A leading elections lawyer is calling for an immediate investigation into a $1.3 million threat now hanging over the head of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, money a website says will be provided to her next opponent only if she votes to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
 
 A left-leaning activist organization, Mainers for Accountable Leadership (MFAL), is teaming up with an organization called the Maine People’s Alliance, to crowdsource a fundraising campaign targeting Collins in her 2020 re-election if she votes to confirm Kavanaugh. 
 
 But the fundraising has a catch. “Donors” are asked to pledge a donation against Collins, money that will only be charged to their credit card if she makes a yes vote for President Trump’s nominee. 
 
 Collins, an independent-minded Republican, has not revealed if she will vote for Kavanaugh. But Kavanaugh’s recent testimony stating that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” appears to have satisfied her major concern about potential judicial activism. 
 
 In an exclusive statement to Newsmax, Collins stated: 
 
 “I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh. 
 
 “If I vote against him, the money is refunded to the donors. If I vote for him, the money is given to my opponent for the 2020 race,” she said. 
 
 She emphasized “this effort will not influence my vote at all,” adding, “I think it demonstrates the new lows to which the judge’s opponents have stooped.” 
 
 The ActionNetwork.org states that MFAL operates a federally registered political action committee. Maine People’s Alliance is a 501(c)4 organization, that is, a tax exempt group acting to promote socially beneficial objectives. But the actual fundraising campaign is being hosted by a San Francisco-based, for-profit website Crowdpac.com. 
 
 The site’s homepage currently has a banner ad urging Collins to vote against Kavanaugh, stating: “Mainers and over 31,000 Americans across the country are sending Senator Susan Collins a message by pledging to fund her opponent IF she votes yes to confirm Kavanaugh.” 
 
 The crowdsourcing campaign states that if Collins votes against Kavanaugh donors won’t have to pony up any money, but if she does vote in the affirmative, the site promises to “fund her future opponent” in 2020. 
 
 As of Monday afternoon, the Crowdpac site declared it had raised $893,600. The campaign’s stated goal is $1,302,388. 
 
 A prominent Republican elections attorney, Cleta Mitchell of Foley & Lardner, told Newsmax this unusual fundraising effort may violate election laws. 
 
 “They’re trying to tie her official action to their threat that they’re going to give $1 million to somebody to run against her, if she doesn’t vote the way [they want her] to.” 
 
 Mitchell questioned the legality of the attempt to politically strong-arm Collins. 
 
 “It is certainly raising the specter of whether or not this violates the United States criminal code to prohibitions against attempted bribery, by linking official actions to monetary reward,” she said. 
 
 She noted that in Title 18, Section 201 of the U.S. criminal code states it is expressly a violation whenever a party “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official… for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official….” 
 
 Mitchell on Monday called for both the Department of Justice and FEC to investigate this crowdfunding campaign. 
 
 “The federal law prohibits anyone from offering a member of Congress anything of value in exchange for a Member’s vote,” Mitchell stated. 
 
 “These people have conspired to do just that — they are dangling a fairly substantial ‘thing of value’ — namely, $1 million dollars to be given or not given to Sen Collins’ opponent, in exchange for her vote on a specific matter before the Congress.” 
 
 “Crowdpac has been thoroughly vetted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and our operations and business model have received unanimous approval from the regulator,” TJ Adams-Falconer, a spokesperson told Newsmax. “The notion that Crowdpac operates outside of established federal election law, or operates as a PAC, is simply false. When we were founded, we received a unanimous Advisory Opinion (2014-07) from the FEC that approved our business model and established the ability to raise funds through commercial services and tools on our website.” 
 
 He added that “Crowdpac does not make contributions, process contributions, deposit contributions into a merchant or bank account in its name, or forward contributions to candidate committees. As such, we are fundamentally different from a political action committee, and to register as one would be contrary to the approved operations outlined in our FEC advisory opinion. We always have been, and remain today, a for-profit corporation operating exclusively on a commercial basis.” 
 
 “Ady Barkan, the creator of this Campaign, and his Be A Hero PAC have selected a Nominee Fund for these pledges if they convert to contributions. Nominee Funds, in which a donation is earmarked for a future nominee of a designated political party in a specific election, were first authorized by the FEC in Advisory Opinion 1982-23.” 
 
 But Mitchell argues that Crowdpac is not complying with the FEC Advisory Opinion. 
 
 “Nominee Funds are collected before a primary and are disbursed based on the outcome of an election, not on how a member of Congress votes,” Mitchell said. 
 
 “What Crowdpac has done in this instance is to allow its platform to be used for a purpose quite different from the purpose approved in the FEC opinion. There is no mention in the opinion of using their proposed vehicle as a means of giving or withholding financial support for members of Congress in exchange for their votes or other official action.” 
 
 Crowdpac was co-founded in 2014 by Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who hosts “The Next Revolution,” a weekly program. Crowdpac originally was positioned as a bipartisan fundraising website. 
 
 But according to The Hill, the company took a sharp turn to the left in May. Hilton stepped down from his position as CEO of the company, and the acting Crowdpac CEO, Jesse Thomas, announced in a post on Medium.com that the site would no longer be accepting fundraising campaigns on behalf of Republican candidates. 
 
 Crowdpac said it was “temporarily suspending” fundraising for GOP campaigns because Republicans tend to support President Trump. 
 
 “This decision has been a hard one for our company,” Thomas stated, “but as Trumpism has spread through the Republican Party we’ve started to see an increase in campaigns for Republican candidates that we cannot allow on our platform.” 
 
 “Left-wing extremists are pressuring Collins and other senators with all sorts vicious attacks and outrageous bribery games that will backfire,” Judicial Crisis Network’s Chief Counsel and Policy Director Carrie Severino said. Judicial Crisis Network is an advocacy group supporting jurists who back conservative judges. 
 
 “Judge Kavanaugh proved in the hearings that he adheres to the Constitution, and has the credentials, temperament, and independence to be another great justice,” Severino added. ||||| A crowdsourced fundraising campaign is threatening to give more than $1 million to a future opponent of Sen. Susan Collins. (Rosenberg, Eli) 
 
 In the closely divided senate, Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hinges in part on the votes of two moderate Republican senators: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. 
 
 For liberals concerned about what a seat for Kavanaugh would do to the court, Collins has been both a source of limited hope and frustration, expressing concerns about threats to Roe vs. Wade, while consulting with the Trump administration through the selection process. 
 
 So a group of liberal activists in Maine created an unusual crowdfunding campaign that encapsulated both of these emotions: they raised money in the form of pledges that they said they would give to whoever decided to challenge Collins in 2020 if she voted for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. If she votes no, the money will never be withdrawn from donors. 
 
 “Senator Collins votes NO on Kavanaugh and you will not be charged, and no money will go to fund her future opponent,” the platform notes. “Senator Collins votes YES on Kavanaugh and your pledge will go to her opponent's campaign, once that opponent has been identified.” 
 
 The unusual fundraising effort by Maine People's Alliance, Mainers for Accountable Leadership and activist Ady Barkan on the platform Crowdpac had raised more than $1 million from 37,000 pledges as of Tuesday— a not insignificant amount for a political race in the small state. But amidst the attention it was receiving were signs that its efforts could be backfiring. 
 
 At least one ethics expert consulted by The Washington Post said that it may very well violate federal bribery statutes, which prohibit giving or offering anything of value to government officials in exchange for any acts or votes. And Collins issued a sharply worded response through a spokeswoman that called it an attempt at extortion. 
 
 “And anybody who thinks these tactics would work on Senator Collins obviously doesn’t know her,” spokeswoman Annie Clark said in a statement. “Senator Collins will make up her mind based on the merits of the nomination. Threats or other attempts to bully her will not play a factor in her decision making whatsoever.” 
 
 [Democrats all but acknowledge Kavanaugh is headed toward confirmation to Supreme Court] 
 
 Adav Noti, a senior director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which works on rules of ethics and finance in government, told The Post that he thought the listing was illegal, noting that bribery is a federal crime. 
 
 “I think they’re playing a game to avoid the literal application of the bribery statute,” he said. “They have structured the campaign in a way that the action they will do if she does what she wants is that they will refund the money but that seems to be a fictional distinction. It still seems like they’re saying if you don’t do what we want we will spend $1 million and that strikes me as just as much as an inducement as saying we'll give you $1 million if you do what we want.” 
 
 Other organizations that work at the intersection of money politics disagreed. 
 
 “It seems kind of icky but it doesn’t rise to the level of bribery because there’s no agreement,” Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for the Citizens for Ethics and Responsibilities. “It’s just the way money and politics tend to work these days.” 
 
 Marie Follayttar, the co-director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, denounced Collins' claims in a statement sent to The Washington Post. 
 
 "The idea of Susan Collins attacking an effort by 35,000 small dollar donors as bribery is politics at its worst. Thousands of Mainers are trying desperately to tell her that she needs to protect abortion access and critical healthcare coverage across the country by voting 'no' on Kavanaugh," Follayttar said. "If she doesn't, we absolutely have the right to prepare to unseat her given everything Judge Kavanaugh would do on the Supreme Court to make life worse for Maine women, Mainers with pre-existing conditions and Mainers who care about fabric of our democracy. Unlike Supreme Court judges, Senators do not enjoy a lifetime guarantee of their seat; they are accountable to the people." 
 
 Barkan questioned the way that elected officials fundraise and the effect it had on their votes. 
 
 “That’s corruption. That’s what’s wrong with American politics,” he said. “This crowd-sourcing campaign is about 35,000 Americans speaking up to demand a government that serves the public interest.” 
 
 The tone of the Crowdpac listing was alternately threatening and encouraging. 
 
 “The people of Maine are asking you to be a hero, Senator Collins,” it noted, while warning that if she failed “to stand up for the people of Maine and for Americans across the country, every dollar donated to this campaign will go to your eventual Democratic opponent in 2020. We will get you out of office.” 
 
 “Your card will only be charged if Collins votes for Kavanaugh’s confirmation,” the listing said. 
 
 Collins has a reputation as a centrist though she is a mostly reliable Republican voter. She already backed Kavanaugh once, when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals by George W. Bush in 2006, and she has been sending strong signals that she will back him again this time around. After a meeting with him in August that she described as “excellent,” she said that he told her he agreed that Roe v. Wade was settled as a precedent of the court. 
 
 Read more: 
 
 Are pro-Trump commenters legally bound to say nice things about Trump? 
 
 Trump of­fi­cials rush to assure the president they didn’t pen op-ed crit­i­ciz­ing him 
 
 O’Rourke cam­paign blames ‘impostor’ for texts seek­ing un­doc­u­ment­ed im­mi­grant voters ||||| Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Al Drago—Pool/Getty Images. 
 
 On Monday, Sen. Susan Collins accused political opponents of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted “bribery.” The charge itself is without any legal merit whatsoever. That complaints about the campaign finance effort came from Collins, Republican election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, and an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell make the episode almost too rich to be believed. Their cries of bribery, illegality, and lack of principle lay bare the bankrupt campaign finance system that Mitchell and McConnell helped create and that Collins has contributed to with previous Supreme Court votes and will supersize with her likely vote to confirm Kavanaugh. 
 
 Collins labeled as a “bribe” a fundraising plan by two progressive Maine groups, aided by the company Crowdpac, to raise funds for Collins’ eventual opponent in 2020. People are pledging to give money via Crowdpac to that unknown future opponent, but donors will only be charged for the donation if Collins votes “yes” on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. As of Tuesday night, the groups reported pledged donations of more than $1 million, with a $1.3 million goal. There were more than 39,000 individual pledges ranging from $1 to the maximum allowable donation to a candidate of $2,700. 
 
 Now we can argue about whether the political threat to Collins funded by tens of thousands of small donations should be illegal. But claims by Mitchell and others that the fundraising effort is illegal are wrong, in part thanks to the deregulated campaign finance system that Mitchell and others have helped to create through litigation and a sympathetic Supreme Court. 
 
 This behavior does not come close to violating the federal bribery statute. 
 
 Mitchell pointed Newsmax to a federal bribery statute, Title 18, Section 201 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a crime when someone “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official … for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” Mitchell said: “These people have conspired to do just that—they are dangling a fairly substantial ‘thing of value’—namely, $1 million to be given or not given to Sen. Collins’ opponent, in exchange for her vote on a specific matter before the Congress.” 
 
 But the Maine groups did not violate section 201. The groups are not promising anything of value to Collins to vote in a particular way; nor are they promising anything to Collins’ (now unknown) opponent for the opponent to vote in a certain way. This behavior does not come close to violating the federal bribery statute. And it’s not the first time Mitchell has made wholly unsubstantiated claims of campaign finance violations against political opponents. 
 
 And what about reading this statute or other federal statutes to prevent what might look like extortion of Collins to vote in a particular way? Well, the Supreme Court has told us in cases like 2010’s Citizens United that large amounts of money sloshing around the system are just fine so long as they are not given by an individual directly to candidates. So long as there is no direct quid pro quo—dollars for political favors—all is fine. 
 
 And the behavior of the two Maine progressive groups is not unusual, except for the fact that it is funded by small donors. This is demonstrated easily by looking at the behavior of those shouting bribery the loudest. As Adam Smith noted, although Sen. John Cornyn boosted Collins’ bribery complaints, back in January he was urging the Koch brothers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reward the Republican Party for tax cuts benefiting wealthy donors. This came after big donors threatened to withhold money until Republicans got that tax bill passed. That’s closer to Mitchell’s claims of “bribery” than what the Maine groups are doing. Indeed, a 2014 report by Ohio State University law professor Dan Tokaji and then-fellow Renata Strause found that threats by super PACs to spend against incumbents if they don’t vote the way the super PAC donors want is an everyday Washington occurrence.* 
 
 Perhaps the chutzpah award, though, should go to Sen. McConnell’s deputy chief of staff Don Stewart, who urged “every Maine Democrat … to refuse to accept this tainted funding” as the “principled” thing to do. 
 
 Not only has McConnell been one of the most ardent opponents of campaign finance regulation, arguing that people should be able to give unlimited contributions directly to candidates as a matter of the First Amendment, he’s also been the key to keeping the Supreme Court in a position to strike down these laws with his blockade two years ago of Judge Merrick Garland. Garland would have been a key vote to uphold many campaign finance limits, had he been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Thanks to McConnell’s unprecedented obstruction, the judge didn’t even get a hearing. 
 
 Now with the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch last year, and the likely confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh in the coming weeks thanks to Collins’ key vote, things are going to get much worse. As I explained recently in Slate, Judge Kavanaugh is a self-professed outlier when it comes to the First Amendment, agreeing with McConnell that there are constitutional problems with limiting the amount of money that candidates can directly accept. 
 
 If the Maine story has a silver lining, it is this: So long as the Supreme Court is going to keep the money spigot open for wealthy donors, some of the rest of us appear to be at least trying to pool together resources to attempt to fight back. An arms race between the superrich and everyone else to try to influence legislative outcomes is far from ideal, but it is better than wholly ceding the ground to the plutocrats. 
 
 Correction, Sept. 13, 2018: Due to an editing error, this piece initially misidentified Renata Strause as an Ohio State University law professor. She was a fellow. ||||| CLOSE When Brett Kavanaugh walked away from a Parkland shooting victim's father after he tried to shake his hand, many people were left wondering, where exactly does Supreme Court nominee stand on gun control laws? USA TODAY 
 
 In this Tuesday, Aug. 21, 2018, file photo, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at her office, before a private meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington. Collins has been targeted by Democrats hoping that the centrist Republican will vote against the judge's nomination. (Photo: AP) 
 
 WASHINGTON – A watchdog group is asking the Justice Department to investigate a number of groups they say may be illegally pressuring Sen. Susan Collins to gain her vote against Brett Kavanaugh, the president's Supreme Court pick. Collins says she sees the effort – an online crowdfunding effort by groups that threaten to use the money against Collins if she votes for Kavanaugh – as an attempt to bribe her for the vote. 
 
 Collins is one of two potential swing votes on Kavanaugh and has seemingly found herself at the center of the nation's divide over Trump's second nominee to the high court. The Maine Republican has reported receiving threatening calls and letters as well as more than 3,000 wire coat hangers in a grim reference to the unsafe, illegal abortions that abortion-rights defenders say would follow the end of Roe v. Wade. 
 
 But it's the online crowdfunding campaign by three activists groups that's raised concerns of bribery. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) told USA TODAY it is sending a letter to the Justice Department on Thursday asking it investigate the groups, which have raised more than $1.2 million to go to Collins' opponent if she votes to appoint Kavanaugh. 
 
 "I think this is one of those things where it's very obvious that outside influence is being used in an attempt to corrupt a member of Congress," said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. "We expect them to act on merit, and it's pretty clear no matter where you lean politically that this is absolutely an act of bribery and corruption." 
 
 More: 'Vulgar' calls, threats and 'bribery': Kavanaugh pressure mounts for Sen. Collins 
 
 More: Abortion-rights activists send hangers to Sen. Collins, hoping to influence her vote on court 
 
 More: GOP senator: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh considers Roe v. Wade 'settled law' 
 
 Collins said she also considers the crowdfunding campaign to be an attempt at bribery. More than 40,000 donors have contributed to the effort, which pledges they won't be charged if Collins votes against Kavanaugh. 
 
 "I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh," she told the conservative site Newsmax. She also told the Wall Street Journal that two lawyers told her the campaign violated federal bribery law and a third said it was extortion. 
 
 The four-page letter, which was provided to USA TODAY, will be sent to Brian Benczkowski, who heads the Justice Department's criminal division. The letter asks not only for the investigation of the three groups raising money to oppose Collins, but also that the webpage where people are donating be removed. 
 
 The crowdfunding campaign is led by the groups Be A Hero Team, Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership. They say bribery accusations are false and that the First Amendment protects them. 
 
 Jonathan Berkon, a partner in Perkins Coie’s Political Law Group, defended the crowdfunding campaign and said federal law protects the groups. 
 
 "Through this grassroots effort, Mainers are making clear to Senator Collins that they will defeat her for reelection if she defies the will of the people and votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh," he said in a statement provided by the crowdfunding campaign. "The First Amendment guarantees their right to do so. And federal law protects their right to pool their funds together now, when enthusiasm is at its peak, so that their campaign against a well-funded, four-term incumbent is viable two years from now. It is shameful that Republicans are using bogus legal threats to stifle this grassroots enthusiasm." 
 
 Marie Follayttar, the co-director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, dismissed the allegations as "politics at its worst." 
 
 "The idea of Susan Collins attacking an effort by 35,000 small dollar donors as bribery is politics at its worst," Follayttar said. "Thousands of Mainers are trying desperately to tell her that she needs to protect abortion access and critical healthcare coverage across the country by voting ‘no’ on Kavanaugh." 
 
 But, FACT says in the letter that any amount of money promised to a public official is illegal if "the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act." 
 
 Arnold said she'd never seen a campaign like this in hopes of swaying an elected official's opinion or vote. 
 
 "I think that's one reason why it's imperative that the Justice Department look into this," she said. "It would be an enormous mistake to try and ignore something like this that seems almost unprecedented." 
 
 Despite the pressure, Collins and her staff say the aggressive tactics to sway her vote are a wasted effort. 
 
 "Bribery will not work on Sen. Collins," Collins' spokeswoman Annie Clark told USA TODAY. "Sen. Collins will make up her mind based on the merits of the nomination. Threats or other attempts to bully her will not play a factor in her decision making whatsoever." 
 
 Contributing: Will Cummings 
 
 CLOSE There are five senators that could make or break Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Eliza Collins reports. USA TODAY 
 
 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2CPZxx9 ||||| $3 million raised for Sen. Susan Collins' opponent amid outcry on Kavanaugh vote 
 
 CLOSE Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Friday she will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, all but ensuring the Senate will elevate the conservative jurist to the nation’s highest court. (Oct. 5) AP 
 
 WASHINGTON - Sen. Susan Collins' announcement Friday that she would vote "yes" on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh likely ended the uncertainty over his confirmation. 
 
 But while Collins spoke on the Senate floor and explained why she would be voting for Kavanaugh, people angry over her decision were donating cash to defeat her in her next election. 
 
 More than $50,000 was given over the course of her nearly 45-minute speech, bringing the total raised on an online crowdfunding campaign to defeat Collins in her 2020 election to more than $3 million as of 7 p.m. 
 
 The campaign by three activists groups, Be A Hero Team, Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership, had been criticized by Collins and others over several weeks as a possible attempt to bribe Collins into voting against Kavanaugh. 
 
 In this Aug. 21, 2018, file photoSen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with reporters on an escalator at the Capitol in Washington. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP) 
 
 The groups started raising money in August, asking people across the nation to donate to Collins' opponent in an attempt to show her the stark opposition to Kavanaugh. No one has yet filed to run against Collins in 2020. Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser and United Nations Ambassador, suggested on Twitter Friday that she could challenge Collins. 
 
 The donation page, titled "Either Sen. Collins VOTES NO on Kavanaugh OR we fund her future opponent" went down briefly on crowdfunding website crowdpac.com Friday afternoon because of "overwhelming" traffic to the page, Be a Hero said in a statement. The groups are also raising money on the website ActBlue and say in total, between the two the amount has topped $3 million. The groups say donations are coming in every three seconds. 
 
 More: Sen. Susan Collins a 'yes' on Kavanaugh, drawing anger from protesters and praise from GOP 
 
 More: Brett Kavanaugh moves towards Supreme Court confirmation after Susan Collins, Joe Manchin pledge support 
 
 The page has said those donating wouldn't be charged if Collins voted no on Kavanaugh. But on Friday, Collins seemingly put an end to the uncertainty, giving a nearly 45-minute speech on the Senate floor that explained her process and why she'd be voting to confirm him. 
 
 "Susan Collins has betrayed the people, and especially the women and survivors, of Maine," the campaign organizers said in a statement. "Thousands of Mainers wrote, called, visited, protested, begged and pleaded with Susan Collins to do the right thing - to be a hero - and vote no. She ignored them." 
 
 The statement continued, "For years she has claimed to be an independent, a different kind of Republican, but today she shattered that facade forever. Her vote will reverberate long after she has left the Senate." 
 
 The organizers said they were committed to defeating Collins in 2020 and pledged to "never let her forget" this decision. 
 
 "Maine deserves a Senator who would recoil at the idea of confirming a proven liar, an emotionally unstable partisan, to the Supreme Court," the statement said. "Maine deserves a Senator who will believe survivors, who will listen to their stories, and who will represent them with honor. Susan Collins is no longer capable of that." 
 
 During her speech on the floor, Collins went through the issues, from Obamacare, same-sex marriage and abortion rights, and said Kavanaugh's record and pledges before Congress were enough to keep her vote. 
 
 CLOSE Protesters flooded the halls of the Senate Friday, expressing their anger at Senators who've said they will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and pledging their fight is far from over. (Oct. 5) AP 
 
 She said Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teens, offered a compelling testimony before Congress, but ultimately no one could vouch for her claims or even remember the party. 
 
 Collins said the allegations, in her eyes, "fail to meet the 'more likely than not'" standard. She said she believes voting against Kavanaugh without witnesses or proof could start a "dangerous" precedent. 
 
 "I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court," Collins said, adding that her decision should not be "misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country." 
 
 A watchdog group asked the Justice Department to investigate the campaign against Collins out of concern the money donated was an attempt to bribe Collins' vote and called it illegal. 
 
 It's illegal if "the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act," the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) wrote in a letter to the Justice Department. 
 
 Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/05/susan-collins-yes-kavanaugh-leaves-2-million-donated-opponent/1537749002/
– More than $1.2 million has been raised to help convince Sen. Susan Collins she shouldn't cast her vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the Maine pol isn't exactly motivated by the cash influx. Mainers for Accountable Leadership, the Maine People's Alliance, and a group led by Ady Barkan, an activist dying of ALS, started the campaign directed at Collins, seen as a possible swing vote against Kavanaugh. The groups, which fear Kavanaugh will help overturn Roe v. Wade, vow that if Collins casts a "nay" for Kavanaugh, they'll nix the fundraiser and donors will get to keep their pledges. However, if she votes yes, they say they'll donate the money to her opponent's 2020 campaign. The effort has ended up rankling Collins, who tells Newsmax, "I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh." Collins also tells the Wall Street Journal she's been advised by two lawyers that the fundraiser is a "clear violation of the federal law on bribery," while a third says it amounts to extortion. A conservative watchdog group agrees and is sending a letter Thursday to the Justice Department asking it to investigate the groups. "It's very obvious that outside influence is being used in an attempt to corrupt a member of Congress," Kendra Arnold, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, tells USA Today. (Slate pushes back on the illegality of the fundraiser.) Also "incredibly offensive," Collins tells the Journal: the profane voicemail messages and coat hangers—about 3,000 so far—she says her state offices are receiving. She notes her team donated a few hundred of the hangers to a local thrift shop.