Anatomy of a Coloradan Addicted to Making Political Donations

By Mike O’Donnell | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

America may be the land of the free but it is also the land of addictions. The 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that 28.2 million Americans have a “drug use disorder” and the National Council on Problem Gambling reports that approximately 2.5 million Americans have “severe problems” gambling and an additional 5 to 8 million have mild or moderate issues.

The dangers of addictions to drugs and/or gambling are well known, highly publicized, and well studied, but the dangers of being addicted to making political donations aren’t.

At least until now.

Addictions generally seem to be a bigger problem for the young than the old. The American Psychiatric Association reports that people over the age of 60 are less likely to be addicted to gambling than other age groups, although research does show that women over 65 are a very susceptible demographic because they are more vulnerable to the slick marketing messages targeting them and may use gambling to fill a void.

Although the American Psychiatric Association doesn’t recognize addictions associated with making political donations as problematic, they nevertheless do exist and certainly exist among female Colorado voters over the age of 65.

They are also easy to identify using publicly available data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) without the need for massive government research grants.

The role of the FEC is to administer and enforce federal campaign finance laws in elections for the U.S. House, Senate, and Presidency. One of their duties is to disclose campaign finance data, not just for the candidates or causes receiving support but also for individuals and organizations supporting candidates and causes. If an individual gives more than $200 to a candidate or cause during an election cycle, the FEC publishes that information on their website.

The FEC also sets contribution limits for political donations. There is no maximum limit imposed on how much any one person can donate to multiple candidates or causes overall, but for the 2025-2026 election cycle, a person can contribute no more than $3,500 to one candidate in a primary and no more than $3,500 in a general election, so no more than $7,000 per election cycle.

The maximum contribution an individual may make to a federal PAC is $5,000 per year. (A PAC, or political action committee, is a group that collects voluntary contributions from its members to give to political candidates, parties, or causes. These committees can be formed by corporations, unions, trade associations, or other organizations to support or oppose candidates for federal, state, or local office.)

Contribution limits to state candidates are governed by state and local laws. In Colorado, an individual can contribute up to $4,675 to a political party but no more than $725 per election cycle to a candidate for governor, attorney general, or secretary of state, and no more than $225 per election cycle to most other candidates. Coloradans may individually contribute up to $725 per election cycle to a PAC, but there is no limit on how much they may contribute related to supporting or opposing a ballot initiative. No state or local donations are recorded on the FEC website.

In looking at FEC data for Colorado donors, the author noticed that in one Fort Collins, Colorado zip code, a (currently) 79-year-old female living in a senior living complex has made 95,201 separate political donations totaling $540,673.65 between 2005 and 2024.

She made her first donation in 2005, another in 2006, and a third in 2007. All were for $25. In 2008 she made 34 individual donations, 18 in 2009, 738 in 2010, 210 in 2011, 1,349 in 2012, 656 in 2013, 14,404 in 2014, 2,479 in 2015, 10,148 in 2016, 3,073 in 2017, 2,488 in 2018, 2,344 in 2019, 20,899 in 2020, 28,665 in 2021, 9,352 in 2022, 135 in 2023, and her last six donations in 2024.

The 20,899 donations made in 2020 is equivalent to 57 individual donations each and every day of the week for the entire year, and the 28,665 donations in 2021 represent 78 political donations each and every day of the week for the entire year.

This is an improbable level of activity, yes, but not impossible given the overly long COVID shutdown, the physical and emotional isolation a then 74- to 76-year-old might have experienced, and all the misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information that surrounded the 2020 presidential election and its aftermath.

The majority of this individual’s donations, 69,057 (72.5%), were made directly through the ActBlue website. ActBlue is a non-profit platform that provides online fundraising tools for Democratic candidates, progressive organizations, and left-leaning causes.

ActBlue is currently under investigation by both congressional Republicans and several state attorney generals who are looking into allegations of potential fraud and violations of campaign finance laws related to donations like the ones this individual is alleged to have made.

In addition to direct contributions on the ActBlue website, this individual made other donations directly to a hodgepodge of campaigns and causes seemingly randomly scattered across the nation that she either knew about, researched and found, or was encouraged to support.

The breadth of her giving is staggering — the following list, drawn directly from FEC records, shows how widespread her donations became:

Could bad actors have noticed her mania for political donations and made contributions under her name from other accounts to launder funds to political candidates and causes she wasn’t aware of?

Very possibly. Although the fact that 29,145 of her donations were for a dollar or less (including, curiously, six donations of $0.00) and because the FEC report shows that on 171 occasions her contributions were rejected because of insufficient funds in her bank account, both suggest that she wasn’t very good at managing her money (a common complaint that afflicts addicted gamblers).

Her overall average lifetime political contribution was $5.68. There were fourteen donations of $1,000 or more made during a six-year window that seemed out of character with her and could be questioned by authorities investigating ActBlue, but as she made her last donation more than a year ago and her peak period for donations was during and immediately after the mismanaged COVID crisis in Colorado, that seems to indicate that this individual suffered from an addiction to making political donations.

The absence of any political donations for more than a year is a positive sign. Perhaps there was an intervention by a family member? Perhaps she has become completely disillusioned with the policies of the Democrat party? Or perhaps all the retirement savings she had are completely exhausted?

One can speculate. But regardless, what a complete waste of money that was. (I’m sure everyone says that about family members who are addicted gamblers too.)

How much good could all those dollars have done if they were redirected locally to non-political causes in Colorado rather than going to enrich the pockets of the individuals who manage political campaigns or operate PACs?

A lot!

Mike O’Donnell is a small business advocate, nonprofit executive and economic development leader based in Kirk, Colorado. He currently serves as Executive Director of Prairie Rose Development Corp., a mission-driven lender supporting underserved entrepreneurs across the state.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.