Susan Collins Denies Corruption Allegations in Pay-to-Play Report
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
3 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
This week, ProPublica reported that FBI agents in late 2024 moved toward investigating Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) over an alleged 2020 arrangement in which Hawaiian defense contractor Navatek and then-CEO Martin Kao sent $150,000 through a shell company to a Super PAC supporting Collins after seeking federal contracts, and that the effort ended after President Donald Trump returned to office and reduced FBI staffing. Collins, who is running for reelection, denied the allegations as “absolutely outrageous” and “clearly a political hit job,” saying the Biden Justice Department found no wrongdoing by her, her office, or her campaign. FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson said an earlier investigation “ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign” and did not respond to questions about an alleged separate 2024 inquiry; Collins’s deputy chief of staff Annie Clark said the campaign was never a target, cooperated fully, and that the matter was resolved in 2021. Kao is in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud, money laundering, and related charges, and PacMar Technologies, formerly Navatek, said it was a victim of his illegal conduct. Democratic Senate nominee Troy Jackson called the report “corruption of the highest order.”
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles
1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with a ProPublica report citing unnamed sources; a named source appeared within the hour. Susan Collins denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: ProPublica and Troy Jackson
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 2 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: ProPublica
- Unnamed sources 0 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- On-record denial 4
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Susan Collins (ABC News, Sep 23, 20:35 UTC); Annie Clark (ABC News, Sep 23, 20:35 UTC); Ben Williamson (ABC News, Sep 23, 20:35 UTC); Susan Collins (The Hill, Sep 23, 20:51 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 23, 20:35 UTC by ABC News, crediting ProPublica, with no named source. First named source within the hour, from The Guardian.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage treats the FBI's later interest as a Collins-only bribery case, leaving out that the contractor's alleged contacts reached more than a dozen members of Congress. Right-leaning coverage in The Federalist reports that agents still focused on the Maine senator despite that wider field. A reader who never sees the broader roster will take the stalled probe as confirmation she was the target, not one name among many.
Left-leaning coverage opens on the denial and on her opponent's corruption charge. Right-leaning coverage opens on ProPublica's record and the sources' baggage, reaching the alleged contracts only after that frame. That same story is billed as a "Hit Piece" in The Federalist before a reader meets the donation claim.
Did any contemporaneous record show Collins herself knew the money's source or tied a contract to it?
Bottom line
ABC News can cover Collins, the FBI, and the denial without once noting Kao's alleged ties to more than a dozen members of Congress.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Kao allegedly had involvement with more than a dozen members of Congress and their staff
- Kao sent $150,000 to a Super PAC and said Collins would ensure $32 million in contracts
- FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson said the agency found nothing implicating Collins or her campaign
- Kao pleaded guilty to five counts of money laundering, three counts of wire fraud, one count of bank fraud, and making false submissions to the FEC
- Collins said Navatek was doing 3D printing research to build boats and the Navy found its developments valuable
- Former FBI agent Kevin Gounaud recommended a criminal investigation of Elon Musk in February 2025
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the ProPublica article as a “bombshell ‘pay-to-play’ report” that Democrats said showed Collins accepted the equivalent of bribes and that Trump “derailed the inquiry.” Jackson said “the jig is up” and “We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers.” Maine Democratic Party executive director Devon Murphy-Anderson said voters “sent Susan Collins to Washington to fight for us” but “it appears that she has sold us out yet again and gotten bailed out of trouble by the president of the United States,” linking the allegations to her role as Senate appropriations chair. Coverage stressed that the race is a toss-up that “could determine the balance of power” in the Senate.
The Right View
The Federalist called the article a “hit piece” by a “left-wing propaganda operation” that used “discredited activists” to “concoct” allegations: Kao, described as making “outlandish charges” while “awaiting sentencing” to reduce his prison time, and former FBI agent Kevin Gounaud, whom it said had sought assignment to Crossfire Hurricane and later recommended a criminal investigation of Elon Musk. It emphasized that the Biden FBI found nothing implicating Collins, that Clark said the campaign “was never the target of the FBI investigation,” and that ProPublica itself wrote Kao “had credibility issues.” The outlet argued agents “zeroed in” on Collins despite Kao’s alleged involvement with “more than a dozen members of Congress,” and cited ProPublica’s past pieces on Justice Clarence Thomas and Pete Hegseth as a pattern of targeting conservatives ahead of an election.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that Williamson did not answer questions about a separate late-2024 FBI effort, which Democrats treat as evidence that a bribery inquiry was killed after Trump’s FBI cuts, prompting Jackson to call it “corruption of the highest order.” The right’s strongest argument is that the Biden-era FBI and Justice Department already investigated the Navatek matter and found “nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign,” while the new claims rest on a convicted fraudster seeking a lighter sentence and a former agent with a record of pursuing conservatives. The central unresolved tension is whether a distinct 2024 investigation of Collins existed and was shut down for political reasons, or whether the report recycles already-cleared allegations from unreliable sources in a close election.
5 sources
- Collins opponent says ‘jig is up’ after ProPublica report; her aide calls it ‘categorically false’
- Collins denies allegations in corruption report: 'Absolutely outrageous'
- Collins rips report on pay-for-play allegations: ‘Partisan hit job’
- Democrats accuse Susan Collins of corruption after bombshell ‘pay-to-play’ report
- Discredited Activists At ProPublica Cite Other Discredited Activists To Concoct Susan Collins Hit Piece
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.