Mike Johnson has two cash issues on his thoughts. The first is extra instant: On Tuesday, the House Speaker scraped collectively a four-vote majority to approve a $1.6 trillion finances invoice. But on Wednesday, Chuck Schumer stated Senate Democrats will refuse to go the plan, growing the probabilities of a authorities shutdown at midnight Friday.
Yet whilst that far-reaching drama unfolded, Johnson and his Republican colleagues have stored one eye on one other difficulty, for which there’s a purely political monetary angle. Since final December, Johnson has been cheerleading a congressional investigation into ActBlue, the most important Democratic on-line fundraising platform. Last yr, it took in $3.8 billion, greater than double the quantity raised by the equal Republican PAC, WinRed. Two of Johnson’s lieutenants, Wisconsin Republican congressman Bryan Steil and Kentucky Republican congressman James Comer, together with New York Republican consultant Nick Langworthy, have issued a subpoena searching for suspicious exercise reviews from the Treasury Department associated to ActBlue, looking for proof of what they declare is feasible fraud. California Republican congressman Darrell Issa, all the time a voice of calm and motive, has known as on the Treasury Department to probe whether or not ActBlue has knowingly supported terrorist teams. (The group didn’t reply to a request for remark.)
The assault on ActBlue—simply as seven of the group’s senior leaders have give up for unknown causes—may do loads of injury to Democrats all by itself. Yet it may be merely the beginning of a broader Republican tactic: trying to disrupt the move of Democratic marketing campaign cash. Ted Cruz has been flirting with the identical concept; in February, the Texas Republican threatened to difficulty his first subpoena as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to Bonterra, a non-public firm that owns important Democratic and progressive tech fundraising infrastructure. Cruz has backed off for now, saying that Bonterra has made a good-faith effort to show over the requested paperwork.
Nevertheless, these early forays are rippling via the Democratic fundraising world, particularly as a result of the Trump administration has appeared keen to make use of the Department of Justice to go after its political adversaries. “People ask whether Democratic donors are intimidated because they don’t want to be investigated,” says Rufus Gifford, who was finance chair for Joe Biden’s, after which Kamala Harris’s, 2024 presidential marketing campaign. “I haven’t seen that. But no one is going to raise their hand and say so.”
Indeed, a senior official at a outstanding Democrat-adjacent group chooses his phrases very rigorously on the topic. “Republicans are systematically trying to go after funding sources or things that enable key parts of the Democratic funding operation, boxing in their opponents and making it hard to operate,” the official says. “It’s part of them trying to chill dissent, including going after law firms, like Perkins Coie, that have worked for Democrats. Whether or not they have any actual legal success, they’ll make it hell in the process, eating up resources.”
Or maybe protecting these sources within the pockets of donors and away from Democratic teams or candidates. Many PACs received’t file their first disclosure reviews of 2025 till April 15, and electoral off-years are typically sleepier, so it’s tough to evaluate whether or not there has already been a downturn in giving. Anecdotally, a minimum of, there may be appreciable chatter about attainable Democratic donor reluctance—although worry of Trump, coupled with frustration over November’s election outcomes, may be a handy excuse to maintain checkbooks closed.
“There is a sense of impending—I don’t want to call it ‘doom,’” says Adrianne Shropshire, the chief director of BlackPAC, which focuses on educating and mobilizing Black voters. “But impending trouble, because the Trump administration is doing essentially what they said they would do. So there’s concern among both political donors and philanthropic donors.”
Shropshire says she’s hopeful, although, that finally the impression of Republican assaults received’t be intimidation however inspiration. “I’ve had conversations with donors who are really clear on the role wealthy folks played in moments of transformative change—for instance, the Civil Rights Movement,” she says. “And some of them are feeling very much like we’re in another moment where change needs to happen, and they’re more committed.” But it received’t be till this fall, when some main state gubernatorial races warmth up, that Shropshire says she is going to really feel assured in judging donor enthusiasm.
John Morgan, a longtime Democratic contributor and fundraiser, isn’t ready to do his handicapping. When I ask if he believes fellow big-money donors are cautious of being investigated, Morgan’s reply is fast: “Well, we know Jeff Bezos is.” For his personal half, although, the Florida trial lawyer says he isn’t spooked. “If I have to be Navalny, well, that’d be a good way to go,” Morgan says. Given Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin, the reference is equal components apt and unnerving.