For most of its two-decade history, ActBlue hummed along in relative obscurity—and for Democrats, it might have been better off that way.
The online donation platform for the left was founded in 2004 with a mission to harness the power of the internet and fuel political campaigns through small dollar donations. In the 2008 presidential cycle, it set out with the humble goal of raising $100 million for Democrats; this year, it raised nearly eight times that much in the first half of 2025 alone. ActBlue processed another $482 million in the third quarter of this year.
As ActBlue’s coffers have grown, so has the target on its back.
What began as a series of spurious online rumors about alleged fraud on the platform has since spiraled into a slew of state investigations, a lengthy ongoing probe led by House Republicans, and a Department of Justice investigation ordered by President Trump himself in April. At the same time, the organization, which operates as a political action committee, has recently seen a number of high profile departures, including within its legal team, which have only fanned the flames of Republican inquiries.
The DOJ’s deadline to complete its investigation has already passed, and the department declined to comment for this story. The House’s investigation, meanwhile, has yielded one preliminary report, which charges ActBlue executives with failing “to take the threat of fraud seriously,” without identifying any instances of potential fraud that ActBlue hadn’t already caught. The report also made no mention of WinRed, the Republican fundraising platform, which is facing its own investigations regarding allegedly deceptive fundraising practices.
Still, the political attacks and turnover have placed substantial strain on a vital piece of Democratic infrastructure, through which billions of dollars in funding flow. Now, the question is whether ActBlue can survive this relentless firestorm—and what it will mean to the party if it can’t.
Fast Company spoke with more than a dozen sources, including ActBlue’s CEO, current leadership, former employees, Democratic strategists, and other former party officials. These conversations show that even as Democrats rally around ActBlue in the face of what they say are dangerous attacks from the right, they are also sharply divided over whether the organization is equipped to handle these blows and whether the right leaders are in place to meet the moment.
Internal turmoil
One figure at the center of this divide is ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, who joined the organization in 2023 after spending her career working at tech companies (eBay, Facebook, Yahoo) and serving in local government in East Palo Alto. After The New York Times reported on the departures of at least seven senior ActBlue leaders in April, ActBlue sought to cast the moves as part of the “natural turnover after the 2024 election cycle.”
But former ActBlue employees and Democratic strategists familiar with the exits told Fast Company that many of the departures stemmed from what one former employee characterized as a “verbally abusive” working environment under Wallace-Jones, marked by “major blowouts.” This employee described Wallace-Jones as deeply distrustful of both the Democratic ecosystem and members of her own staff.
The former employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of being singled out by members of Congress, described a situation in which he briefed ActBlue’s general counsel on a potential sponsorship that could have had legal implications for ActBlue. According to internal communications viewed by Fast Company, Wallace-Jones later chastised the former employee for sharing information with ActBlue’s legal team, suggesting that doing so was tantamount to leaking. (ActBlue declined to respond directly to this claim).
“People did not just leave because it was the end of a cycle,” the former employee said. “We did not trust that she was the leader to take this organization forward anymore.”
“She made it very clear to everybody that they were replaceable,” said another former employee.
According to The New York Times’s reporting in April, unions representing ActBlue employees wrote a letter to the board asking it to hire outside counsel to investigate “the current state of the organization and evaluate if our C.E.O. is doing her job in an appropriate, competent and responsible manner.” A spokesperson for ActBlue told Fast Company the firm had in fact “supported an independent and privileged investigation,” which had concluded that the allegations in the letter “could not be substantiated.”
Many of these interpersonal challenges would scarcely bear mentioning in the cutthroat world of politics or even tech, if it weren’t for the fact that they’ve bled out into the public domain and are now being used as evidence by House Republicans that something must be awry within ActBlue.
After the Times report, the committees investigating ActBlue shifted focus, sending another letter to the organization, this time demanding documents related to the resignations and possible “retaliation against whistleblowers.” In July, the committees subpoenaed ActBlue for further documents, arguing that the staff departures “may be related to ActBlue’s fraud-prevention efforts.” In September, the committees reportedly subpoenaed ActBlue’s former lawyers, including its former general counsel, Darrin Hurwitz. (Hurwitz did not respond to Fast Company’s request for comment).
The sources who spoke to Fast Company say ActBlue’s staff turnover has nothing to do with what they say are baseless allegations of fraud being leveled by Republicans. “They want to say, ‘Oh, all the executives fled the company because of all the craziness they saw,’” said one former employee. “That could not be farther from the truth.”
Still, they point to these allegations as one side effect of Wallace-Jones’s leadership and an example of how the organization has failed to navigate the political messaging of this moment.
“At its core, ActBlue is a political organization that does tech, not a tech organization that works in politics. At every turn, they’ve fucked up the politics,” said one former Democratic National Committee official, who critiqued ActBlue for failing to work with the rest of the party to combat the GOP’s attacks and disseminate information about the recent staff departures. “No one knows what’s going on over there. That’s led to more fear than is rational,” he said.
One of the former employees who spoke with Fast Company said Wallace-Jones did not appear to take the GOP’s attacks on the platform seriously until it was too late. “Of all the priorities, this was not a top one, and it should have been, considering the risk it’s yielded,” the former employee said.
Asked about this claim, an ActBlue spokesperson told Fast Company, “Everything we’ve said from last August through today has demonstrated we are fighting these attacks aggressively, thoughtfully, and honestly.”
Hard choices
In an interview with Fast Company, Wallace-Jones said she needed to make “hard choices” when she arrived at ActBlue. Indeed, a few months after she joined the organization, ActBlue laid off one-sixth of its staff in what Wallace-Jones said at the time was an effort to control costs and focus on its technology.
Some of the former employees interviewed for this story agreed that, while painful, many of the organizational changes Wallace-Jones made were necessary.
“It is my job to bring ActBlue into its next phase of contribution, and in so doing, any CEO has got to evaluate what the present state of the organization is. Any CEO has got to evaluate whether all of the pieces are in place to support the go forward. In some cases there are hard choices to be made,” Wallace-Jones told Fast Company. She said her current team “is the right team to carry us forward into who we can become.”
An ActBlue spokesperson said in a statement that “it would be difficult to imagine or point to an instance where a male CEO would be similarly scrutinized, let alone have a credible media article focused on such a non-issue.”
The spokesperson described the Republican attacks against ActBlue as attacks against democracy itself. “[T]hey are coming after ActBlue because we are the largest, most successful and impactful technology-driven fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and Progressive causes,” the spokesperson said. “To suggest that their attacks are due to anything other than a desire to take out the infrastructure of the Left is short-sided at Best. [sic]”
Several current ActBlue executives and Democratic strategists also described Wallace-Jones as precisely the kind of leader the organization now requires. Jason Wong, who has been ActBlue’s vice president of engineering since 2022, said that prior to Wallace-Jones’s arrival ActBlue “operated mostly on a consensus basis,” making it difficult to move transformative projects forward.
Wallace-Jones has brought more clarity to ActBlue, Wong said, and has pushed ActBlue to take on a bigger role within the party. Recently, the firm acquired its first company, a digital organizing platform called Impactive, and announced it would be donating $1 million to Democratic state parties to bolster their infrastructure. It also recently launched Raise, a simplified version of its fundraising tools, designed for down-ballot races.
“We’re a different company today than we were back then,” Wong said. He acknowledged that, “those transformations are difficult for everyone involved.”
Lawrence Oliver, ActBlue’s new chief legal officer, who joined the firm after the departure of its former general counsel, also described Wallace-Jones as “the perfect leader for this.”
“Is she demanding? Yes. Is she tough? Yes. But I’ve worked for a lot of tough and demanding people,” said Oliver, who was previously chief counsel of investigations at Boeing and a special counsel in the Cook County, Illinois State Attorney’s Office.
Others outside of the organization defended Wallace-Jones’s communication within the broader Democratic party. “She worked overtime trying to make sure she had meetings with people,” said Minyon Moore, who has previously served as chair of the Democratic National Convention Committee and CEO of the Democratic National Committee. She called the notion that Wallace-Jones has been slow to respond to the GOP’s attacks “BS.”
“We can blame ActBlue for showing up slow or coming on too fast, but the fact is we all should be ready to pounce on that,” Moore said.
One platform, lots of vulnerabilities
Some of the people Fast Company spoke to pointed to ActBlue’s record under Wallace-Jones, which includes processing more than $3.8 billion in donations in 2024. WinRed, by contrast, brought in less than half of that. But Wallace-Jones’s critics argue that ActBlue can only take so much credit for that cash bump. “The money the party and the candidates are raising is because we’re in a huge crisis moment and huge fight,” said the former DNC official. “The historic nature of Democratic fundraising is despite ActBlue at this point, not because of it.”
Beyond the questions about ActBlue’s current leadership, the conflict surrounding the organization has highlighted the risks of relying on a single payment platform. “Trump attacks or not, it’s a precarious place to be,” said one Democratic strategist.
Daniel Garcia, communications director for the Democratic party of New Mexico, said his team began working with another payment platform, GoodChange, in addition to ActBlue, earlier this year, in part due to the ongoing investigations.
“The potential for ActBlue to come under attack certainly is a concern for us,” Garcia said. “In the event something does happen to ActBlue because of the Trump administration, we do want to be prepared and have another option.”
GoodChange cofounder Becky Pittman told Fast Company the firm is now working with 20 state parties and county committees. She said GoodChange’s platform—which includes, among other things, event features and a tool that allows donors to donate spare change from every purchase they make—often “complements” other payment platforms. And she condemned the GOP’s attacks on ActBlue. “It makes it dangerous for everyone,” Pittman said.
In an interview, Wallace-Jones said Democrats aren’t moving away from ActBlue, pointing to the amount of donations that have flowed through the platform this year. “ActBlue has had, bar none, the most successful fundraising cycle it’s ever had in its history,” she said.
Of course, if Democrats wanted to distance themselves from ActBlue entirely, it would be no trivial thing. ActBlue’s sheer size and dominance has made it challenging for other startups to even raise the funding they would need to operate a viable challenger, said a Democratic strategist who spoke with Fast Company.
ActBlue has also become the de facto keeper of Democratic donors’ information, an advantage that makes it possible for people to seamlessly donate across campaigns without reentering that information. “Another entity can rebuild that, but it would just take time,” said the strategist, adding that that’s time most campaigns don’t have.
There are also risks inherent to experimenting with new technology. Wong, ActBlue’s vice president of engineering, noted that the platform saw “unprecedented levels of traffic” in 2024 without experiencing any outages, strain that newer platforms could struggle to withstand.
And in a political climate in which the president appears hellbent on punishing perceived enemies, there’s no guarantee a more diversified landscape would be any safer from political attacks. “If they’re going to come after us,” he said, “they can come after anyone.”
