\n<\/p>\n
Mike Johnson<\/strong> has two money problems on his mind. The first is more immediate: On Tuesday, the House Speaker scraped together a four-vote majority to approve a $1.6 trillion budget bill. But on Wednesday, Chuck Schumer<\/strong> said Senate Democrats will refuse to pass the plan, increasing the chances of a government shutdown at midnight Friday.<\/p>\n Yet even as that far-reaching drama unfolded, Johnson and his Republican colleagues have kept one eye on another issue, for which there\u2019s a purely political financial angle. Since last December, Johnson has been cheerleading a congressional investigation into ActBlue, the largest Democratic online fundraising platform. Last year, it took in $3.8 billion, more than double the amount raised by the equivalent Republican PAC, WinRed. Two of Johnson\u2019s lieutenants, Wisconsin Republican congressman Bryan Steil<\/strong> and Kentucky Republican congressman James Comer,<\/strong> along with New York Republican representative Nick Langworthy,<\/strong> have issued a subpoena seeking suspicious activity reports from the Treasury Department related to ActBlue, hunting for evidence of what they claim is possible fraud. California Republican congressman Darrell Issa,<\/strong> always a voice<\/a> of calm<\/a> and reason<\/a>, has called on the Treasury Department to probe whether ActBlue has knowingly supported terrorist groups. (The organization did not respond to a request for comment.)<\/p>\n The assault on ActBlue\u2014just as seven of the group\u2019s senior leaders have quit for unknown reasons\u2014could do plenty of damage to Democrats all by itself. Yet it could also be merely the start of a broader Republican tactic: attempting to disrupt the flow of Democratic campaign money. Ted Cruz<\/strong> has been flirting with the same idea; in February, the Texas Republican threatened to issue his first subpoena as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee to Bonterra, a private company that owns significant Democratic and progressive tech fundraising infrastructure. Cruz has backed off for now, saying that Bonterra has made a good-faith effort to turn over the requested documents.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, these early forays are rippling through the Democratic fundraising world, especially because the Trump administration has appeared eager to use the Department of Justice to go after its political adversaries. \u201cPeople ask whether Democratic donors are intimidated because they don\u2019t want to be investigated,\u201d says Rufus Gifford,<\/strong> who was finance chair for Joe Biden<\/strong>\u2019s, and then Kamala Harris<\/strong>\u2019s, 2024 presidential campaign. \u201cI haven\u2019t seen that. But no one is going to raise their hand and say so.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, a senior official at a prominent Democrat-adjacent group chooses his words very carefully on the subject. \u201cRepublicans 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,\u201d the official says. \u201cIt\u2019s 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\u2019ll make it hell in the process, eating up resources.\u201d<\/p>\n Or perhaps keeping those resources in the pockets of donors and away from Democratic groups or candidates. Many PACs won\u2019t file their first disclosure reports of 2025 until April 15, and electoral off-years are generally sleepier, so it\u2019s difficult to assess whether there has already been a downturn in giving. Anecdotally, at least, there is considerable<\/a> chatter<\/a> about possible Democratic donor reluctance\u2014though fear of Trump, coupled with frustration over November\u2019s election results, may also be a convenient excuse to keep checkbooks closed.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is a sense of impending\u2014I don\u2019t want to call it \u2018doom,\u2019\u201d says Adrianne Shropshire,<\/strong> the executive director of BlackPAC, which focuses on educating and mobilizing Black voters. \u201cBut impending trouble, because the Trump administration is doing essentially what they said they would do. So there\u2019s concern among both political donors and philanthropic donors.\u201d<\/p>\n Shropshire says she\u2019s hopeful, though, that ultimately the impact of Republican attacks won\u2019t be intimidation but inspiration. \u201cI\u2019ve had conversations with donors who are really clear on the role wealthy folks played in moments of transformative change\u2014for instance, the Civil Rights Movement,\u201d she says. \u201cAnd some of them are feeling very much like we\u2019re in another moment where change needs to happen, and they\u2019re more committed.\u201d But it won\u2019t be until this fall, when some major state gubernatorial races heat up, that Shropshire says she will feel confident in judging donor enthusiasm.<\/p>\n John Morgan,<\/strong> a longtime Democratic contributor and fundraiser, isn\u2019t waiting to do his handicapping. When I ask if he believes fellow big-money donors are wary of being investigated, Morgan\u2019s answer is quick: \u201cWell, we know Jeff Bezos<\/strong> is.\u201d For his own part, though, the Florida trial lawyer says he isn\u2019t spooked. \u201cIf I have to be Navalny, well, that\u2019d be a good way to go,\u201d Morgan says. Given Trump\u2019s admiration for Vladimir Putin,<\/strong> the reference is equal parts apt and unnerving.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n