ActBlue CEO Pleads Fifth 22 Times, Questioning Foreign Money in Dem Fundraising

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones just created another massive headache for Democrats.

During a House hearing on Wednesday, Wallace-Jones invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination a whopping 22 times.

 
 

She refused to answer basic questions about the Democratic fundraising giant’s handling of potentially illegal foreign donations.

The hearing highlighted ongoing Republican-led investigations into whether ActBlue—the primary small-dollar fundraising platform for Democrats that processed billions in the 2024 cycle—ignored suspicious contributions, including up to 38 million flagged as potentially foreign-origin.

 
 

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, cut to the chase in his questioning.

Below is a transcript of the exchange:

 
 

REP. JIM JORDAN: Your board chairman said ActBlue accepted up to 38 million contributions in 2024 that had the signs of foreign origin. How much fraud is too much fraud?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

 
 

JORDAN: How many foreign contributions did ActBlue accept?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

 
 

JORDAN: How much money did ActBlue accept from Russia?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

JORDAN: Why did your entire legal team quit? Your in-house legal team?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

JORDAN: Did your legal team quit because of reduced fraud standards?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

JORDAN: We won’t keep you here all day, but let me just do one more. Did you weaken your fraud standards to help Democrats?

ACTBLUE: On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer the question pursuant to my Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution.

WATCH:

 

The spectacle was not isolated.

Prior depositions of five ActBlue employees resulted in 146 invocations of the Fifth Amendment, according to congressional reports.

A joint interim staff report from the House Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight committees detailed “illicit foreign donations and a cover-up” that spurred mass resignations and firings in the company’s legal and compliance team following the 2024 election.

Republicans argued the incident wasn’t mere bureaucratic sloppiness.

Federal law strictly prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to U.S. campaigns, a safeguard designed to protect American sovereignty in elections.

ActBlue’s platform, which funnels millions of small donations to Democratic candidates and causes, has faced scrutiny for allegedly lax verification – including issues with foreign IP addresses, prepaid cards, and straw donors.

A New York Times report earlier highlighted warnings from the company’s own lawyers that Wallace-Jones may have misled Congress about vetting processes.

ActBlue detected significant fraud campaigns, some with foreign ties, yet questions remain about whether safeguards were deliberately weakened amid the flood of cash powering Democratic efforts.

The mass exodus of legal staff suggests internal alarm bells were ringing—bells the CEO declined to address under oath.

Red flags at ActBlue—the dominant player in left-wing fundraising—stand out due to their volume and persistence, especially since Democrats have long railed against “foreign interference” when it suited their narrative.

This hearing underscores a deeper crisis in campaign finance transparency.

If even a fraction of those suspicious contributions were illicit, it means foreign actors – potentially from adversaries like Russia, China, or Iran – could have indirectly influenced American elections through the Democratic money machine.

Wallace-Jones’s refusal to refute Russian money outright speaks volumes.