A current federal criminal case against executives of election technology firm Smartmatic has unveiled a troubling allegation: money allocated for Los Angeles County voting machines was purportedly funneled into a bribery ‘slush fund.’ This trending development raises significant questions about the integrity of a major public contract in Los Angeles and the wider practices of election technology providers. While the primary focus of the federal indictment is a bribery scheme in the Philippines, prosecutors assert that similar misconduct involving LA County funds could demonstrate a broader pattern.
The Core Allegations Against Smartmatic Executives
The federal case, initiated in August 2024 by the U.S. Department of Justice, charges Smartmatic co-founder Roger Piñate Martinez and executives Jorge Miguel Vasquez and Elie Moreno with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and money laundering. These charges principally stem from an alleged scheme to secure lucrative contracts in the Philippines for the 2016 elections, valued at approximately $182 million to $199 million. Prosecutors claim that Smartmatic executives inflated the cost per voting machine, creating a clandestine ‘slush fund’—codenamed the ‘Philippines Pot’—to pay over $1 million in bribes to Juan Andres Donato Bautista, the former chairman of the Philippines’ Commission on Elections.
These illicit payments were allegedly laundered through bank accounts spanning Asia, Europe, and the United States, and concealed through fraudulent contracts and sham loan agreements. Piñate, who has pleaded not guilty, is slated for trial in October 2025.
The Los Angeles County Connection
While the federal indictment primarily details the Philippines scheme, prosecutors contend that Smartmatic’s alleged bribery was embedded as part of its business model. They intend to introduce evidence of similar alleged schemes, including one involving LA County, to illustrate this pattern of misconduct. An August 2025 court filing suggests that Smartmatic executives used money from their $282-million LA County contract for the 2020 election to create the same type of slush fund. This claim, highlighted in a petition filed by Fox News as part of its defense against Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit, further alleges that Smartmatic executives provided unlawful gifts exceeding statutory limits to Dean Logan, the county’s Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, who was instrumental in securing the contract.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who was on the board when the alleged events transpired, has been closely monitoring the federal case, emphasizing the need to uphold ethical contracting standards. [Initial Context] However, Logan and the county have vehemently denied the allegations. Logan stated that the county has “no knowledge or visibility into how Smartmatic USA used proceeds from that contract” and that the agreement was competitively bid and awarded in full compliance with the county’s open competitive public procurement processes. County officials further assert that released records refute these claims and suggest Los Angeles is being used as a ‘pawn’ in both the civil defamation lawsuit and the federal corruption case.
Smartmatic’s Defense and Broader Context
Smartmatic, a U.K.-based company, has consistently maintained its innocence regarding any voter fraud allegations. In statements issued when the charges were first brought, the company emphasized that “no voter fraud has been alleged and Smartmatic is not indicted,” and affirmed its commitment to election integrity. The company placed Piñate and other indicted employees on leave, stating they are “innocent until proven guilty.”
Smartmatic gained widespread public recognition in 2020 after becoming a target of false claims regarding the manipulation of the U.S. presidential election. Despite its machines only being used in LA County during that election, these debunked conspiracy theories led Smartmatic to file substantial defamation lawsuits against media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax.
The LA County voting system, known as Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP), was a groundbreaking, publicly owned initiative costing up to $280-$300 million. Smartmatic was awarded the development contract for this system. Even before the bribery allegations, the VSAP system faced scrutiny over usability and certification issues in early 2020.
Implications for Public Trust
This unfolding news story casts a shadow over the transparency and accountability of election technology contracts, particularly within a major metropolitan area like Los Angeles. The federal government’s decision to proceed with the Smartmatic bribery case, despite a broader pause on foreign bribery prosecutions under a recent executive order, highlights the unique scrutiny on a company previously targeted by political allies of former President Trump. The allegations, if substantiated, could erode public confidence in election systems and the ethical conduct of businesses securing public funds. As the legal proceedings continue, the ultimate impact on election administration and the public’s perception of its integrity remains a significant concern across the nation.
