What campaign finance records exist showing contributions related to Venezuela or Venezuelan-affiliated entities to U.S. Senators since 2016?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A review of the provided reporting finds no verified campaign finance records linking contributions from the Maduro government or Venezuela-affiliated entities directly to U.S. Senators since 2016; sensational claims circulating online (including a purported “Venezuela list” from Hugo Carvajal) have been reported and widely debunked by fact-checkers [1] [2] while partisan outlets have repeated unverified allegations [3].
1. What the viral claims say, and how reliable they are
Online posts and at least one partisan outlet have promoted a dramatic allegation that Hugo Carvajal or Maduro-linked networks produced a list of U.S. senators who received illicit payments from Venezuela or narco-cartels; that claim is central to the “Venezuela list” narrative but originates in sources that lack transparent evidence and have not been corroborated by mainstream outlets or official filings [3], and independent fact-checkers reviewed the allegation and found no evidence that such a list was released implicating senators [1] [2].
2. What established news and official records show (and don’t show)
Mainstream reporting about U.S.–Venezuela developments in late 2024–2026 has focused on sanctions, criminal indictments, and U.S. actions against Maduro — including DOJ cases and sanctions listings that describe financial concealment through front companies [4] [5] — but those articles and briefings do not present campaign finance records showing direct Venezuelan-government or Maduro-affiliated payments to U.S. senators since 2016 [4] [5] [6].
3. Why formal campaign links would be difficult to document and where to look
Financial and legal barriers make direct state-to-candidate transfers from sanctioned regimes unlikely and traceable: U.S. Treasury sanctions and OFAC listings have targeted Maduro, senior Venezuelan officials and entities, constraining their access to U.S. banking and political finance channels [5]. Publicly accessible trackers like OpenSecrets exist to trace donors and outside spending — the dataset is the standard place to search for any foreign-linked contributions or conduit donations — but the provided OpenSecrets pointer is a general donor lookup rather than a specific Venezuela-to-senator finding [7].
4. The investigative record: claims versus provable campaign-finance evidence
The reporting corpus supplied includes inflammatory allegations (amg-news) and mainstream coverage of U.S. actions and political fallout over Venezuela (NPR, Reuters, CNN, The Guardian, Roll Call) but none of those mainstream sources published verifiable campaign finance documents tying Maduro or Venezuelan-affiliated entities to U.S. senators’ accounts since 2016 [3] [8] [9] [10] [11] [6] [12]. Snopes, a recognized fact-checker, explicitly found no evidence for the supposed “Venezuela list” and characterized the claims as unfounded after review [1] [2].
5. Competing narratives and possible motives behind the allegations
Two competing dynamics appear in the files: legitimate reporting about sanctions, criminal indictments, and congressional debate over Venezuela policy [4] [8] [9], and a parallel stream of unverified, politically charged accusations that serve to delegitimize opponents or to amplify geopolitical narratives; outlets and social posts pushing the “list” narrative have clear incentives—political, sensational, or commercial—to amplify unproven claims, while fact-checkers and major news outlets have focused on documentary evidence and official records [3] [1].
Conclusion — what campaign finance records exist, per these sources
Based on the sources provided, there are no verified campaign finance records presented that show contributions from Venezuela’s government or Maduro-affiliated entities to U.S. Senators since 2016; allegations to that effect have circulated online but were not substantiated by public filings or mainstream reporting and were specifically debunked by fact-checkers [1] [2], and public databases such as OpenSecrets are the appropriate next step for independent confirmation though no such record was cited in the supplied materials [7] [5].