The $27 Illusion: How One Donor Gave 454 Times to Bernie Sanders

How ActBlue Laundered a Revolution: Pharma Cash, Duplicate Donors, and $27 Lies

A Deep Dive into Donor Patterns That Raise More Questions Than Answers

Bernie Sanders has long positioned himself as the champion of the working class, proudly proclaiming an average donation of $27 and leveraging this as symbolic proof of grassroots support. It's a compelling narrative. But when we took a forensic look into the FEC donation records, the reality that emerged told a very different story.

A Mountain of Micro-Donations

Over the past several weeks, we analyzed more than 2 million official FEC donation records—specifically those earmarked for Bernie 2020 via ActBlue. After cleaning and filtering the data, we zeroed in on $27 contributions—the amount Bernie proudly calls the lifeblood of his campaign.

What we found wasn't a diverse wave of small donors. Instead, it was a narrow current—the same names appearing again and again, sometimes across multiple ZIP codes, with donation patterns that seemed more algorithmic than organic.

One donor stood out: Michael P. (full name on file), who made 454 separate $27 donations, totaling $12,258. This volume of donations raises legal and ethical concerns.

According to FEC regulations, an individual may contribute a maximum of $2,800 per election to a federal candidate. While contributions earmarked through platforms like ActBlue are allowed, breaking down large contributions into micro-donations to remain under reporting thresholds or to evade scrutiny is explicitly prohibited if done in coordination with the campaign or donor intent.

The frequency of Michael P.'s donations—nearly one every other day for extended periods—suggests non-human behavior, possibly indicating:

• Automated donation scripts

• Intentional obfuscation of a larger donor

• A bundling operation posing as grassroots support

If these donations were part of a laundering strategy to skirt FEC regulations, it wouldn't just be misleading—it could constitute campaign finance fraud. This case is emblematic of why public trust in political fundraising is deteriorating: rules exist, but enforcement and transparency lag behind technical workarounds and political narratives.

Michael P. (full name on file), who made 454 separate $27 donations, totaling $12,258. That number of donations far exceeds what most human donors would reasonably do. Why would someone contribute $27 hundreds of times, rather than simply donating larger lump sums? And more importantly—why wasn't this flagged as a potential violation of FEC donation limits? The legal limit for contributions to a candidate per election cycle is $2,800. This level of frequency and total amount—nearly five times that—suggests the possibility of either automated bot activity, donor alias manipulation, or a laundering scheme using micro-donations to fly under regulatory radar.

Moreover, the donation pattern itself shows characteristics inconsistent with real human behavior: no consistent interval, no clear recurrence cycle, and high-volume bursts that look like scripts running through a queue. Combine that with the fact that no known person has the time or motivation to manually submit 454 $27 donations over a campaign cycle, and what emerges is the profile of an automated system feeding the illusion of grassroots support.

Other top donors included:

• Joan G. — 315 donations ($8,505)

• Patricia T. — 260 donations ($7,020)

• Gina B. — 253 donations ($6,831)

These were not isolated anomalies. Hundreds of donors exhibited similar behavior, often donating $27 multiple times per week, sometimes even on consecutive days.

A Comparative Baseline

We cross-checked donation behavior from campaigns like Elizabeth Warren's and Pete Buttigieg's. Their $27 donors appeared an average of 2–5 times per cycle. For Sanders, dozens—even hundreds—of entries per donor were the norm.

This comparative framing is crucial. It shows how uniquely inflated and statistically implausible Bernie's micro-donor numbers really were.

Donors Who Seem to Live in Multiple ZIP Codes

We also flagged hundreds of donor names contributing $27 from different ZIP codes over time. For example:

• Susan M. donated 119 times from ZIPs in New Jersey and New York.

• David H. appeared in Illinois, Texas, and Florida.

• Barbara C. donated from 4 different ZIPs within a 90-day span.

Could these donors be moving constantly? Or are these signs of possible bundling, data laundering, or automated behavior?

We plotted a ZIP-level heatmap of $27 donor density:

Clusters of donations came from areas disproportionately wealthy or politically strategic—including ZIP codes known to house Democratic campaign consultants, bundlers, and political tech firms. For instance, some of the highest-volume $27 donation ZIPs match addresses linked to ActBlue-affiliated consultants or high-level DNC fundraisers. This overlap between money and influence raises deeper concerns about whether these donations were truly organic or channeled through coordinated networks.. That’s curious for a campaign that claims to represent the working class.

Consider this:

• Cambridge, MA (02138) — Home to Harvard, with a median household income over $100K — had nearly 2,500 $27 donations.

• Brooklyn Heights, NY (11201) — An upscale ZIP with median rents pushing $4,000/month — contributed more than 1,800 $27 donations.

• Palo Alto, CA (94301) — The heart of Silicon Valley — saw over 1,400 $27 donations.

These ZIPs are not the neighborhoods struggling to make rent or living paycheck to paycheck. These are areas with money, political reach, and digital fluency — where bundling and financial tactics aren’t just possible, they’re routine.

Even more curious: many of these high-frequency donation ZIP codes correspond with locations of major campaign consultants, ActBlue affiliates, or known bundler addresses.

When we filtered the data geographically, some cities—like Washington D.C., San Francisco, and Seattle—showed anomalously high donor duplication rates, suggesting possible automation, centralized contribution funnels, or recycled donor metadata.

Donation Timing Patterns

We uncovered dozens of cases in which a single donor made multiple $27 donations within hours or even minutes of each other—sometimes four or more donations in a single day. In many cases, groups of donors contributed at the exact same time, down to the minute.

This kind of coordination is not typical human behavior. It suggests the use of automation scripts or batch-processing systems—another data point supporting the theory of fake or artificially manipulated micro-donations.

Employer & Occupation Clusters

When reviewing employer and occupation metadata, most people would expect a chaotic but human spread: a teacher here, a software engineer there, retirees sprinkled throughout. That’s not what we found.

Instead, there were patterns of uncanny repetition.

One standout anomaly:

• “Michael” the self-employed consultant — that exact combination appeared 194 times, associated with repeat $27 donations. The chances that nearly 200 unique Michaels are all self-employed consultants, donating at the same amount and pace are statistically implausible. This doesn’t resemble natural donor diversity—it resembles template-based automation.

We also found:

• 67 retired teachers donating $27 on a near-daily basis.

• Multiple donors listing “Not Employed” or “Retired” as both employer and occupation, yet giving at a clip faster than many working professionals could justify.

• Clusters of workers in “Progressive Outreach” or “Grassroots Organizer” roles—all donating the exact same amount in mirrored patterns.

Then came the nonprofits. We uncovered:

• A surge of donations tied to employees at tiny, regionally obscure non-profits, often contributing $27 every 48–72 hours.

• Many listed nonprofits had no real online presence, no verified IRS registration, or seemed to exist only during the election cycle.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the most repeated employer/occupation combinations (each appearing 50+ times in high-frequency donation patterns):

These aren’t just statistical curiosities. The patterns suggest a deliberate effort to obfuscate donor identity or origin, perhaps to make a handful of large donors look like many smaller ones—a tactic that would allow a campaign to manufacture a grassroots narrative while remaining under regulatory radar.

We discovered that many donors used slightly altered versions of the same employer name — and in some cases, the same individual cycled through multiple variations (e.g., 'Pfizer', 'Pfizer Inc.', 'Pfizer, Inc.', 'Pfizer Pharmaceuticals'). Whether this was done to obscure total contributions or avoid detection, it undermines transparency and raises flags about donor intent.

Example:

• Donor: Daniel K.

• ZIP: 02139

• Occupation: Research Scientist

• Employers used:

  • Pfizer

  • Pfizer Inc.

  • Pfizer, Inc.

  • Pfizer Pharmaceuticals

This type of repetition from the same donor using various name formats is highly suspicious, and can serve to evade detection, fragment totals, or avoid employer-related donation cap aggregation.

Bernie’s “No Big Pharma Money” Claim Deserves a Closer Look

Bernie Sanders has consistently claimed he takes no money from Big Pharma. But our investigation identified dozens of donors who listed major pharmaceutical employers—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and others.

Examples include:

• A donor from Pfizer Inc. donating $2,000 in 2020

• A Johnson & Johnson researcher donating 17 times, totaling over $450

• A Moderna employee listed as contributing $27 dozens of times, across multiple ZIP codes

In total, we identified over 150 pharmaceutical-linked individuals contributing to Sanders—often through small, frequent donations that bypass scrutiny.

We also discovered that many donors used variations of the same company name—possibly to avoid triggering internal campaign reviews or public reporting. This tactic obscures true totals and undermines Bernie's claim of Big Pharma independence.

Examples of employer name variants used:

• Pfizer, Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Inc.

• J&J, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson and Johnson, Janssen

• Moderna, Moderna, Inc., Moderna Pharmaceuticals

While none of these donations are illegal, they challenge the narrative that Bernie has walled himself off from industry influence.

A Pattern Too Structured to Ignore

Let’s be clear: we are not alleging individual donors acted with criminal intent. Many likely gave in good faith. But the patterns speak volumes:

• Donors giving hundreds of times, often faster than any human could reasonably act

• Shared metadata across names, ZIPs, occupations

• Industry-linked individuals quietly contributing via micro-donations

• Recycled employer names to obscure total impact

This isn’t a partisan hit job. This is about transparency. If a campaign claims to be powered by the people, then the data behind it should reflect the people—not a few unusually generous individuals disguised through repetition.

When the myth of the $27 donation becomes a tool to manipulate perception, we must ask: Is this grassroots support or grassroots theater?

Follow this Substack for more investigations into the truth behind political fundraising.

This caricature of Bernie Sanders was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from Nick Solari's Flickr photostream. The background includes some elements also from Nick Solari.