McCain-Feingold, USAID and the NGO Network - Stu Cvrk

 

by Stu Cvrk

Good intentions gone bad—by design!

 

Money is the mother’s milk of politics.

—Jesse Unruh, the 26th California treasurer

The debate over money in politics is defined by a core tension between the ideals of transparency, privacy, and mandated disclosure. Proponents of robust transparency and disclosure requirements (especially America Firsters) argue that voters have a fundamental right to know who is funding candidates, parties, and issue advocacy since undisclosed “dark money” from wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, or foreign-linked entities can distort democratic outcomes, enable corruption or undue influence and facilitate implementation of left-wing policies funded by U.S. taxpayers without authorization or scrutiny. They push for lower reporting thresholds, real-time disclosures, and the closing of loopholes like super PACs and 501(c) organizations to let sunlight act as a disinfectant.

Opponents (the Democratic Party and their deep-state allies) counter that stringent disclosure rules infringe on First Amendment rights and donors’ privacy, exposing individuals and businesses to harassment, boycotts, job loss, or political retaliation—especially in an era of polarized social media and doxxing. They contend that anonymity protects legitimate expression and participation, warning that overly aggressive mandates could chill political speech and drive money further underground.

The system has been rigged to support the opponents of transparency over the years by design. Let us examine that premise.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka McCain-Feingold)

The explosions of “soft money” during the Clinton years brought about the first major campaign finance reform effort in decades. The term “soft money” refers to unregulated, unlimited contributions made to political parties (not directly to candidates) for activities that are supposedly not tied to federal elections—such as party-building efforts, voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote campaigns, and issue advocacy advertising. The reform effort resulted in the infamous Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002.

Origins and Passage

Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold began championing campaign finance reform in the mid-1990s as a reaction to what was seen as a toxic political landscape in which large donations tipped the scales for certain candidates and parties. The immediate trigger was the 1996 election cycle, when Bill Clinton pioneered the use of soft money funneled through the Democratic National Committee to supercharge campaign spending. A second catalyst came later: the final catalyst for House passage was the Enron scandal—and the lavish style with which the bankrupt Texas energy company had bankrolled legislators in both parties.

McCain-Feingold was created to prohibit soft money contributions to national political parties and limit campaign financing to hard money. Hard money is regulated, limited, and fully disclosed contributions made directly to federal candidates, their campaign committees, or political parties.

The bill passed the House 240-189, passed the Senate 60-40, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 26, 2002. Bush was so unenthusiastic about the legislation that he dispensed with the traditional White House Rose Garden signing ceremony as he instead set off on a two-day fundraising trip for congressional Republicans.

What It Accomplished

One of the most significant campaign finance regulations introduced by the BCRA was that national political party committees could no longer receive “soft money”—that is, unlimited donations to political parties from individuals, unions, or organizations—for federal elections. It also prohibited corporate and union broadcast communications within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.

The Unintended (or Intended?) Loophole

President Bush was perhaps prescient in his lack of enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold, as moneyed interests always seem to find ways around or through regulations, often through weak enforcement.

Money Migrates Downstream

The law’s central flaw—whether by design or negligence—was that it drove money out of transparent party channels and into opaque nonprofit structures where disclosure requirements were far weaker. The bill banned soft money but left in place a weak enforcement system that has resulted in little regulation of contributions to independent committees, including so-called 501(c)(4) and 527 groups.

Instead of resulting in more transparency and accountability, the law resulted in less. Prior to McCain-Feingold, the public knew the identity of soft money donors, which gave the two national parties a record $458 million in 2002 before the practice was outlawed. Many of these same donors are still making contributions to outside groups. But now the public is often left in the dark.

The numbers tell the story starkly. 501(c)(4) social welfare groups spent just $2.6 million in 2002. By the 2012 election, the amount had reached $257 million—nearly 100 times more than a decade earlier.

The 501(c)(4) Dark Money Architecture

501(c)(4) organizations can run attack ads, promote candidates and mobilize voters, all without ever disclosing a single one of their donors—as long as up to 49.9 percent of their activities are political. Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code allows organizations to make independent expenditures on politics while concealing their donors’ names—as long as politics isn’t the organization’s “primary activity.” This is the essence of “dark money.” The IRS has the daunting task of trying to determine when nonprofits in that category violate that vague standard.

Critically, since 2015, thousands of complaints have streamed in—from citizens, public interest groups, IRS agents, and government officials—that C4s are abusing the rules, but the agency has not stripped a single organization of its tax-exempt status for breaking spending rules during that period.

Citizens United Compounds the Problem

A short eight years after McCain-Feingold, a series of Supreme Court rulings struck down spending limits on corporations and unions, radically altering the campaign finance landscape and ushering in the era of the super PAC and, with it, a proliferation of other nonprofit organizations not required to disclose their donations under U.S. tax law.

USAID and the NGO Network

Unrestricted spending limits for corporations and unions and weak enforcement of campaign finance laws by the IRS and the political actors of the deep state make for a witch’s brew of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the tens of thousands of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that help distribute U.S. taxpayer funds in the U.S. and around the world.

The Structural Relationship

USAID was created by President Kennedy in 1961, and it was structured to receive foreign policy guidance from the State Department while operating as a nominally independent agency. Over decades, it built an extensive network of NGO implementing partners—contractors and grantees that carry out programs on the ground. In many cases, interagency partners are used as conduits for partnering with other NGOs—such as State Department management of various activities—rather than implementers themselves. Such cases blur the lines between a “managing agency” and an “implementing partner,” since an NGO in such cases effectively operates as the implementing partner.

USAID contractor and grantee indirect costs sometimes equal 30 percent of direct project costs, and of U.S. assistance contracted to firms and nonprofits worldwide in 2020, four-fifths still went to U.S. firms as prime contractors. This created a permanent, D.C.-centric ecosystem of organizations financially dependent on continued government grants.

Advancing Policies Without Congressional Direction

A serious and well-documented criticism—raised by conservatives, foreign governments, and some bipartisan congressional voices—is that USAID under certain administrations was used to advance ideological and political agendas that Congress never specifically authorized. There is credible evidence that during the Obama and Biden years, USAID was used to promote policies abroad that remain controversial within American society itself and that serve no clear national security interests.

The Heritage Foundation published a report exposing what it described as a nexus between USAID and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, claiming that the Obama administration had “at times turned USAID into an instrument for promoting agendas that have failed to gain consensus acceptance within American society itself,” including transgender rights and same-sex marriage.

Open Borders and Immigration Policy

A specific subset of criticism concerns USAID-funded NGOs that facilitated migration into the United States. The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, one of the nonprofits that transported illegal aliens across the country under the Biden administration, reported receiving vast sums from federal sources. Congressional testimony has detailed how some Soros-affiliated groups receiving government grants also took “extreme stances against the enforcement of immigration law,” declaring federal immigration agencies a “threat to civil liberties” and working to establish representation rights for immigrants facing deportation.

Documented Fraud and Kickbacks in the NGO Network

Separate from ideological concerns, the USAID implementing partner network has a documented record of financial fraud. The International Rescue Committee paid $6.9 million to settle allegations that its staff received kickbacks and steered procurements to a Turkish supply ring engaged in bid-rigging, billing USAID for inflated procurements in violation of the False Claims Act. The Academy for Educational Development paid more than $5 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims to USAID in Afghanistan and Pakistan, failing to ensure compliance with rules concerning competition in procurements. In June 2025, a government contracting officer for USAID and three owners and presidents of companies pleaded guilty in a decade-long bribery scheme involving at least 14 prime contracts worth more than $550 million.

The following foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) have received funding from USAID, USAID-connected NGOs, or both:

• Al-Nusrah Front
• Hamas
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
• Hezbollah
• al-Shabaab
• Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)

Examples of ideologically motivated fraud perpetrated by USAID include the following:

• $1.5 million—Advancing DEI in Serbia’s workplaces.
• $70,000—Producing a “DEI musical” in Ireland.
• $47,000—A “transgender opera” in Colombia.
• $32,000—A “transgender comic book” in Peru.
• $2 million—Sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.

 

ActBlue and the Foreign Money Problem

The McCain-Feingold architecture—which pushed donations toward less-regulated nonprofit and online channels—created conditions that were eventually exploited through online bundling platforms. ActBlue, the dominant Democratic online fundraising processor, came under serious scrutiny.

ActBlue’s own law firm, Covington & Burling, sent “startling” memos in early 2025 warning that ActBlue’s CEO may have misled Congress about how the platform ensures donations come from U.S. sources, concluding there was “a substantial risk that some of the funds received” were “impermissible contributions from foreign nationals.”

A joint House committee report alleged that ActBlue “allowed bad actors, including foreign actors, to exploit its online platform to make fraudulent political donations” and cited mass resignations from ActBlue’s own legal and compliance team as a consequence of the scandal. The Republican-led House Administration Committee found evidence that illegal donations from China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela may have been laundered to Democratic campaigns through the platform, with foreign actors allegedly exploiting existing U.S. donors by making straw donations without their knowledge.

President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the attorney general to investigate allegations of “straw donor” and foreign contributions through online fundraising platforms, with congressional investigators finding, over a 30-day period during the 2024 election cycle, hundreds of ActBlue donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards.

The full extent of foreign money in ActBlue is still under criminal and civil investigation.

Concluding Thoughts

Connecting these threads, a coherent structural critique can be summarized as follows:

McCain-Feingold killed transparent soft-money donations to parties, but the same money migrated into 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, and online bundlers with far less disclosure—creating a shadow funding infrastructure for political activism, including the election of favored candidates and implementation of favored policies.

USAID and the State Department built a global NGO network that, under certain administrations, became a vehicle for implementing progressive policy objectives—on immigration, gender ideology, media influence, and electoral politics in foreign countries—that were never specifically authorized by Republican-controlled Congresses or Republican presidents, funded by taxpayer dollars, and operating largely beyond normal oversight mechanisms.

The NGO network domestically connected that infrastructure back to U.S. politics: organizations receiving federal grants also lobbied for open-border policies, ran voter mobilization programs, and fed into the broader progressive fundraising ecosystem.

ActBlue sits at the end of that chain—a nominally independent nonprofit that aggregated small-dollar donations in ways that allegedly allowed foreign money and straw donations to enter the U.S. campaign finance system at scale, with its own lawyers ultimately acknowledging the risk of serious federal violations. The fact that ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones pleaded the Fifth multiple times under questioning by the House Administration Committee on June 10 explains everything (she knows they committed criminal acts and doesn’t want to incriminate herself).

As a result, the tensions between the ideals of transparency, privacy, and mandated disclosure throughout the chain continue unabated in 2026. This friction plays out in court battles and in the political arena, where the challenge remains of striking a balance that deters corruption without sacrificing the associational privacy essential to a free society. Not to mention catching crooks who violate campaign finance and other U.S. laws with impunity.

The Trump administration is trying to restore the balance in favor of transparency and the enforcement of existing laws. The Democrats who have learned to rig the system for their political benefit are fighting tooth and nail to restore the status quo ante Trump and keep the money flowing. That is a big part of what the midterm elections are all about.

Photo: Senator John McCain (L), R-AZ, with Campaign Finance Bill co-sponsor Russell Feingold (R), D-WI, talk to the press after the US Senate passed the bill 02 April 2001 in Washington, DC. The Senate voted 59-41 for the bill to ban unlimited contributions to political parties, also known as "soft money." McCain and Feingold say the measure will break the power of large donors over lawmakers. Opponents of the bill argue it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The bill would raise the amount of direct contributions for candidates from 1,000 to 2,000 USD, and increase disclosure requirements and restrict advertising by independent groups. AFP PHOTO/Manny CENETA (Photo by MANNY CENETA / AFP) (Photo by MANNY CENETA/AFP via Getty Images) 

Stu Cvrk retired as a captain after serving 30 years in the U.S. Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he received a classical liberal education that serves as the key foundation for his geopolitical commentary.

Source: https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/20/mccain-feingold-usaid-and-the-ngo-network/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter