These tactics might allow coordination in ways which are not allowed under federal campaign finance regulations. Definitely an area that deserves intense scrutiny.

But BLM through ActBlue (DNC) aren't skirting those same regulations?

Are you saying that BLM are coordinating with canidates for elected office without disclosing the contribution?

They wouldn't need to. Read ActBlue's own fine print: https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint

> In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will go to ActBlue Charities.

Except neither ActBlue nor BLM are political candidates. The rules for PACs contributing to other PACs are much more lax. The problem arises when a PAC and a Candidate coordinate strategy and spending without disclosing it as a contribution (and being subject to contribution limits).

There is nothing unethical in what you posted.

Nice whataboutism.