The laws tied to the Susan Collins-Navatek allegations are ‘crystal clear.’ Enforcing them is another matter.

Sen. Susan Collins Faces New Allegations of Pay‑to‑Play Scheme, But Investigation Likely to End Without Penalties

By Maine News Now

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine who is seeking a sixth term in the Senate, is back in the headlines after a new ProPublica investigation described how a former Hawaiian defense‑contractor executive allegedly funneled more than $200,000 to her 2020 reelection campaign and a pro‑Collins super‑PAC through a shell company. The report, released on Sept. 22, 2026, reignited accusations that Collins accepted money in exchange for securing an $8 million Navy research contract for Navatek in 2019.

A Chain of Events

In 2019, Collins appeared on the stage of the Pentagon’s Washington, D.C., headquarters to announce the award of an $8 million contract to Navatek, a Honolulu‑based defense contractor. Navatek’s former chief executive, Martin Kao, was a key figure in the company’s lobbying efforts. Kao was later convicted in 2025 of wire fraud, money‑laundering and bank‑fraud related to COVID‑19 relief programs. He was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison and ordered to repay roughly $12.8 million in fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program funds.

The ProPublica piece says that between 2022 and 2024, Kao claimed to have provided the super‑PAC that supports Collins with a $150,000 “straw” donation through a shell company. The donation was made to the PAC in 2020, a year when the company was actively seeking federal contracts. In an email exchange, the PAC’s leader, Scott Reed, acknowledged the plan: “Very smart.” A week after the PAC cashed the check, a subordinate of Reed’s emailed a Navatek lobbyist requesting Kao’s phone number and noting that “Collins would like to call Martin to thank him.”

Reed replied that he “understands Martin Kao is now sitting in federal prison” and denied that he had ever communicated with Collins about the donation. Collins’ campaign manager, Steve Abbott, and spokesperson Blake Kernen both stated that the senator never made the phone call. “Neither Susan Collins nor anyone who worked for her believes that she made a call,” Kernen told reporters.

The FBI Probe That Never Was

In early 2025, the FBI’s anti‑corruption unit opened an investigation into the alleged relationship between Collins, Kao and the Pine Tree Results super‑PAC. ProPublica’s report indicates that the agency was still collecting evidence and had “enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties” by the end of 2024. However, the investigation was shut down in late 2025 after President Donald Trump returned to office and removed the anti‑corruption squad from the department.

The Washington Post and The New York Times have both reported that the FBI’s investigation was terminated by Trump’s administration, citing concerns about “senior bureau officials questioning Kao’s truthfulness.” ProPublica, meanwhile, maintains that the story is “the first in a series of reports drawn from our investigative work.”

Campaign‑finance experts say that while the laws prohibiting contractors from making political contributions are clear, enforcement depends on federal agencies. The Hatch Act amendments of 1940 and Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations bar federal contractors from donating to, or promising to donate to, federal candidates, parties, committees or super‑PACs. Violations can result in civil fines; more serious cases can lead to prison. Anti‑bribery statutes prohibit “quid pro quo” exchanges and ban public officials from receiving or giving anything of value with intent to influence an official act. Penalties for bribery range from two to fifteen years in prison.

Expert Views on the Legal Landscape

Erin Chlopak, senior director of campaign finance at the Campaign Legal Center, explained that “the laws are crystal clear about what is unlawful.” She noted that the Center filed a complaint with the FEC over the $150,000 straw donation. “Proving bribery is a different story,” she added. “You need to prove intent, and Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the definition of what counts.”

Eric Petry of the Brennan Center for Justice said it is “incredibly difficult for prosecutors to prove a quid pro quo exchange.” He highlighted that cases like former New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez’s bribery conviction and the FEC’s inability to act due to a lack of quorum during Trump’s second term illustrate the procedural hurdles.

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, which has lobbied for pay‑to‑play legislation in several states, said the Justice Department is ultimately responsible for prosecuting 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.”

Potential Political Fallout

Although no new penalties appear likely, the story has already amplified criticism of Collins from Democratic leaders and the press. In the race for the Senate seat that will decide control of the chamber on Nov. 3, Collins faces former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson in a tight contest. Polls indicate a neck‑and‑neck race, with voters increasingly weighing the allegations against her record.

New Balance’s chairman, Jim Davis, has also come under scrutiny for a $1 million contribution to Collins’ super‑PAC and for promoting the company’s military footwear contract at a 2026 press conference. The company’s involvement highlights the broader question of whether business leaders who donate to a campaign can also benefit from contracts awarded to their companies.

A Glimpse of the Broader System

The case underscores the gaps in campaign‑finance regulation that allow “gray areas.” The federal ban on contractor donations does not cover shareholders, officers or employees, nor does it apply to state or local elections. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision permits corporations to spend unlimited money on elections, a loophole that has become a point of contention among voters who express “disgust” at the influence of money in politics.

The ProPublica investigation is the “first in a series of stories” they have prepared, and the press has called for clearer enforcement mechanisms. While the legal framework exists, the difficulty of proving intent and the political will to prosecute are still major obstacles.

Looking Ahead

Collins’ campaign continues to deny any wrongdoing. “We do not believe the senator ever called Martin Kao,” spokesperson Blake Kernen repeated. As the November election approaches, the allegations remain a contentious issue in the race, but the absence of an active federal investigation means that any legal consequences for Collins appear unlikely for the time being. The broader debate over campaign finance reform, however, remains as alive as ever.