The Indivisible Illusion: Dark Money, Street Protests, and the Left’s War Machine
The billionaire-funded protest machine using dark money, media manipulation, and political harassment to advance the Democratic agenda and crush its opponents
Indivisible: The Left’s Unchecked Political Weapon and Its Ties to Big Money
Saturday, March 8th, 2025: By Walter Curt
On the morning of February 24, 2025, employees at a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colorado, arrived to find shattered windows, graffiti scrawled across the entrance, and crude incendiary devices abandoned near the lot. The vandalism wasn’t random—it was part of a growing wave of protests targeting Elon Musk, fueled by the activist network Indivisible. For weeks, Indivisible chapters across the country had staged coordinated demonstrations at Tesla showrooms, branding Musk an “enemy of democracy” for his role in the Trump administration.
This wasn’t the first time Indivisible had mobilized against a high-profile target. Born from the ashes of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, the group quickly evolved from a digital resistance handbook into a national protest machine, capable of flooding town halls, hijacking political narratives, and crippling opponents through relentless pressure campaigns. Bankrolled by Democratic mega-donors like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, Indivisible operates as a well-funded extension of the left’s political apparatus, leveraging ActBlue’s massive fundraising network to bankroll its disruption efforts.
Once hailed as a grassroots force, Indivisible has morphed into a powerful, organized assault weapon, wielded against conservatives, corporations, and even the rule of law itself. Its protests have escalated from organized heckling at Republican events to full-scale economic warfare against figures like Musk. And as recent investigations into ActBlue’s shadowy financial dealings intensify, questions are mounting about just how deep Indivisible’s funding networks run—and whether foreign or untraceable money is fueling this activist empire.
Who is Indivisible?
Indivisible was born in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. In December 2016, a small group of former congressional staffers – including Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg – drafted a 23-page handbook titled “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.” This manual, drawing on their Capitol Hill experience, outlined grassroots tactics to “beat back” President Trump’s agenda and defend progressive values. It went viral among frustrated liberals, sparking the formation of local “Indivisible” groups nationwide. By early 2017, Indivisible had evolved from a Google Doc into a full-fledged movement: the Indivisible Project was formally established as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dedicated to opposing Trump’s policies.
What began as a few organizers sharing tips quickly swelled into a vast network. Within months, thousands of volunteer-led Indivisible chapters sprang up across America – in red, blue, and purple districts alike – intent on pressuring their members of Congress. These groups borrowed from Tea Party tactics, packing town hall meetings and flooding congressional phone lines. As early as February 2017, Republican lawmakers were feeling the heat. At town halls, constituents mobilized by Indivisible grilled GOP representatives about repealing the Affordable Care Act and other Trump initiatives. Even Republican officials acknowledged the impact: Ohio’s then-Governor John Kasich and Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks admitted that the intense grassroots backlash could influence the fate of the GOP’s agenda (indeed, many credit Indivisible-fueled protests as a factor in the initial failure of Trump’s Obamacare repeal). By the end of 2017, Indivisible claimed over 5,800 local groups and had become synonymous with the “Resistance” movement to challenge Trump’s every move.
Indivisible’s growth was not just in numbers but in political clout. The group’s young co-founders were profiled in national media and even landed on Time’s “100 Most Influential People” list in 2019, a testament to how rapidly Indivisible went from scrappy start-up to a cornerstone of the progressive infrastructure. From the outset, Indivisible positioned itself as an outside grassroots force, “not the leaders of this movement – you are,” as one tagline went. However, as we’ll see, even as it publicly stressed bottom-up activism, the organization quickly attracted significant funding and guidance from top Democratic donors and institutions keen to harness its energy.
Funding Sources
ActBlue and Small-Dollar Donations: From day one, Indivisible has relied on ActBlue – the Democrats’ online fundraising behemoth – to channel donations. Its donation pages are hosted on ActBlue’s platform, and appeals to Indivisible supporters are routed through ActBlue’s interface. ActBlue enabled Indivisible to amass millions in small-dollar contributions in its early years, surfacing as the financial lifeline for many “resistance” groups. However, ActBlue’s practices have also drawn scrutiny. In 2023–24, Republican investigators began probing ActBlue for lax donor verification that could allow illicit funds into U.S. politics. Notably, ActBlue did not require donors to provide a credit card CVV code for online donations, a policy that – critics warned – opened the door to fraudulent or foreign money. House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil subpoenaed ActBlue’s records and found that until mid-2024, ActBlue even accepted donations via untraceable prepaid gift cards, including ones from foreign sources. (By September 2024 – amid the scrutiny – ActBlue updated its policies to automatically reject donations made with foreign or prepaid cards.)
Steil cautioned that ActBlue had processed a record influx of campaign money in July 2024 before plugging these security gaps, raising alarms that illegal foreign donations might have slipped in. This controversy over ActBlue underscores how Indivisible’s fundraising pipeline, while powered by grassroots donors, may also have been susceptible to abuse – an issue now at the forefront of congressional investigations. Internal turmoil at ActBlue has accompanied these investigations: in early 2025 the platform’s leadership was rocked by the resignation of at least seven senior officials, amid what the New York Times called “plunging into turmoil” under the pressure of GOP inquiries. Such instability at ActBlue – Indivisible’s chief funding conduit – has only heightened concerns about where Indivisible’s money comes from and how it’s used.
Major Donors and Liberal Fundraising Networks: Despite its grassroots image, Indivisible has been buoyed by some of the Democratic Party’s wealthiest mega-donors. Reporting by The New York Times in 2017 revealed that LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman emerged as a “major donor” to Indivisible early on. Hoffman’s venture capital fortune helped seed numerous anti-Trump initiatives, and Indivisible was no exception. Hoffman’s advisor Dmitri Mehlhorn openly identified Indivisible as a grantee of Hoffman’s fund, signaling that Silicon Valley money was fueling the fledgling movement. Indivisible also cultivated ties to the Democracy Alliance (DA) – an exclusive club of billionaire liberal donors (co-founded by Soros) that steers funding to approved progressive groups.
In March 2017, Indivisible’s leaders were spotted mingling at a Democracy Alliance donor conference, an indication that they were seeking (and receiving) support from that network. Indeed, Politico noted that Indivisible would “gladly accept” a check from George Soros if offered. While Soros didn’t bankroll Indivisible at its start, within a couple of years his organizations did contribute significant sums. Soros’s Open Society Foundations gave $2.6 million to Indivisible between 2017 and 2019. And Soros’s super-PAC, Democracy PAC, funneled $500,000 in 2024 to Indivisible’s political action committee, Indivisible Action (New Liberal 'Truth Brigade' Has Ties to Billionaire Who Peddled Disinformation).
Another key player was the late Herb Sandler (a billionaire banker and DA member): the Sandler Foundation granted $2.25 million to Indivisible’s 501(c)(3) arm in 2018–2019. Other prominent donors have included San Francisco heiress Patricia Bauman and oil fortune heir Leah Hunt-Hendrix, whose contributions were noted as early boosts to Indivisible’s rapid expansion. In short, big-dollar patronage from the likes of Soros, Hoffman, and DA-aligned funds has underwritten Indivisible’s operations, augmenting the small contributions from its chapter members.
ActBlue as a Funding Conduit: It’s important to stress that ActBlue itself is not a single “donor” but a conduit for many donors – and Indivisible has been one of its prime beneficiaries. ActBlue has raised over $16 billion for Democratic causes since 2004, and Indivisible’s share of that pie runs into the tens of millions (exact figures for Indivisible are hard to parse due to multiple entities, but its budget skyrocketed after 2017). By 2019, critics pointed out that Indivisible was raising “tens of millions of dollars from major donors” while only 17% of its funding came from small unitemized donations (down from 35% in 2017). This trend suggests heavy reliance on large checks and foundation grants. Indivisible’s leaders have tried to maintain an image of grassroots purity – in 2017 they even publicly distanced themselves from Clinton-linked donor money to appear independent – but the financial records and donor lists tell a more insider tale. InfluenceWatch, which tracks nonprofit funding, bluntly describes Indivisible as a “left-of-center” group that raised big money from major donors while claiming to be grassroots. The organization’s evolution was such that by 2020 it had both a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit arm (“Indivisible Civics”), plus the PAC – all of which attracted large contributions from the professional donor class.
Recent Investigations into ActBlue (and Indivisible by extension): The spotlight on ActBlue’s possible vulnerabilities has indirect implications for Indivisible’s funding. In late 2023 and 2024, as Republicans expanded their oversight of ActBlue, they raised alarms that foreign actors could be funneling money into U.S. campaigns via ActBlue’s lax controls. One House report even suggested that “illegal donations from China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela” might have been laundered through straw donors on ActBlue. If true, that means groups like Indivisible could unknowingly be receiving tainted funds. This has led to turmoil within ActBlue (the mass resignation of ActBlue execs in Feb 2025 was attributed in part to internal conflicts over how to handle these issues.
For Indivisible, the takeaway is that Congress and watchdogs are increasingly interested in who is bankrolling its activism. Republican-led committees have subpoenaed ActBlue’s records and even referred some findings to state Attorneys General for potential investigation. In Texas, for example, the Attorney General opened an investigation into whether ActBlue violated any laws with its donation processes. While no evidence has emerged that Indivisible itself violated campaign finance laws, the platform it relies on is under the microscope – and any proven abuses (like foreign money or fraudulent donations) that benefited Indivisible would inevitably drag the group into a scandal.
All this underpins why transparency about Indivisible’s funding sources is increasingly being demanded. As Chairman Steil put it, “we must ensure no foreign funds were illegally funneled” into our political system and “enact lasting reforms” to close loopholes. Those reforms (such as the proposed SHIELD Act banning online donations via prepaid cards aim to prevent any shadowy funding of the type Indivisible is suspected of tapping into. In summary, Indivisible’s war chest is filled by a mix of grassroots passion and heavyweight patronage, and recent inquiries are trying to disentangle the two and ensure its money is clean.
Protest Involvement and Activism Tactics
From its inception, Indivisible has specialized in turning out crowds and staging protests to confront its political targets. Disruptive, direct-action protest is in the organization’s DNA – modeled on the Tea Party’s confrontational activism but harnessed for progressive ends. In early 2017, Indivisible activists famously swarmed Republican town halls. They heckled GOP Congress members over plans to repeal the ACA, protested the Muslim travel ban, and rallied against Trump’s cabinet nominees. These efforts often put Republican lawmakers on the defensive in front of TV cameras. The movement’s influence became evident when the GOP’s first attempt to repeal Obamacare floundered in the House; Washington Post reporter David Weigel noted that Indivisible’s mass town-hall pressure was likely one reason Republicans failed to pass the repeal bill in 2017.
Indivisible didn’t limit itself to health care – it launched or joined protests on issues from immigration (e.g. opposing family separations) to tax cuts and climate policy. Local Indivisible chapters held weekly “Resist Trump Tuesdays,” held up “cardboard cutouts” of absent GOP representatives to shame them, and organized creative rallies like “ResistFest” in California. The group was also a key partner in larger progressive mobilizations: Indivisible members turned out in force for the January 2017 Women’s March (the group takes pride that it “supported the Women’s March” as one of its first big actions), and it helped sustain outrage during the Trump years by keeping a steady drumbeat of local events. Indivisible’s protest playbook often involves coordinating closely with allied organizations to amplify impact – a strategy that became very clear during the Trump presidency.
One notable example of Indivisible’s coordination role was the planning for potential post-2020 election unrest. As Trump repeatedly hinted he might not accept the 2020 election results, Indivisible joined forces with dozens of other groups in a coalition called “Protect the Results.” This was essentially a protest contingency plan: Indivisible and partner group Stand Up America spearheaded the effort, ultimately enlisting over 80 advocacy organizations (from progressive staples like MoveOn and Common Cause to some anti-Trump conservative groups) to prepare for mass mobilizations if Trump tried to dispute the outcome. By late October 2020, Protect the Results had organized 433 local chapters ready to activate on short notice. They had a detailed toolkit for organizers, including assigning roles like “logistics captain” and “media liaison” in each local protest cell.
In other words, Indivisible helped build a nationwide protest infrastructure – a “rapid response” network poised to flood the streets in the event of an election crisis. Ultimately, when Biden was declared the winner and Trump’s legal challenges sputtered, these protests weren’t fully triggered – a far cry from the worst-case scenarios, which Time magazine later revealed many in the coalition had gamed out. Still, the episode showed Indivisible’s ability to coordinate complex, multi-group operations aimed at defending what it sees as democracy. The Protect the Results coalition, described as an anti-coup project, was explicitly a joint venture of Indivisible’s national team and Protect Democracy (a legal advocacy nonprofit) among others. It cemented Indivisible’s reputation as the left’s protest “air traffic controller,” guiding activist energy where it’s needed and syncing up disparate groups for maximum effect.
Fast forward to the 2024 election cycle and beyond: Indivisible has turned a significant portion of its firepower toward Elon Musk, whom they portray as an agent of the Trump agenda. Musk – the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX – earned Indivisible’s ire after he aligned himself with Republicans and, in a fictional scenario that became reality in 2025, took on a formal role in President Trump’s new administration. (Following Trump’s 2024 comeback victory, Musk was appointed to lead a new “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE – an oversight role with sweeping authority to slash federal programs.) Indivisible pounced on this development, framing it in dire terms. On its website, Indivisible declared, “Donald Trump and Elon Musk are staging a coup. Full stop.” The group launched a campaign hub called “Stop the Trump-Musk Coup,” rallying supporters to resist what they characterized as Trump handing control of government functions to an unelected billionaire crony. Indivisible’s messaging cast Musk as a grave threat – accusing him of “holding the government’s financial infrastructure hostage” after Musk was given access to U.S. Treasury systems, and warning that he and Trump were shredding laws and defunding social programs.
This fiery rhetoric was not just for online petitions; Indivisible translated it into on-the-ground action plans. In February 2025, as Congress went into recess, Indivisible circulated a detailed protest toolkit to its members with instructions on how to “take the fight to Elon.” This included organizing demonstrations at Tesla dealerships, showrooms, and factories – essentially bringing the political fight to Musk’s economic doorstep. The toolkit also suggested targeting members of Congress in their home districts to demand they rein in Musk’s “government efficiency” cuts. Indivisible’s call to action was unambiguous: “Fighting back against the Trump-Musk coup is going to take all of us,” one excerpt read, urging people to protest between Feb. 14–23 when lawmakers and Musk would be back home.
Almost immediately, a wave of “Tesla Takedown” protests swept the country. Throughout February and March 2025, Indivisible chapters and allied activists held rallies outside Tesla facilities in cities like New York, Seattle, Atlanta, and Portland. For example, in Portland, over 300 protesters marched outside a Tesla dealership, chanting “Elon Musk has got to go!” . Their goal, as one organizer put it, was to make Tesla a “toxic brand” in the public’s eyes – pressuring Musk by hurting his flagship company’s image. Protesters encouraged Tesla owners to sell their cars and stock, and joined picket lines at Tesla stores.
Signs and slogans equated Musk with authoritarianism; in some places they dubbed his cars “#Swastikars,” a reference to a hand gesture Musk made that critics likened to a Nazi salute. This campaign was clearly coordinated – its messaging and tactics consistent with Indivisible’s toolkit – and it garnered national media attention as one of the first major protest movements of Trump’s second term. While most Tesla protests were loud but peaceful, in at least one case the activism crossed into criminal vandalism.
In Colorado, a Tesla dealership in the city of Loveland was hit by a string of attacks: graffiti was scrawled on the Tesla sign calling Musk a “NAZI,” windows were smashed, and crude incendiary devices (Molotov cocktails) were left near vehicles. On February 24, 2025, police arrested a 42-year-old suspect, a far-left activist, after observing her attempting another arson at that dealership. She was charged with multiple felonies, including attempted property destruction with explosives. This disturbing incident – essentially a politically-motivated attempted firebombing – came “after a call by an activist group for nationwide protests against Tesla CEO Elon Musk,” as police noted. Fox News reported that the activist group in question was Indivisible: “Indivisible… has been urging liberals to stage demonstrations against Musk,” and had even published the very “tool kit” detailing how to protest at Tesla sites.
In other words, while Indivisible undoubtedly intended these protests to be nonviolent, its aggressive targeting of Musk’s business provided the backdrop (and perhaps inspiration) for more extreme actors to take matters into their own hands. The Tesla dealership attacks underscore the potentially incendiary consequences of Indivisible’s mobilizations – raising questions about where the line lies between passionate protest and unlawful extremism.
Indivisible and its allies contend that such direct action is necessary to check powerful figures like Musk. They point to Musk’s role in firing thousands of federal workers and gutting government programs at Trump’s behest, arguing that public outrage must be brought to his front door. Indeed, many progressive activists felt Democratic Party leaders were too timid in response to Trump and Musk, leaving a void that Indivisible-led protesters stepped in to fill. But conservatives and Musk himself see something more sinister in these protests. Musk has openly accused Indivisible of astroturfing – engineering fake “grassroots” protests that are actually centrally directed and funded by his political opponents. On March 7, 2025, Musk took to X to reveal what he called a “plot to take down” Tesla and his reputation.
He claimed that five organizations were behind the anti-Tesla protests: Indivisible Project, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and lesser-known groups dubbed “Troublemakers,” “Disruption Project,” and “Rise & Resist”. All, he said, were tied into the ActBlue fundraising network. Musk then named the supposed puppet-masters: he alleged that billionaire donors George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and Herb Sandler were financing these groups in a bid to sabotage him.
In effect, Musk posited that the Tesla protests were not purely spontaneous anger at his policies, but a concerted campaign funded from the top. It’s worth noting that Musk’s claims are not baseless conjecture; as detailed earlier, Soros’s and Hoffman’s money has flowed to Indivisible, and DSA and Rise & Resist are indeed real activist groups on the left. Moreover, Musk’s insinuation that protesters might be paid to participate taps into a long-standing narrative (often raised by conservatives) that left-wing demonstrations are orchestrated by professional agitators.
There have been unconfirmed reports and online rumors that activists at some Indivisible-organized events received pre-paid debit cards or stipends – implying an element of compensation. During the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court protests in 2018, for instance, some on the right alleged protesters were “bussed in and paid.” While concrete evidence of Indivisible handing out prepaid cards to protesters remains scarce the suspicious patterns in ActBlue’s donations (like thousands of repeat micro-donations from obscured sources) lend a degree of plausibility to concerns about how protest operations are funded.
At the very least, Musk’s highlighting of ActBlue’s foreign donor loophole – coming as ActBlue faces investigation for potentially facilitating illegal contributions – suggests he believes outside money is fueling the anti-Musk activism. Indivisible’s leaders would counter that their protests are driven by genuine grassroots anger at Musk’s actions, not by donor diktat. Nevertheless, the intersection of big money and street activism in Indivisible’s model is drawing increased scrutiny.
In summary, Indivisible has proven itself adept at coordinating protests large and small – whether it’s hundreds of decentralized local rallies or a focused campaign targeting a single person or company. From town hall showdowns that helped stall Trump’s agenda, to preemptive “defend democracy” mobilizations, to the recent anti-Musk demonstrations (and their fringe excesses), Indivisible has shown an ability to marshal anger into action with impressive speed. This activism has significantly disrupted Indivisible’s political opponents, forcing them to respond to protests or even personal boycotts (as in Musk’s case with Tesla). But it also raises questions about how far Indivisible’s protest movement will go and who is ultimately directing the chorus of voices on the streets.
Indivisible Is Not Activism—It’s Political Warfare
Indivisible has grown into a ruthless political weapon disguised as grassroots activism, propped up by untraceable money and backed by elite donors like Soros and Hoffman. It portrays itself as a voice for the people, yet its national operations suggest a centralized machine orchestrating protests on demand—whether the target is a Republican lawmaker or a private entity like Tesla. Vandalism at Tesla dealerships and the widespread disruption it inflicts on civic life highlight Indivisible’s willingness to embrace militant tactics. By harnessing ActBlue’s embattled fundraising system—currently under scrutiny for potentially welcoming foreign cash—the organization gains virtually limitless resources to harass and delegitimize its chosen opponents.
Indivisible’s ties to the Democratic establishment reinforce its clout, but also raise urgent questions about transparency. The group’s alleged provision of prepaid debit cards to activists, combined with ActBlue’s reportedly lax donation standards, suggests a web of dark money fueling street-level chaos. With House committees and state authorities demanding donor data and tightening regulations, Indivisible now faces the real possibility of exposure. If Congress uncovers evidence of foreign funding or organized payments to protestors, the public will finally see how meticulously orchestrated and well-financed this so-called “grassroots” force truly is. Meanwhile, its continued, aggressive targeting of figures like Elon Musk, coupled with its deep influence on Democratic messaging, reveals a partisan outfit unapologetically weaponizing activism as an instrument of political warfare.
The facts are plain: Indivisible is neither benign nor spontaneous. It is a national network that blends left-wing ideology, shadowy funding, and ruthless protest strategies designed to terrorize opponents into submission. Americans deserve answers and accountability. Investigations into ActBlue’s finances must expand to include Indivisible’s leadership and funding channels, ensuring we halt any flow of illegal or foreign cash that may be fueling these mobs. Without decisive action, Indivisible will continue using its vast resources to undermine public institutions, sabotage private enterprises, and erode the very democratic norms it professes to defend.
Key Sources:
InfluenceWatch: Profile of the Indivisible Project ( The Indivisible Project (Indivisible) - InfluenceWatch - InfluenceWatch )
Wikipedia: Indivisible movement (overview of origins, activities, and impact) (Indivisible movement - Wikipedia) (Indivisible movement - Wikipedia)
New York Times via Election Law Blog: “ActBlue… Faces Internal Chaos” (senior staff resignations, GOP investigation) ("ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos" - Election Law Blog)
House Administration Committee – Press Release (Bryan Steil on ActBlue subpoena findings) (Chairman Steil Releases Findings from Subpoena of ActBlue - Press Releases - United States Committee on House Administration)
Fox News: Report on Tesla dealership vandalism and Indivisible’s anti-Musk protests (Woman arrested after explosives discovered at Tesla dealership | Fox News)
Reuters: “Activists use ‘Tesla Takedown’ protests…” (nationwide Tesla protests against Musk) (Activists use 'Tesla Takedown' protests to fight job cuts by Musk and Trump | Reuters)
Economic Times: Summary of Elon Musk’s accusations against ActBlue-funded groups (naming Indivisible, Soros, Hoffman, etc.) (Elon Musk names philanthropist George Soros, LinkedIn's Reid Hoffman among culprits behind Tesla ‘protests’. Is there a plot to take down his empire? - The Economic Times)
Washington Free Beacon: “Indivisible’s Truth Brigade tied to Reid Hoffman” (Indivisible funding by Hoffman, Soros, Sandler; support for radical policies) (New Liberal 'Truth Brigade' Has Ties to Billionaire Who Peddled Disinformation)
InfluenceWatch: “Protect the Results” coalition profile (Indivisible & Stand Up America prepping 2020 election protests) ( Protect the Results - InfluenceWatch - InfluenceWatch )
Indivisible press release: “Protect the Results” expands to 80+ groups (coalition mobilizing millions if Trump contested 2020) (“Protect the Results” Expands To 80 Groups As Coalition Prepares To Mobilize Should Trump Contest Election | Indivisible)
NonProfit Quarterly: “Donors on the Left Reconfigure” (NYT insights on Indivisible’s funding from Soros, Hoffman’s advisor quote) (Donors and Groups on the Left (and Leftish) in a Period of Reconfiguration - Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly)
Fox News: GOP widens probe into ActBlue (CVV and prepaid card loophole) (‘Serious loophole’: GOP widens probe into ActBlue, Dem fundraising platform helping Harris raise millions | Fox News) and FEC letter
Fox News: Claudia Tenney letter to FEC on ActBlue (accusing foreign donation facilitation) (House GOP demands FEC probe 'potentially illegal' ActBlue ...).
Washington Examiner/NY Post: Reports on House Admin investigation finding straw donor patterns (foreign money potentially via ActBlue) (Unwitting straw donors may have funneled donations from China ...).
Fox News Digital: Prior reporting on Indivisible’s anti-Musk campaign and “Trump-Musk coup” toolkit (Woman arrested after explosives discovered at Tesla dealership | Fox News)
Protect Democracy/United to Protect Democracy: Background on affiliated groups (coordination with Indivisible on democracy issues) ( Protect the Results - InfluenceWatch - InfluenceWatch ).