How We Identify Scam PACs
For every PAC our ScamBusters team investigates, we examine how much money the PAC raises from donors, how that money is spent, and what percentage ultimately reaches candidates or electoral programs. All of this information is drawn from publicly available filings on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website.
We compare the PAC’s public claims — on its website, in fundraising appeals, and in other communications — with what the PAC’s FEC filings actually show. We also examine relationships between PAC operators and their vendors, as well as any enforcement actions taken by fundraising platforms or party organizations.
In addition, we analyze fundraising spam messages and emails sent to donors and collect accounts from donors who believe they were misled by the PACs that they supported.
Before publishing our findings, we contact the PAC’s leadership and give them an opportunity to respond to our findings.
Specifically we look at:
1. Fundraising Ratio
We analyze the percentage of total spending that goes to fundraising versus electoral activity. A PAC that spends 80–90% of all the money it has raised on more fundraising is not a political organization — it’s a fundraising operation. We analyze FEC disbursement data to categorize every dollar spent as fundraising, operational, or electoral/programmatic, and calculate the fundraising ratio. We also identify cases where vendors classified as “operational” are actually performing fundraising work.
2. Self-Dealing and Financial Conflicts of Interest
We examine whether a PAC’s operators personally profit from the PAC’s spending. Warning signs include treasurers whose own firms receive compliance fees, operators who control multiple PACs and move money between them, and vendor arrangements in which a dominant share of spending flows to a single firm connected to the PAC’s leadership.
We also look at whether those responsible for managing a PAC’s finances are themselves the primary financial beneficiaries — a situation that should raise serious concerns for donors.
3. Deceptive Advertising and Donor Communications
We ask whether the PAC misleads donors about how their money will be used. Common tactics include invoking the names of prominent politicians (e.g., Bernie Sanders, President Obama, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, etc.) without authorization, fabricating “membership” programs that require donation-based “renewal,” advertising false donation matches (“300% MATCH!”), creating a false sense of urgency to donate immediately and making promises (“flip the House!”) that the PAC’s spending record does not support.
4. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
We assess how transparent and accountable a PAC is to its donors. Does the organization clearly disclose who runs it and how it operates? Legitimate organizations publicly identify their leadership, staff, and board.
Scam PACs, by contrast, often list no board of directors and name no staff. They provide little or no contact information, and their social media accounts or websites — if they exist at all — rarely explain how donor funds are actually used.
5. Platform Enforcement Actions
We assess whether the PAC has been removed from fundraising platforms for violating the platform’s terms of service. ActBlue, the primary Democratic online fundraising platform, has de-platformed a number of PACs for misleading donors. When a PAC is removed by ActBlue — or in rare cases, by multiple platforms — it is a strong indication that the PAC’s conduct has been independently flagged as problematic.