Fact check: Was there funding for the J6 riot

1. Summary of the results

The evidence shows a clear distinction between funding for the rally versus the riot itself. While there is substantial documentation of funding for the rally preceding January 6th - with approximately $3 million allocated by various organizations ^[1] - there is no direct evidence presented of funding specifically for the riot that followed. Multiple organizations were involved in funding the rally, including Turning Point Action ($1 million), "Save the U.S. Senate" ($500,000), and Tea Party Express ($400,000) ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements need to be considered:

• The FBI had 26 confidential informants present during the events ^[2], suggesting significant law enforcement awareness and monitoring
• The House select committee was actively investigating the financial aspects of the events ^[3]
• At least nine different groups were identified by OpenSecrets as potential rally funders, including Stop the Steal, Women for America First, Tea Party Patriots, and Turning Point Action ^[3]
• The events were documented as being networked in nature, with various participants having different motivations ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The question itself presents a potential oversimplification by not distinguishing between the rally and the riot:

• Multiple conspiracy theories and misconceptions have circulated about the events ^{[5] [6]}
• The original question could be misleading as it doesn't acknowledge that while the rally was funded through legitimate organizational channels ^[1], there's no evidence presented of direct funding for the riot itself
• Those who benefit from conflating the rally and riot might include:
• Political organizations seeking to minimize their involvement in the events
• Groups attempting to portray the entire day's events as either completely spontaneous or entirely orchestrated
• Media outlets and political figures who might benefit from either oversimplifying or overcomplexifying the funding narrative