Election Watch’s Peter Bernegger Exposes ActBlue Finance Laundering and Chinese NGO Influence in US Politics


Before discussing the foreign funding in the United States’ elections, we must first acknowledge the modus operandi and influence of non-governmental organizations on foreign countries.  No better example exists than the contemporary situation in the transcontinental nation of Georgia.

Over the past several months, Georgia has been facing an impending Colour Revolution, similar to the 2014 Maidan Uprising in Ukraine at the behest of US diplomats, such as Victoria Nuland, with assistance from pro-West Ukrainian counterparts, such as Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was in the Ukraine Parliament during the uprising.  He would go on immediately following to become Ukraine’s Prime Minister.  Yatsenyuk is also mentioned in the infamous Joe Biden “son-of-a-bitch was fired” clip regarding the firing of Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Shokin in lieu of a $1 billion loan guarantee.

Oliver Stone’s documentary “Ukraine on Fire“, free on YouTube and Rumble, is an in-depth breakdown of the US-influence leading up to the unconstitutional ousting of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych during the ‘Maidan Uprising.’

Georgia is currently facing similar pressure over a law that would require non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profits to register as “foreign agents” if they receive 20% or more of their funding from groups outside of Georgia.  The movement against this law’s passage is being supported by European and US-backed entities while the EU and NATO are attempting to admit Georgia into the respective organizations.  Georgia shares a significant border with Russia, similar to Ukraine, and could potentially lead to military conflict similar to that underway in Ukraine.

The irony of it all is that the United States and most other modernized countries already have similar foreign influence laws in place.  In fact, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez is on trial right now for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  It’s also the basis for the allegations against the Biden crime family in their dealings with Burisma, the Chinese CEFC, and other foreign entities.

However, is that law in the United States adequate?  And is it being adhered to?

Foreign Election Interference Through NGOs and Non-Profits

Many have seen the ‘Get out the Vote,’ ‘Protect Democracy,’ and ‘Voter Mobilization’ NGOs that seem to spend millions of dollars lobbying politicians and filing lawsuits to strip away any shred of security from our elections.  Meanwhile, election integrity groups that are conducting thorough investigations to ensure our elections are conducted lawfully and counted accurately always seem to struggle for a mere fraction of the funding the aforementioned groups receive.  This is despite having brought to light numerous instances of transparency being obfuscated while uncovering flagrant violations of election code with minimal to no consequence.

Is it simply because the Americans are more interested in every single person voting, no matter how insecure that makes the process, and therefore donate to the formerly mentioned NGOs?  No, it’s not organic according to research done by investigators Peter Bernegger of Election Watch, Chris Gleason, and numerous other researchers who wish to remain anonymous.  In fact, a chunk of it can be traced back not just to the Soros-funded Tides Foundation, but also to the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA) out of San Francisco.

In a post on X, Bernegger claims that the CPA gave “big money” to the Tides Foundation, who in turn gave to over 2,500 NGOs and non-profits that are “all focused on winning for liberals at the ballot box,” according to Bernegger.

InfluenceWatch.org states that the CPA is a “left-wing community organizing group” that “grew out of radical-left and pro-People’s Republic of China cadres” and is “historically aligned with the revolutionary Communist groups I Wor Kuen and League of Revolutionary Struggle.”  More recently, it has “promoted forming a national alliance of Asian-American advocacy groups.”  And in 2018, the CPA formed the Black Futures Lab, which is a “voter mobilization” BLM organization.

On the Why We Vote podcast last Friday, Bernegger also described the smurfing operation involving ActBlue and democrat operatives by attributing small dollar donations across hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of transactions.  These “smurf” donations are exclusively attributed to retired Americans that are typically in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  On his website ElectionWatch.info, Bernegger has an interactive map of the United States that outlines these smurfs.  Click on any individual state and you can filter donations that he believes are “smurfs.”  Note: the people listed are not accused of any wrongdoing.  Bernegger’s data is indicative of identity theft, elder abuse, and money laundering.

For example, under the California tab, one of the “smurfs” is a woman from San Diego who donated 52,501 times in just under six years for a total amount of $884,152.  Avg. Donation: $16.84.

Another woman from San Jose donated 32,411 times in just over six years for a total of $293,990.  Avg. Donation:  $9.07.

Bernegger went on to explain that much of this money is actually coming from the US Treasury and being laundered back into the United States from overseas (think: FTX).

When asked if there is an investigation opened up on this, or whether these transactions can be traced, Bernegger claimed that “the FEC is in on it”, calling it “Sovereign Fraud.”  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has sent letters to the FEC about this situation, as has Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI).  The FEC agreed to a meeting with Sen. Johnson.  According to Bernegger, the FEC then rescinded their agreement to a meeting after receiving the questions from Sen. Johnson.  Bernegger called the questions “the right ones.”

It is remarkable that a bureaucratic institution is bold enough to refuse oversight from sitting US Senators.  Sen. Rubio has previously introduced the Codification of Verified Values Act, which would require the use of credit verification value numbers (CVV) on the back of credit cards to be required for campaign donations.  This would add additional security for transactions and ensure the donator is in fact the donator.

Unfortunately, that bill has been sitting in committee since February of 2023.  It’s a simple bill.  In fact, the entirety of the action is one sentence to ensure accountability for a regulated transaction:

“(m) CVV Requirement For Online Contributions.—An organization shall not be treated as an organization described in this section unless, in the case of any internet credit card contribution accepted by such organization, the individual or entity making such contribution is required, at the time such contribution is made, to disclose the credit verification value of such credit card.”.




Photo of author
Follow me at Rumble.com/CannCon, CannCon.Locals.com and @CannCon on TruthSocial

You can email Brian Lupo here, and read more of Brian Lupo's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!