SHOTS FIRED: Scott Pressler exposes alleged voter fraud in…

Conservative activist Scott Presler is drawing national attention to Minnesota’s voter registration system after highlighting what he says is a serious vulnerability in the state’s same-day registration process.

“One person can vouch for the residency of eight voters by simply signing a form,” Presler said. “This law is insane. It’s an invitation to fraud, and it must be reversed.”

Presler said he was motivated to look into Minnesota’s voter law after seeing rising concerns about fraud in the state. “I thought, ‘Why not use this opportunity to expose potential voter fraud as Minnesota is trending?’” he said.

Of the voter “vouching” policy, Presler commented, “Does this allow for potential fraud and abuse of our elections? Absolutely—especially when you consider that MN has same‑day voter registration.”

Presler noted the scale of same-day registration in Minnesota and linked it to past close election results. He pointed out that former Democratic Sen. Al Franken won his 2008 contest by a narrow margin while hundreds of thousands of voters took advantage of same-day registration.

Presler’s activism has drawn attention after federal election authorities demanded Minnesota turn over records related to same-day registrations and vouching. “WOW! This is huge. Thank you, so, so much,” he said.

The request sought unredacted records pertaining to 2024 election cycles and raised concerns about registrations and votes accepted on the basis of vouching.

Presler’s public push has come amid broader conservative criticism of Minnesota election policies, including how the 2023 law allowing state driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status intersects with voter ID requirements.

“A driver’s license does not prove U.S. citizenship,” Presler said. “Combine that with same-day registration and vouching, and you have a system designed to be abused.”

The Minnesota voter vouching policy, which has been in place for more than 50 years, allows a registered voter to sign an oath on behalf of others without requiring traditional photo ID — a fact that has alarmed conservatives concerned about election integrity.

Presler said he sees the policy as part of a broader pattern of lax oversight in the state. “We’ve seen daycare fraud, welfare fraud, and now election fraud. The same people pushing these laws are the ones benefiting from the chaos.”

Presler emphasized that his campaign is focused on accountability. “I didn’t start this because of politics,” he said. “I started it because fraud undermines trust in elections. If we don’t stop it, it won’t matter who you vote for—your vote may not even count.”

Presler also highlighted the risks of urban precincts where same-day registration and vouching could be exploited at scale. “One person can influence eight votes. Think about the scale if dozens or hundreds of voters do this. It becomes a tool for mass fraud.”

Presler’s remarks have drawn attention from federal election officials, some of whom are now reviewing Minnesota’s registration records for irregularities.

The vouching law, Presler said, is outdated and dangerous. “What worked in the 1970s doesn’t work today. We have far more mobility, larger populations, and higher stakes. This law is outdated and dangerous.”

He said that reforms are necessary to restore public trust. “We cannot sit back and let decades-old policies dictate the outcome of modern elections,” he said.

Presler underscored the link between lax election rules and broader fraud in the state. “This isn’t theoretical. We’ve seen the corruption with our own eyes. Vouching without proof is exactly the type of loophole that could be exploited to steal elections.”

Presler warned that the combination of same-day registration, vouching, and non-citizen access to IDs is particularly troubling. “This is about securing the ballot, defending democracy, and ensuring every vote counts the way it should.”

Presler’s activism has sparked a national conversation about election integrity and voter verification laws.

He said the stakes could not be higher. “We’re fighting to protect the rights of legitimate voters and prevent fraud before it becomes irreversible.”

The Minnesota voter vouching policy, he said, is not just a technicality — it is a loophole with real-world consequences. “Does this allow for potential fraud and abuse of our elections? Absolutely,” he said.

Presler called for immediate reforms to close the loopholes he has exposed. “This law must be reversed,” he said.

He reiterated that the fight is about accountability, not politics. “I thought, ‘why not use this opportunity to expose potential voter fraud as Minnesota is trending,’” he said.

Presler concluded that unless voters, officials, and lawmakers act, Minnesota’s elections remain vulnerable. “We’ve seen daycare fraud, welfare fraud, and now election fraud. The same people pushing these laws are the ones benefiting from the chaos,” he said.

IT ALL CAME OUT' – GAVIN NEWSOM BLOWS UP AFTER BEING EXPOSED LIVE ON AIR

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the 2028 presidential election cycle rapidly approaches, life is getting increasingly complicated for California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The ambitious Democrat, widely expected to declare his candidacy for his party's highest nomination, is currently drowning in a massive, rapidly expanding ethics scandal centered on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable corporate donations. As federal investigators continue to circle both the governor and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the sheer scale of his fundraising tactics is raising serious alarm bells across the political spectrum.

At the absolute center of this controversy is Newsom’s unprecedented and unapologetic use of "behested payments"—a controversial practice in California law that allows elected officials to personally solicit massive, unlimited donations from deep-pocketed corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions to fund specific charities or government initiatives.

While technically legal under the state's highly permissive rules, government watchdogs and ethics experts are fiercely arguing that these payments represent a glaring, dangerous loophole. It essentially allows special interests—many of whom have active, highly lucrative business before the state of California—to gain massive political influence and curry favor with the governor, entirely outside the strict boundaries of traditional campaign finance laws.

The $347 Million Man

According to official California disclosure records, the scale at which Newsom utilizes this loophole is utterly staggering. Since 2011, Newsom has reported soliciting more than $347 million in behested payments.

To put that massive figure into perspective, data from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) reveals that all elected officials statewide combined directed roughly $556 million in behested payments between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone accounted for nearly two-thirds—a whopping 62%—of that total.

By stark contrast, his predecessor, former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, reportedly solicited a relatively modest $35 million in behested payments during his entire tenure.

"Behested payments are ripe for abuse," warned Sean McMorris of California Common Cause, pointing out the obvious ethical minefield created when powerful elected officials lean on organizations that have direct business before the government.

The Optics of Influence Peddling

The ethical concerns are not just hypothetical; they are rooted in a pattern of massive corporate donations followed by highly favorable state actions.

Public reports have raised serious questions about several major donors who opened their checkbooks at Newsom's behest and later benefited immensely from state contracts or policy decisions. For example, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare giant Blue Shield donated a staggering $20 million to initiatives heavily supported by Newsom. Shortly thereafter, the corporation was miraculously awarded a highly lucrative, no-bid state contract related to vaccine distribution.

Similarly, the Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before securing a significantly expanded role in California’s massive Medi-Cal program. In another instance, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria donated millions to organizations associated with the governor and his wife’s initiatives. Later, they benefited significantly from favorable state decisions involving tribal gaming matters, including efforts to block a rival casino from opening nearby.

While proving an explicit, legal quid pro quo is notoriously difficult, critics argue that the actual transaction is irrelevant. The concern is that the system inherently encourages and rewards a "pay-to-play" culture. Assemblyman David Tangipa slammed the practice, describing behested payments as a blatant form of "political influence peddling," boldly arguing that just because the system is legal does not mean it isn't deeply corrupt.

The Family Business and Federal Heat

The issue has drawn even fiercer scrutiny because millions of these corporate dollars have been funneled directly into organizations tightly linked to the governor’s inner circle. Approximately $4.8 million in behested donations were routed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. For many critics, corporate money flowing into a charity run by the governor's wife creates, at the very least, a glaring appearance of a massive conflict of interest.

The intense debate over this influence-peddling loophole comes at a highly precarious time for the governor. Newsom recently acknowledged that both he and his wife are currently the subjects of multiple, ongoing federal investigations. While neither has been charged with any wrongdoing, and the Department of Justice has remained completely tight-lipped about the exact nature of the inquiries, the specter of a federal probe casts a dark cloud over his 2028 presidential ambitions.

A "Laughable Slap on the Wrist"

Adding insult to injury for government transparency advocates, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine handed down by the state's campaign finance watchdog, the FPPC. The fine was levied after the commission found that Newsom flagrantly failed to legally report 36 separate behested payments—totaling more than $5.6 million—within the required 30-day timeframe.

The late disclosures involved massive corporate donations solicited during the 2024 and 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, pulling in vast sums from corporate titans like BlackRock, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Anthem Blue Cross. While Newsom's office brushed off the violation as a mere paperwork oversight during an emergency, critics blasted the $31,500 penalty as a "laughable slap on the wrist" for a wealthy politician manipulating a quarter-billion-dollar shadow fundraising system. This marks the second time Newsom has been fined for late reporting of these payments, having previously paid a $13,000 fine in 2024.

Supporters of the governor are quick to point out that these behested donations have funded critical public initiatives, including wildfire relief and charitable causes. However, the public benefit of those projects does absolutely nothing to eliminate the massive concerns surrounding transparency, corporate influence, and the ability of powerful special interests to funnel unlimited cash into causes promoted by the state's most powerful executive.

As Newsom attempts to position himself as the future of the Democratic Party, the growing scandal surrounding his $347 million loophole is forcing a national reckoning. The American people are left to wonder: if this is how Gavin Newsom runs California, how exactly would he run the country?