Are “Smurfing” Techniques Inflating the Vote for Bob Casey in Pennsylvania?
Analysis suggests McCormick may have won by a larger margin without questionable contributions to his Democrat opponent
David McCormick may have won the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania by more than 0.5%. This is important because if Sen. Bob Casey, the incumbent Democrat, lost by more than that margin he should not be entitled to a recount.
According to a Restoration News analysis of campaign finance records involving millions of dollars in donations to Casey's campaign along with others, an elaborate money laundering operation known as “smurfing” could be artificially inflating vote totals in Pennsylvania.
The Associated Press and other news outlets declared McCormick the winner on election night after officials tallies showed the Republican challenger leading by a little more than 30,000 votes. Nevertheless, Casey, who has already served three terms, has refused to concede.
Under state law, if the margin of victory does not exceed 0.5%, it triggers an automatic recount. But an elaborate money laundering operation known as “smurfing” that worked to the advantage of Casey, and other Democratic candidates and causes, could have artificially inflated vote totals.
A “smurf” is an individual whose name and identity shows up in campaign finance records without their knowledge or consent. They often have no idea that hundreds or thousands of donations are being made in their name.
Restoration News has obtained Federal Election Commission (FEC) records that indicate that the typical smurf is elderly, retired, of modest financial means, and has made numerous small donations to Democrats.
In Pennsylvania, Restoration News has identified 25 likely smurfs who made about 200,000 contributions totaling more than $2 million in contributions to Democratic candidates and organizations.
More than 3,700 of these contributions went to Casey, according to our analysis.
Smurfing techniques involve repacking large sums of money into smaller, individual transactions for the purpose of appearing less suspicious and avoiding scrutiny by law enforcement.
For example, one possible smurf, a 75-year-old individual with the initials “SP,” made more than 30,000 different contributions to Democrat causes totaling about $250,000 with an average contribution of $8.
FEC records also show this same individual made almost 18,000 contributions totaling $146,000 to ActBlue. The largest single donation was $300. ActBlue is the Left’s top fundraising and pass-through operation for Democrats.
(RELATED: Money Laundering Investigations into ActBlue, “Smurfing” Schemes Gain Momentum in Wisconsin)
Feeling Blue
The ActBlue networks includes a political action committee, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit called ActBlue Charities, and 501(c)(4) nonprofit called ActBlue Civics.
Earlier this fall, a coalition of 19 state attorneys general initiated a criminal investigation into ActBlue over allegations of money laundering. On the federal level, Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the Committee on House Administration, has led the charge against potential money laundering schemes flowing into and out of ActBlue. Smurfing operations associated with ActBlue could also involve charges of identity theft and elder abuse.
Steil is the lead sponsor of legislation known as the SHIELD Act, which would impose stricter requirements on campaign donations made through credit or debit cards. He has also partnered with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson (R), the ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to probe into the possibility that foreign countries have also made use of ActBlue to influence U.S. elections. Steil and Johnson have sent letters to Treasury Secretary Yellen, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines.
Bet Your Bottom Dollar
Back in Pennsylvania, quantifying the relationship between campaign spending and vote outcomes is a complex task. However, several studies attempt to unpackage the dollar-to-vote relationship.
One 2003 study titled, “Why is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics,” concludes that a candidate's spending in a typical U.S. congressional race increases their vote share by about 0.2% for each $100,000 spent. This implies a rough estimate of about $50,000 per percentage point of vote share.
Another study from 2012 examining the impact of campaign spending on voter turnout suggests that that in federal races, a typical congressional campaign spends about $25–$50 per vote for competitive races.
Pennsylvania State Department figures show Casey received 48.5% of the vote with 3,350,972 votes while McCormick, a businessman and West Point graduate, had 48.93% of the vote with 3,380,310. Counties must initiate the recount by Nov. 20, and they must finish the recount by noon on Nov. 26 and report the results to the Pennsylvania secretary of state by noontime on Nov. 27.
How many of Casey’s votes resulted from influence exerted by smurfing operations via ActBlue? Authorities should initiate further investigations for the sake of election integrity.
(READ MORE: 141,000 ActBlue “Smurfing” Donations to Democrats Found in Pennsylvania)
