The allegations of a “pay-to-play” scheme and bribery outlined in the recent ProPublica report on U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and a contractor may not lead to any further consequences beyond serving as campaign fodder, but experts said the piece highlighted some key facts.

Existing laws are clear on banning such behavior, but it takes a federal agency to investigate any alleged wrongdoing, campaign finance experts noted.

Then-Navatek CEO Martin Kao and U.S. Sen. Susan Collins are shown at a 2019 announcement of an $8 million Navy contract. (U.S. Sen. Susan Collins via Facebook)

That seems to be what happened with the case involving Hawaiian defense contractor Navatek, its former CEO-turned-convicted-felon Martin Kao and an illegal donation to a pro-Collins super PAC through a shell company. But an FBI investigation focusing on Collins and Kao — along with other potential corruption involving members of Congress — died after President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025 and purged the anti-corruption unit that had been handling the probe, ProPublica reported.

So it appears unlikely that more penalties will come as a result of the alleged interactions detailed in the Sept. 22 piece, though ProPublica said it was only “the first in a series of stories drawn from our reporting.” The fallout is instead mostly coming in the form of fresh criticism of Collins as she seeks a sixth term against former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson in a race that appears neck and neck ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

Still, the report opened up various questions regarding campaign finance and what is allowed in an American political system that both sides of the aisle agree is awash in money.

Collins and her campaign staff, who have never been charged in connection with Kao’s case, have bashed the new reporting as covering old allegations from Kao, who was sentenced to 87 months in prison last year after he pleaded guilty to funneling more than $200,000 to Collins’ 2020 reelection campaign and an affiliated super PAC that Collins and the PAC returned in light of the criminal proceedings against Kao.

But ProPublica rebutted the Collins camp’s criticism by noting its story focused on previously unreported claims Kao made between 2022 and 2024, and on how a trove of records and emails the news organization obtained show the FBI was still investigating Kao’s relationship with Collins, her staffers and employees of the super PAC up until early 2025.

The Portland Press Herald spoke with several campaign finance experts who have worked in law and for the federal government about various questions raised by the ProPublica reporting. Without rehashing all the details in the ProPublica story, the interviews revealed a few tweaks that could fix broader finance loopholes. But the experts agreed the existing laws in place to protect against pay-for-play schemes and bribery are clear. Enforcing them is another matter.

Both the Hatch Act amendments of 1940 and Federal Election Commission regulations ban federal government contractors from donating to — or promising to donate to — federal candidates, political parties, political committees and super PACs. Civil fines are common penalties, but prison sentences occur in more serious cases that also involve other violations.

Kao received his 87-month prison sentence in 2025 because of a series of violations, rather than illicit campaign donations. His crimes included COVID-19 pandemic wire fraud, money laundering and bank fraud, with a judge also ordering him to pay back about $12.8 million in Paycheck Protection Program funds he fraudulently obtained.

Anti-bribery statutes prohibit “quid pro quo” dealings and ban public officials from giving or receiving anything of value if it is given “with intent to influence” an official act or received “in return for being influenced.” A bribery conviction is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, but a separate case of giving a “gratuity” after the fact as “thanks” for an act, but not in exchange for it, can result in up to two years. A “gratuity” does not include campaign contributions.

The current laws make it “crystal clear that certain behaviors are unlawful,” said Erin Chlopak, who worked for the FEC in litigation and policy roles for nearly a decade and now serves as the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center’s senior director of campaign finance. The Campaign Legal Center had filed a complaint with the FEC after getting suspicious about what turned out to be the $150,000 straw donation to the pro-Collins super PAC in 2020 that Kao reportedly told PAC officials he would give through the “Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers.”

But proving bribery is not easy, campaign finance experts noted, and Supreme Court rulings have narrowed what counts. For contractor violations, the FEC has lacked a four-member quorum during Trump’s second term and thus cannot start investigations or issue penalties.

“It is incredibly difficult for prosecutors to prove that sort of quid pro quo exchange,” said Eric Petry, counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice’s Elections and Government Program. “And oftentimes, it really boils down to a ‘he said versus she said,’ which is really difficult for courts and juries to get to the bottom of.”

A jury in 2024 found former U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat who was seeking reelection that year as an independent, guilty of acting as a foreign agent for Egypt amid a yearslong bribery scheme involving him, his wife and three New Jersey businesspeople. Menendez is appealing his 11-year prison sentence.

On the topic of illicit federal contractor donations, FEC commissioners were equally divided in 2024 and thus closed a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center that a federal contractor violated the law by giving more than $236,000 to a super PAC supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign.

The ban on federal contractor donations does not apply to several categories of people, including stockholders, officers or employees of a corporation, and it does not apply to donations in state or local elections. And when it comes to campaign money, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 essentially paved the way for corporations to spend unlimited funds on elections.

Petry said Congress could seek to boost low levels of public trust in the government by at least expanding the federal contractor donation ban to cover those other affiliated individuals, such as stockholders and officers. He also flagged how federal contractors and corporations can give to presidential inauguration funds or projects such as Trump’s White House ballroom.

Other examples of giving are allowed and easier to spot, though experts noted that voters have cited them in surveys when expressing disgust with the amount of money floating around the political system.

New Balance’s owner and chairman, Jim Davis, gave $1 million to Collins’ super PAC last year. The senator proudly held one of the company’s shoes when announcing her reelection campaign in February. And earlier in September, she touted a nearly $60 million contract the company got to produce military footwear at its Skowhegan plant.

Scott Reed, who leads the pro-Collins Pine Tree Results PAC, was mentioned repeatedly in the recent ProPublica piece because of Kao’s testimony, FBI records and emails showing his interactions with Kao. That included a 2019 meeting in Washington in which Reed allegedly asked Navatek executives for a $500,000 campaign donation after Collins had helped the company win a multimillion dollar Navy research contract in Maine.

ProPublica viewed an email in which Kao told Reed he planned to donate $150,000 through a shell company. “Very smart,” Reed replied.

(ProPublica reached out to Reed for comment, and he said via email that, “I understand Martin Kao is now sitting in federal prison,” along with saying he “never had any communications with Senator Collins (or) her staff about Martin Kao and/or Navatek.”)

Seven days after the super PAC cashed the check from Kao’s shell company, one of Reed’s subordinates emailed a Navatek lobbyist asking for Kao’s phone number and said Collins “would like to call Martin to thank him,” ProPublica reported.

The Collins campaign and its manager, Steve Abbott, responded last week by saying they do “not believe” the senator ever called Kao. When the Portland Press Herald asked Wednesday if Collins herself would comment on whether she called Kao, campaign spokesperson Blake Kernen said it “does not appear in any of our records that this call was made.”

“Neither Susan Collins nor anyone who worked for her believes that she made a call,” Kernen said.

Since the ProPublica story came out, The New York Times and Washington Post have also each reported that the FBI in 2025 shut down its investigation revolving around Reed, Kao and Collins. The Times reported that senior bureau officials questioned Kao’s truthfulness, but ProPublica said that by the end of 2024, agents had “enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties.”

Campaign finance experts said a renewed investigation is unlikely under Trump, who is serving his second and final term through 2028. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the left-leaning consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, has helped states such as Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut write their own “pay-to-play” legislation but said the Justice Department has the chief responsibility to prosecute bribery or contractor-related corruption.

“It is very unfortunate, though not surprising, that the Trump administration would step in and stop that investigation,” Holman said. “They just accept this as normal behavior.”