A new Democratic-aligned nonprofit that sent nearly $20 million to super PACs in the final weeks of the 2026 midterms is the subject of a complaint to the Federal Election Commission alleging an illegal “straw donor” scheme. The group, United Futures Inc., denies the allegations.
The complaint, dated Nov. 2, was filed by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that advocates for stricter campaign finance enforcement and has filed similar complaints against groups on both sides this cycle. It is a clear example of a tactic we described in How Super PACs Can Hide Who Is Paying: money given to a super PAC by a newly formed entity that does not disclose its own donors.
What the complaint says
United Futures Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on Aug. 12, 2026, by Alana Mounce, a Democratic operative who previously worked for the Democratic National Committee and Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign. Twelve days later, on Aug. 24, it made its first contributions: $3 million to one super PAC and $2 million to another. By Oct. 8, according to the complaint, it had given $19.71 million in 12 contributions. The New York Times has since reported that the total reached at least $26 million.
The complaint focuses on four super PACs that were incorporated in Delaware within about two weeks of United Futures and that share a mailing address, a registered agent and a compliance firm:
| Super PAC | From United Futures | Share of its reported money | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 49th State PAC (Alaska) | $4.5M | About 90% | About $2.5M, mostly canvassing |
| Vote Kansas | $3.2M | 100% | About $1.3M, mostly canvassing |
| Mississippi Forward PAC | $3.0M | 100% | About $2.1M, mostly canvassing |
| United Futures PAC | $3.0M | 100% | About $3.2M in ads in six states |
The groups backed Democratic Senate candidates Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Mary Peltola in Alaska and Scott Colom in Mississippi, as well as independent Dan Osborn in Nebraska, according to the Times.
The complaint’s central argument is that United Futures had no business, website or visible fundraising that could explain where nearly $20 million came from, so its money must have come from donors whose names were hidden. Federal law allows a company or nonprofit to give to a super PAC, but it bans contributions made “in the name of another” to conceal the real source. The complaint calls it “utterly implausible” that the four super PACs did not know who the real donors were. The Campaign Legal Center asks the FEC to investigate and impose penalties.
The complaint makes two further allegations. First, it says United Futures PAC failed to report $7.55 million it gave to two other super PACs. According to the Times, those payments had actually come from United Futures Inc. and the filings are being corrected. Second, it says Vote Kansas reported its canvassing as ordinary operating costs rather than as independent spending, which it argues suggests the canvassing may have been coordinated with a candidate. The complaint does not name a candidate. The Sunflower State Journal reported that some Vote Kansas workers were also on Hamilton’s campaign payroll.
The response
A lawyer for United Futures, Lindsay Nathan, told the Times: “The allegations in the complaint are false and we look forward to addressing them through the F.E.C.’s process.” Ms. Mounce and Hamilton’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the Times and the Sunflower State Journal, respectively.
How the races turned out
Hamilton won in Kansas, becoming the first Democrat elected to the Senate from the state since 1932. Osborn lost to Sen. Pete Ricketts in Nebraska. Alaska and Mississippi had not been called as of Nov. 11; Peltola and Colom both held narrow leads. Our 2026 scorecard tracks those races.
Not a one-party practice
Similar complaints have been filed this cycle against groups on the Republican side. The Campaign Legal Center has alleged that Kentucky 4th PAC, which spent nearly $6.7 million in a Republican primary, was funded by a straw donor company formed three days before the PAC registered. Six of the 20 biggest donors in the 2026 midterms were dark-money nonprofits, the Times reported. “This group will not show up in the 2028 elections, but the same idea could,” a Campaign Legal Center spokesman told the Times. “And it could be done by Republicans, too.”
The complaint is unlikely to move quickly. The FEC needs four commissioners to open an investigation and currently has two, so complaints filed this cycle cannot proceed until the Senate confirms new members.
Sources
- Campaign Legal Center: Complaint against United Futures Inc. et al. (PDF) (dated Nov. 2, 2026)
- Campaign Legal Center: CLC alleges straw donor scheme illegally funneled $19.7 million to super PAC network
- The New York Times: A new Democratic-tied dark-money group draws scrutiny over midterm spending (Nov. 11, 2026)
- Sunflower State Journal: FEC complaint filed against dark money group that helped bankroll campaign for Hamilton (Nov. 9, 2026)
- CBS News: The nation’s campaign finance regulator can’t enforce the law (Oct. 7, 2026)
- Federal Election Commission: Campaign finance data
Published by SuperPACs.com. Figures come from Federal Election Commission filings and the sources listed above. Read about how we work and our editorial standards.