What documented instances of copycat Forward Blue websites or fraudulent donation solicitations have been reported?

1. What has been reported: copycat sites and match‑offer texts

Consumer-safety scanners and news/consumer write-ups have cataloged specific red flags tied to copycat Forward Blue pages and mass texts — ScamAdviser gave forwardblue.us a “very low trust score” and warned users to exercise extreme caution ^[1], ScamDoc and other site‑review services scored forwardblue.us poorly and flagged HTTPS alone as insufficient security evidence ^[2], and several write‑ups and watchdog posts note that recipients reported text messages offering extraordinary donation “matches” of 400–500% that encouraged clickthroughs to suspicious landing pages ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

2. Concrete examples and variations in the record

Reporting and user accounts point to at least one repeated pattern: a promise of a large percentage match tied to a named fund (for example, an alleged “Kamala Harris Turnout Fund”) linked to forwardblue.us or variants; one investigator noted that some forwarded links claimed ties to ActBlue but redirected inconsistently — in one user account a link resolved to an unrelated Blue Cross page — suggesting either sloppy spoofing or malicious redirection ^[5]. Independent scam‑tracking sites have repeatedly flagged domains using the Forward Blue name as controversial or high‑risk ^{[6] [1]}, while consumer write‑ups explicitly state that “fake Forward Blue websites were set up” and that random donation‑soliciting texts have been sent to the public ^[4].

3. Conflicting signals and legitimate Forward Blue’s stance

The public record contains mixed signals: Forward Blue’s official site and terms state trademarks and an intent to prevent copying and note that the committee may contact mobile numbers for fundraising ^{[7] [8]}, and some aggregators argue the primary Forward Blue Super PAC is registered with the FEC — meaning original, legitimate operations exist and should be verifiable via the FEC committee ID ^{[4] [3]}. At the same time, journalism and watchdogs warn that Forward Blue’s transparency practices (like limited leadership disclosure) and its fundraising/expenditure patterns have drawn scrutiny, which complicates how donors distinguish legitimate solicitations from scams ^{[3] [9]}.

4. How this is being interpreted and what the limits of reporting are

Analysts and consumer sites interpret the combination of unsolicited high‑pressure match texts, low trust scores on site scanners, and reported redirect behavior as evidence of copycat or fraudulent solicitations rather than necessarily proof the registered PAC is itself fraudulent ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Some sources note the absence of large, formal fraud prosecutions in public records — and one site review even reported no significant scam complaints at the time of its crawl — underscoring uneven documentation and the possibility of false positives or domain redirect quirks ^[10]. Reporting to date documents multiple suspicious domains and mass texting campaigns tied to Forward Blue branding, but the sources do not present a definitive, centralized takedown log or law‑enforcement action against specific impersonators in the public record ^{[4] [11]}.

5. Practical takeaways and who benefits from which narratives

The documented pattern is clear enough to advise caution: third‑party scanners and watchdogs have repeatedly flagged forwardblue.us and similar domains, and users have reported high‑value “match” solicitations that redirected oddly — facts that support warnings to verify FEC filings and payment processors before donating ^{[1] [3] [5]}. Observers with consumer‑safety or political‑transparency agendas may emphasize the copycat threat to push stronger verification tools; conversely, partisan actors could exploit such reports to delegitimize grassroots fundraising broadly, so source motivations should be weighed when evaluating specific claims ^{[3] [11]}.