In the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, Janet C. Protasiewicz, a liberal, defeated conservative attorney Dan Kelly in April for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The record $23 million raised by or on behalf of the Janet for Justice campaign prompted a group of citizen investigators in Wisconsin to look into where all of the money had come from.
Election Watch, an election integrity watchdog group, has now asked the Wisconsin Ethics Commission to investigate campaign contributions made to Ms. Protasiewicz.
The complaint is based on a computer analysis of state and federal databases conducted by Election Watch.
The filing against Justice Protasiewicz is part of a broader nationwide investigation into how both Democrats and Republicans benefit from lax campaign finance rules that may result in violations of contribution limits.
Peter Bernegger, a data analyst with Election Watch, which filed the complaint, told The Epoch Times that the group’s research found that the Protasiewicz campaign has received a myriad of repetitive small contributions purportedly from the same individuals totaling at least $6 million.
According to the complaint, the official reports from the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System reveal that 234 of Justice Protasiewicz’s 38,169 contributors donated more than 10 times.
Election Watch has dubbed the observed repetition of thousands of small donations being made under the same name as “smurfing.” It’s occurring nationwide and has been detected down to the municipal election level.
Justice Protasiewicz didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Red Flags
A spreadsheet accompanying the Election Watch complaint details a number of questionable contribution patterns. To ensure the privacy of the contributors mentioned in this article, their names have been changed.Wisconsin voter Mike K., a disabled 66-year-old, has supposedly contributed to various campaigns 6,812 times for a total of $97,021, according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database.
In an interview conducted by a licensed private investigator working for Election Watch, Mr. K. denied making that many donations, as well as the dollar amount.
The report of the interview reads: “The subject scoffed at the amount and stated, ‘Look where I am living!’ The subject was referring to the modest, run-down apartment on the second floor of a converted home.
“He stated he donates $5 at times but could never afford to donate over $90,000 in the last seven years.”
Mr. K. is listed on Wisconsin campaign finance records as donating to Janet for Justice 29 times for a total of $2,960, with many of the contributions occurring within a 90-day period.
A summary of an interview by the private investigator with Carol D., an elderly Wisconsin woman, reads: “Upon speaking with the subject regarding her political donation history, she denied making 9,463 political donations as well as $53,361 in donations.
“She stated that her husband allows her to make several political donations, but nowhere near $53,361.
“She also stated that she makes only several donations of $800 to $1,000 per year in a lead up to a big election, such as a presidential election.”
Ronald T., 87, is listed on FEC records as donating to candidates and committees across the country 14,524 times for a total of $324,228.
Mr. T. told the private investigator hired by Election Watch that he never made those contributions. Mr. T. is listed as a purported donor to Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign. He’s recorded to have given her $113.34 in mostly small increments.
Mr. Larry Z., an 84-year-old Wisconsin voter, purportedly contributed $856 to Janet for Justice in 71 separate transactions, ranging from $1.67 to $500 each, with many occurring on the same day or consecutive days. FEC records show Mr. Z. donating to various candidates and committees 15,520 times for a total of $62,410.
Protasiewicz campaign contributor Mary E., 75, of Maryland, is listed as donating to Janet for Justice 28 times for a total of $230. And, in elections nationwide, FEC records show Ms. E. donating 25,461 times to various candidates and political action committees in the past three election cycles.
All of the elderly donors interviewed were surprised when presented with their purported political contribution records from the FEC and Wisconsin campaign finance records.
Mr. Bernegger explained that both databases are constantly being updated, so an examination of the records represents a snapshot in time.
“The data an investigator sees this month will be somewhat different than he or she saw last month,” he said.
Donations Exceeding Legal Limit
The Election Watch analysis revealed that six donors to the Janet for Justice campaign allegedly exceeded the state’s $20,000 legal limit for individual contributions.Donor Glenda R., an elderly woman whose address is listed as a UPS store in Los Altos, California, is said to have given $31,452 to Janet for Justice.
One of the six donors, Conrad Q., exceeded the Wisconsin campaign contribution limit by $21,000. He’s listed as having donated four times. The address recorded on his entries matches a UPS store in San Francisco.
On all four of the data entries recording Mr. Q.’s donations, the address was in some way misstated or obscured.
Small Donations
Many more possible violations of state law involving numerous small contributions were discovered in entries on Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign finance records, the complaint alleges.The Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System data show numerous single donors making a large number of very small donations ranging from $1.50 to $25. The contributions were often made on the same or consecutive days.
In some cases, Election Watch investigators found that groups of smaller donations added up to exceed the $20,000 legal limit for a single donor.
In Wisconsin, a contribution by an individual of less than $200 exempts the donor from having to disclose his or her place of employment.
What’s in a Name?
According to Mr. Gleason, incomplete or omitted data and the use of multiple variations of a person’s name, zip code, or street name could be intentional in order to obscure donors who have exceeded the legal contribution limit.“Examination by the human eye would determine these are all the same person, but a computer would read each variation as a separate individual,” he said.
In the complaint, Mr. Bernegger provided the Wisconsin Ethics Commission with the following evidence from the Federal Election Commission database.
A woman named Jane B. from a Southern state was discovered to have 20 different spellings of her name, five different street address numbers, and three different zip codes.
“This is commonly found in Wisconsin,” Mr. Bernegger wrote.
Profiling the Donors
Of the 10,200 high-frequency donors that Election Watch identified across the nation, almost all are middle-class, white, retired, or otherwise not employed and range in age from their late 60s to their 90s.Election Watch researchers used readily available public and commercial information sources to study each of the above individuals in order to create a demographic profile.
They had all donated to candidates and political action committees in the past. Then, allegedly without the donors’ knowledge or consent, their names and addresses were used again and again to make multiple political contributions.
From the personal interviews with the donors, investigators learned that very few, if any, of the donations attributed to their names are paid with their own credit cards.
Many have said that their monthly credit card statements show no unusual charges.
It’s the practice of most credit card companies to immediately notify the cardholder if suspicious activities are spotted on the customer’s account.
The donors interviewed by Election Watch report receiving no such notifications.
The Election Watch complaint states that large, well-organized political fundraising organizations not only serve as conduits for contributions but also act as credit card processors.
Confident in Their Data
Because the information sent to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission by Election Watch is sourced directly from the state and federal governments’ own databases, Mr. Bernegger and Mr. Gleason contend that their findings are hard to dispute.
After an initial screening and review of the Election Watch complaint and amendment by Wisconsin Ethics Commission staff, the complaint is being passed on to the full commission for further examination, according to a letter from the commission to Mr. Bernegger dated Sept. 25.
“It is sufficient to proceed to the Commission for consideration,” the letter reads.
Senators Demand Answers
When Election Watch’s discovery of questionable high-frequency, small donations first surfaced earlier this year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wrote to the FEC demanding answers and urging an investigation into the practice and ActBlue.“Recently, alarming reports emerged of fraudulent donations being reported to the FEC by ActBlue,” Mr. Rubio’s letter reads.
“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.
“It should come as no surprise that ActBlue serves as a vessel for fraud, considering the intentional lack of security engrained within their donation processes and systems.”
Mr. Rubio called on the big campaign fundraising organizations that receive and process credit card contributions to use the card verification value (CVV) number on the back of the card to be certain that the person named as the donor is actually the one holding the card and giving the money.
“Foreign actors use fake accounts to exploit donation systems that do not have robust verification processes and systems in place,” he wrote in his letter.
Mr. Rubio is actively pushing legislation to mandate better security for all electronic campaign contributions.
In its response, the FEC told Mr. Rubio that it “has not mandated specific procedures to verify the identity of an individual making a credit card contribution over the Internet” and that the Federal Election Commission Act (FECA) “does not specify that political committees are required to collect card verification value numbers on credit and debit card transactions.”
The FEC also stated that the FECA “leaves the political committees with discretion to determine their methods of ensuring their compliance with reporting requirements and contribution source prohibitions and amount limitations.”
The FEC told Mr. Rubio that the agency conducts civil enforcement, while the Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over knowing and willful violations.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), ranking Republican member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also wrote to the FEC earlier this year to request a staff briefing on the subject.
The FEC failed to comply with his request, prompting Mr. Johnson to write again.
“I am disappointed that the FEC is refusing to provide transparency about its awareness of potential misconduct regarding political donations,” he wrote.
“It is important for the FEC to be forthcoming with Congress and the public in order to maintain confidence in the FEC’s abilities to address potential wrongdoing.”
If the Wisconsin Ethics Commission rules against Justice Protasiewicz, her campaign committee could be ordered to return excess contributions to the donors or to put the money in a statutorily specified public fund.
ActBlue didn’t respond to a request for comment.
