Evidence of ActBlue contribution fraud in Kansas state and federal elections in 2020
North Carolina resident says he NEVER donated to any politician, but his name appears in Kansas and FEC campaign reports
Updated with additional evidence about ActBlue payments to state candidates.
Something is wrong in both Kansas and Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign finance records that show $2 contributions to nine state legislative and three federal legislative contests in 2020 from an individual from North Carolina.
This individual says he never made such contributions. Kansas and federal authorities should investigate.
On Wednesday Matt Van Swol from Asheville, NC posted comments on X about his name appearing in reports of Kansas campaign contributors from 2020 along with 12 other names reported by DataRepublican.
Van Swol said online he “NEVER donated money to any political campaign in my life” and he “never stepped foot in Kansas in my life.”
By late Wednesday, Van Swol’s posting on X had been viewed over 12 million times!
A relatively simple Google search locates 8 of the 9 items listed above in campaign finance reports filed with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission. Click on a Google hit to view a campaign report.
All the contribution information in Van Swol’s X posting can verified in Kansas campaign finance reports.
Van Swol’s online comments were also verified in an interesting phone discussion Wednesday afternoon.
Kansas contributions
Kansas campaign finance records show a payment type of “E-Funds” or “Credit Card” or “other” for payments from ActBlue, WinRed, or other vendors.
While the individual contributions are not labeled from ActBlue, eight of the nine state candidates reported payments to ActBlue for processing fees.
Candidates pay these processing fees to avoid in-kind contributions from ActBlue, which in some cases could exceed contribution limits. ($500 for House, and $1000 for Senate per election cycle)
ActBlue normally charges a 3.95% fee on all transactions. The average payment to ActBlue by the candidates was $644, which corresponds to receipts via ActBlue of about $16,300 per candidate. The payments to ActBlue by the eight candidates ranged from $75 to $1360.
The payments to Kansas legislative candidates shown below match FEC records known to be from ActBlue both on the single date and amounts of giving, and the “gibberish” occupations specified. (See “Federal contributions” below.)
Here are three examples from the nine shown above for Van Swol’s $2 contributions to Kansas legislative candidates on Sept. 1, 2020:
Tobias Schlingensiepen
Ethan Corson
Rui Xu
In the nine reported Kansas contributions by Van Swol, there were two strange gibberish occupations listed (“Jekajnd” and “Babxbbq”), with three similar but slightly different addresses.
Federal contributions
Van Swol’s X posting was about contributions made to state legislative candidates in Kansas. But a search of FEC records shows $2 contributions by Van Swol also on Sept. 1, 2020 to three Kansas federal legislative candidates:
Barbara Bollier for US Senate (D)
Sharice Davids for US Congress (D, KS-03)
Michelle De La Isla for US Congress (D, KS-02)
The search included all ~1.5 million FEC electronic files from 2000 through March 18, 2025. There were no other matches for FEC contributions from a Matthew Van Swol except for those shown above to ActBlue.
An FEC online search clarifies the Employer was “BABXBBQ” in the raw data above, but does not show the Occupation “JEKANJND". Both of these gibberish strings from the raw FEC data appeared in the Kansas campaign reports as occupations.
Note both of the gibberish occupations in the state records are in each of the federal records, which suggests they may be linked somehow. Are gibberish occupations an indication an ActBlue donation should be questioned?
When asked about these FEC contributions by chat late Wednesday, Van Swol replied: “Are you kidding? Wow.”
Analysis by DataRepublican
Matthew Van Swol’s allegations should be investigated by Kansas and federal authorities, especially since they are very narrow and specific.
But the brilliant DataRepublican database expert has a broader case that deserves further exploration.
Matthew Van Swol is only one of thirteen identified by DataRepublican for scrutiny.
DataRepublican seems concerned by the coincident donations by these 13 donors to 9 specific Kansas legislative candidates (listed in Van Swol’s X posting).
I am less concerned about the coincident donations because of ActBlue’s “tandem fundraising.”
Tandem Fundraising is an ActBlue feature that allows campaigns, organizations, and activists to fundraise for multiple groups on a single contribution form. When a donor gives on a Tandem Fundraising form, they can easily split their contribution between all of the groups listed (or choose which ones they’d like to give to).
Tandem fundraising can create a large number of small contributions that are completely legitimate from the same set of donors.
But I am very concerned by any donor that says their name and address was used for donations — something called “smurfing.”
An individual should know if contributions were made via ActBlue. But without that solid evidence, it’s difficult to see how authorities can make a case for subpoenas to investigate further based only a number of small contributions.
Related
All past ActBlue analysis in articles below only focused on campaign contributions reported in FEC filings.
Disclaimer
I was appointed to the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in March 2024.
Views in Watchdog Lab articles are my own and in no way reflect the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.