Were any payments to Fusion GPS for the dossier routed through third parties or law firms?

1. Who routed payments through law firms — the Perkins Coie link

Investigative and congressional records indicate the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign did not pay Fusion GPS directly but used the law firm Perkins Coie to contract Fusion GPS for opposition research; those payments appear in the records Congress eventually obtained ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting and summaries tied Perkins Coie as the conduit for the DNC/Clinton funding that produced work leading to the Steele dossier ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Congress forced production of bank records that showed third‑party law firm payments

Fusion GPS resisted a congressional subpoena for its bank records, citing client confidentiality, and settled an enforcement dispute that allowed records to be provided under protective order; the turned‑over documents revealed payments from Perkins Coie and other entities ^[1]. Reuters and other outlets reported that a House panel arranged for disputed bank records to be produced after court negotiation ^[2].

3. Other law firms and clients were named in records — Baker & Hostetler and beyond

Reporting that summarized the bank documents and congressional interest says multiple clients and law firms showed up in Fusion’s records: besides Perkins Coie, Baker & Hostetler (which worked for a Russian‑linked company, Prevezon) and the conservative Washington Free Beacon were among identified payers to Fusion ^[3]. Those entries indicate Fusion’s work was funded by different firms and entities at various times, not a single direct payer for every project ^[3].

4. Fusion’s public stance and the contested narrative

Fusion GPS and its executives pushed back against what they called “conspiracy theories” and resisted turning over banking information to Congress on free‑speech and confidentiality grounds; nevertheless, the court‑mediated process produced records that clarified at least some payment paths ^{[4] [1]}. Fusion argued some transactions were unrelated to the dossier and that disclosure could harm clients and the business ^[3].

5. What the available sources do not say or confirm

Available sources in this set do not provide a complete, line‑by‑line accounting of every payment that funded Steele’s specific dossier memos; they do not show a comprehensive chain for each dollar from ultimate funder to final recipient in public reporting included here (not found in current reporting). Claims that Fusion was paid directly by foreign governments or that other specific third‑party routing schemes occurred are asserted in some partisan statements, but those assertions are not substantiated in the provided mainstream reporting summarized above ^{[2] [1]}.

6. Competing viewpoints and lingering disputes

Republican investigators and some commentators have alleged additional, more sensational payment routes (for example, payments tied to Russia or indirect proxies), while Fusion and allied reporting emphasize documented law‑firm clients and ordinary contractor arrangements; Reuters and congressional filings focus on Perkins Coie and the DNC/Clinton campaign as established funders for the research that led to Steele’s work ^{[2] [1]}. Conservative outlets and some political figures have pushed broader allegations — but those larger claims are not corroborated in the files and mainstream accounts cited here ^{[2] [1]}.

7. Practical takeaway for readers

Documented, produced bank records and congressional reporting establish that at least some payments for the dossier‑related work were routed through law firms — most notably Perkins Coie on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC — and that Fusion’s broader client list included other law firms and entities ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For claims beyond those documented routings (e.g., direct foreign‑government payments during the dossier’s compilation), available sources do not provide confirmed evidence in this dataset (not found in current reporting).

Limitations: This analysis relies only on the set of sources you provided; other reporting and later disclosures may add detail not contained here ^{[1] [2]}.