers that the supposed anomalies are proof of "money laundering" or the other allegations of nefarious activities. Are similar anomalies observable from WinRed data, or other parts of the campaign donation ecosystem? Not a clue that anybody has even looked.

If campaign finance experts or news reporters study this, we might get some reliable sourcing describing the anomalies and what they might mean. If the IP editor(s) who keep re-inserting this stuff into Wikipedia put some work into it, they might find some reliable publications which address the question. Put the finds here. I'm willing to help with editing and writing. But merely re-inserting the same-old doesn't cut it. -- M.boli (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User M.Boli repeatedly undoing edits based on their subjective claims of "hardly a reliable source" regarding Senator press release & The Carolina Journal.

@M.boli

Why does user M.Boli consider themselves the decider of what is or is not a "reliable source"? User M.Boli is clearly biased against any source that they do not personally approve. I belive User M.Boli is in violation of the 3 edit rule

User M.Boli seems to have a political animus of any criticism towards ActBlue, which is under investigation by multiple journalists and the Federal Election Committee. User M.Boli seems to be hovering over the ActBlue page-- I suspect User M.Boli is probably associated with ActBlue and are attempting to hide criticism of the organization.

Regarding M.Boli's politically motivated edits, please see edit "15:26, 27 October 2023‎" By M.Boli on page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ActBlue&action=history

The edit in question which I have tried to add is the following:

Extended content

Criticism and Accusations of Fraud April 2023: Senator Marco Rubio contacts Federal Election Committee to request an impartial investigation into ActBlue: "ActBlue, a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party, has purportedly engaged in thousands of dollars in campaign donations through small donors, including senior citizens, via illegal contributions, without those donors’ consent or awareness." "Recently, alarming reports emerged of fraudulent donations being reported to the FEC by ActBlue. These reports indicate that numerous individuals, including senior citizens, have purportedly donated to ActBlue thousands of times a year. However, according to recent investigative reports, many of these individuals had no idea that their names and addresses were being used to give thousands of dollars in political donations, with most of these “donations” going to ActBlue." October 2023: Accusations of Fraud by Journalist at The Carolina Journal: As of October 2023, ActBlue has been exposed through journalist investigations, as fraudulently laundering campaign donations through unaware retirees and other senior citizens.

70.113.228.130 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

ActBlue is being investigated by congress

Add that ActBlue is being investigated by congress for lenient donor and for funneling fraudulent donations to such campaigns as the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race. [1]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-administration-committee-probes-democrat-fundraiser-actblue-reports-illicit-cash-flows 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:504E:15AA:529B:2030 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that congressional investigations mean all that much. We probably want to wait for actual evidence of fraud before creating a section about it Superb Owl (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Take Back Action Fund

I removed the Take Back Action Fund section I was initially OK with as it seems to have been debunked.

"In 2019, the conservative Take Back Action Fund released a report alleging that 48.4% of contributions raised through ActBlue listed no employer information, compared to 4% of contributions on WinRed.[2]"

According to the Institute for Free Speech the difference was likely simply that WinRed has a 'retired' option and ActBlue doesn't.[3] JSwift49 19:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed 'Fraud allegations'

This section was not well-sourced (few if any were WP:Perennial sources), were made by Republican politicians (so not particularly notable in this instance) and without evidence of wrongdoing by courts or reputable journalistic outlets or academic papers. I did not turn up any search results of articles mentioning this controversy in almost 8 pages of search results. Seems pretty NPOV and WP:UNDUE Superb Owl (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Here I’ll help you

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2024/10/10/actblue-lobbies-up-amid-gop-probes-00183322

https://www.newsweek.com/actblue-democrat-pac-money-laundering-virginia-attorney-general-1933976

https://www.fastcompany.com/91178268/actblue-is-a-democratic-fundraising-juggernaut-and-now-conservatives-are-coming-for-it Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)