Another elderly donor has come forward disputing a massive volume of ActBlue contributions made in her name, the latest in a long-running pattern of disputed high-volume donations.
Now the same discrepancy has surfaced again, this time in Michigan. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Charlie LeDuff of Michigan Enjoyer published a report with an on-camera interview with 88-year-old Elizabeth Waffle of Milan.
According to the FEC records LeDuff presented, nearly 15,000 separate donations totaling more than $150,000 had been made in her name through ActBlue over the previous five years, roughly eight contributions every day.
Waffle, who lives in a trailer on a dirt road after her house burned down two years ago, owns no computer and has only limited internet access.
When presented with the paperwork, she rejected the totals. “One hundred and fifty thousand?” she said. “Hell no. I don’t have that kind of money.”
She acknowledged making some small donations, including to Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, but called the overall volume “very abnormal” and said she believed “there’s something in there that’s off.”
The Center Square followed with its own review of the same FEC data and obtained a response from ActBlue. Its analysis found $100,295 in contributions processed through ActBlue under Waffle’s name across recent election cycles, still thousands of individual transactions.
ActBlue stated that:
- They reviewed the relevant contribution data.
- Their customer service team had already reached out to the donor.
- It is standard operating procedure to take corrective action (including blocking accounts and reporting potential fraud) when a noncompliant donation is identified.
- They pointed to their “tandem fundraising” feature, which can turn a single form submission into multiple reported contributions.
Even if the donations were spread across five years, the numbers remain extreme:
- Roughly 12,900–14,700 separate transactions
- Averaging around 7–8 donations per day, every day, for years
- Totaling $100,000–$150,000+
This is not a new story. In multiple documented cases, elderly Americans have appeared as prolific donors, sometimes with thousands of contributions totaling well over $100,000, only to later dispute those records.
Analysts and investigators have flagged these patterns in states including Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, raising ongoing questions about identity verification and the possibility of unauthorized or structured contributions.
In 2023, O’Keefe Media Group reported on senior citizens in Maryland and elsewhere whose names appeared on $170,000 to $230,000.00 plus in ActBlue donations they flatly denied making. One Arizona resident in her 80s was listed for more than 18,000 individual contributions totaling over $170,000. Maryland seniors interviewed on camera said they had given only small amounts here and there, not the thousands of micro-donations recorded in their names.
In Connecticut, analysis by Dominic Rapini, reported in 2025, identified multiple residents over 70 whose FEC records showed extraordinary volume. One 88-year-old retired Yale professor was listed for 7,539 donations totaling $213,163. He signed an affidavit disputing the record, stating it did not reflect his actual donation frequency or the dollars he had given. Several others in the same group of elderly Connecticut residents signed similar affidavits.
Similar high-volume patterns involving elderly donors have been flagged in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The evidence leaves little doubt. Something is off here.
These recurring cases, documented by separate independent journalists across multiple states, continue to prompt investigations. House Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight committees have been examining ActBlue’s fraud controls and foreign-donation safeguards for years, aided by internal documents and whistleblower accounts, including allegations of retaliation against employees who raised concerns. That inquiry intensified after platform leadership, including CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned under oath about the organization’s verification practices and prior statements to Congress.
