Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their vote and their government. Federal campaign finance laws protect this right by requiring federal candidates and committees — including super PACs — to disclose their contributors and prohibiting contributions made through a pass-through or “straw donor.”
A straw donation involves a donor directing funds through another person or entity, which then contributes those funds to a political committee in its own name while concealing the identity of the true source of the donation.
Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan billionaire who faced criminal bribery charges, received an incredibly lenient plea deal from federal prosecutors, and then was subsequently pardoned by President Donald Trump in January 2026 — after his daughter contributed $3.5 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump-supporting super PAC.
The timing and circumstances of these contributions, as part of an apparently corrupt — yet increasingly common — transaction to purchase Herrera Velutini’s exemption from criminal accountability, strongly suggest that his daughter was not the true source of the money contributed to MAGA Inc.
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Herrera Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, acted as a straw donor on behalf of her father when she contributed $3.5 million to the MAGA Inc. super PAC between December 2024 and July 2025.
The FEC must investigate whether Herrera was the true source of these funds; and if she was not, it must hold her — and the true contributor — accountable for participating in a straw donor scheme.
A Straw Donor Scheme to Corruptly Purchase Presidential Clemency
According to public records, Herrera is a 25-year-old, self-employed financial consultant whose only prior recorded political contribution was a $20 donation to Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. While Herrera appears to lack the financial means and demonstrated interest in financially influencing electoral politics to make a multimillion-dollar super PAC contribution, her father has the means to offer this contribution.
He also has a clear incentive: securing a presidential pardon. Moreover, as a foreign national, Herrera Velutini is legally prohibited from making political contributions, creating the further incentive to funnel any donation he would have sought to make through his U.S. citizen daughter.
In 2022, Herrera Velutini was criminally charged with providing $300,000 to a super PAC supporting the reelection campaign of Puerto Rico’s then-governor, Wanda Vázquez Garced, in exchange for the governor pledging to remove a top banking regulator scrutinizing one of Herrera Velutini’s banks — a classic case of quid pro quo corruption for which the penalties could be severe.
But after Donald Trump won the 2024 election, his super PAC, MAGA Inc., reported receiving seven-figure sums of money from Herrera Velutini’s daughter: $2.5 million in December 2024, then another $1 million in July 2025.
In a remarkable turnaround, federal prosecutors allowed Herrera Velutini to plead guilty in mid-2025 to a single misdemeanor, as part of a plea deal that the presiding judge called “a slap on the wrist.” He was then pardoned by President Trump a few months later.
Foreign Influence in U.S. Elections
A bribery scheme, a criminal indictment, $3.5 million in super PAC contributions and a presidential pardon: The sequence of events before and after Herrera’s contributions strongly suggest that she was a straw donor used by her father to secure political favor and, consequently, clemency from the Trump administration.
If so, Herrera Velutini broke more than the laws meant to keep election spending transparent and voters informed: He also illegally sought to influence American politics as a foreign national.
Federal law bans foreign nationals, including foreign citizens and governments, from spending in federal, state and local elections. This includes a ban on donations to super PACs, the entities that special interests commonly use to spend massive amounts of money influencing elections and policy decisions in the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of banning foreign spending to influence our elections, maintaining that, when foreign entities do so, it undermines the right of Americans to engage in democratic self-governance.
Unfortunately, a combination of inadequate electoral transparency laws and inaction by the FEC — the sole regulator responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance laws — has enabled foreign actors to continue to influence U.S. elections, mostly undetected. A case like Herrera Velutini’s represents a rare instance of such illegal election spending being exposed to the light of day.
The circumstances surrounding Herrera’s contribution demand an investigation by the FEC to determine whether a straw donor scheme was used to illegally funnel foreign money into our political process.
Campaign Legal Center will continue to call for the FEC to act when actors attempt to subvert campaign finance laws and make our elections less transparent, fair and representative of the will of the voters. Support our work today.