What public filings reveal Election Truth Alliance funding and donors?
Executive summary
Public records explicitly tying identifiable donors or federal/state campaign filings to the Election Truth Alliance (ETA) are not shown in the reporting provided; the group maintains a public website with donation options and a “Donor Dashboard,” but the available material does not include audited disclosure filings or matched federal PAC filings in these sources [1] [2]. Reporting and reference sites cited here do show similarly named entities—most notably “Alliance for Truth”/“Alliance for Truth PAC, LLC”—with OpenSecrets and FollowTheMoney entries that disclose outside spending and expenditures, but the sources do not establish these entities are the same legal organization as ETA [3] [4] [5].
1. What the group itself publishes and what that implies
The Election Truth Alliance operates an official website that features a Donate page and a “Donor Dashboard,” and public-facing materials such as audit toolkits and reports intended for advocacy and outreach, which signals the organization solicits funds directly from supporters [1]. A separate ETA Substack post describes the group’s informal founding by three individuals and frames the organization as privately assembled to analyze election data, but that post does not reproduce IRS, FEC, or state campaign finance filings that would identify major donors or institutional funders [2].
2. Searches of standard watchdog and filing aggregators in the provided reporting
The reporting provided includes FollowTheMoney and OpenSecrets entries for an “Alliance for Truth” and “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH PAC, LLC,” which contain outside-spending and expenditure records and are the kinds of public filings that reveal donors when the committee is registered and reports contributions [3] [4] [5]. However, the materials here do not show a direct match between those committee identifiers and ETA’s stated organization on its website, and there is no explicit filing in the supplied sources that lists ETA’s donors or tax-exempt filings [1] [3] [4].
3. How similar names can create reporting confusion
Watchdog databases and news aggregation frequently surface committees with overlapping or similar names; the OpenSecrets entries for “ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH PAC, LLC” give the appearance of public campaign finance records for a group called Alliance for Truth, but absent linkage in the provided reporting, it would be an inferential leap to treat those campaign finance records as ETA’s donors without corroborating evidence such as matching EINs, FEC committee numbers, or explicit attribution on ETA’s filings [4] [5]. Wikipedia coverage that mentions ETA focuses on the group’s election claims and situates it alongside other election-integrity organizations, but again does not provide donor filings for ETA itself [6].
4. What the evidence suggests and what is missing
Taken together, the sources show: ETA solicits donations publicly and publishes advocacy materials [1] [2]; independent databases document an “Alliance for Truth” entity with spending records [3] [4] [5]; but the supplied documents do not include verifiable public filings—such as FEC reports, state campaign finance disclosures, or IRS Form 990s—explicitly tying identifiable donors to the Election Truth Alliance by name, EIN, or committee number (p1_s1–p1_s6). Therefore, publicly filed donor lists for ETA are not demonstrated in the provided reporting.
5. Open questions, caveats and potential hidden agendas
Without direct filings, it remains possible that ETA is funded by small online donations recorded only on its own platform, by a related PAC that files under a different legal name, or by private donors who have not required public disclosure in the available records; conversely, groups with names like “Alliance for Truth” have historically been used both by formal PACs that must report and by informal advocacy networks that do not file the same way, which creates opacity that can be leveraged to advance partisan narratives [3] [4] [5]. The sources show the risk of conflating organizations and underscore the need for matching legal identifiers—EINs, FEC committee numbers, or state registration documents—before asserting who funds ETA; those identifiers are not provided in the material supplied (p1_s1–p1_s6).