Why Change Is So Difficult

In America, the rich and powerful control the levers of power, making meaningful changes a daunting task.  These elites fund political campaigns, buy access, and secure preferential treatment to maintain the status quo.  This entrenched system ensures that policies often serve special interests rather than the public good, making reform a slow and uphill battle.

The Power of Money in American Politics

One of the most significant obstacles to meaningful change is the entrenched influence of wealth in governance.  Political campaigns in the U.S. are among the most expensive in the world—the 2024 federal elections cost over $16.7 billion, according to OpenSecrets.  This Money doesn’t just fund ads; it buys access, shapes legislation, and secures regulatory advantages for donors.

Super PACs and dark money groups amplify this imbalance, allowing corporations and billionaires to pour unlimited funds into elections with minimal transparency.  Lobbying expenditure exceeded $4 billion in 2024, ensuring that special interests dominate policy discussions.  The result?  A system where elected officials often prioritize donor agendas over public needs, perpetuating gridlock and protecting the status quo.  Very little lobbying is done on behalf of ordinary people.  Almost all is spent by powerful special interests.

Without swift and decisive action on campaign finance reform and lobbying restrictions, our calls for systemic change will remain aspirational rather than actionable.  The time to act is now.

“Dark money” refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors.  These groups—often classified under sections 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the tax code—can raise unlimited funds and spend heavily on elections, issue ads, and lobby without revealing who is behind the Money.

Here’s why it matters:

• Lack of Transparency: Voters cannot see who is influencing candidates or policies.
• Scale of Spending: Dark money spending surged after the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend freely on elections.  In recent cycles, billions have flowed through these opaque channels.
• Impact on Policy: Because donors remain hidden, special interests can shape legislation without public accountability, reinforcing the perception that politics serves the wealthy rather than the electorate.

Examples of prominent dark money networks include:

• Americans for Prosperity – backed by the Koch network, heavily involved in shaping tax and regulatory policy.
• Majority Forward – a Democratic-aligned nonprofit that channels millions into Senate races.
• One Nation – a Republican-linked group that spends extensively on issue ads and campaign support.
• Sixteen Thirty Fund – a progressive nonprofit that has funneled hundreds of millions into liberal causes and campaigns.

These organizations collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars on recent election cycles, often outpacing traditional PACs. Because donors remain hidden, voters cannot see who is influencing candidates or legislation, undermining accountability and fueling public distrust.

Here’s a clear comparison based on recent data:

Dark Money vs. PAC and Super PAC Spending

• Dark Money (Nonprofits like 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6)):
• Spent $1.9 billion in the 2024 federal election cycle, a record high and nearly double the previous peak of $1 billion in 2020.
• Since Citizens United (2010), dark money groups have poured at least $4.3 billion into federal elections.
• These organizations do not disclose their donors, making their influence invisible primarily to voters. 
• Super PACs:
• Spent $4.1 billion in independent expenditures in 2024, up from $622 million in 2012—a 562% increase.
• While Super PACs must disclose donors, 19.2% of their receipts in 2024 came from “dark” sources, often routed through shell companies or nonprofits.
• Total Super PAC spending since 2010 exceeds $11.7 billion.
• Traditional PACs:
• Operate under strict contribution limits (e.g., $5,000 per candidate per election).
• Their influence is dwarfed by Super PACs and dark money groups, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts. 

Key Takeaway:

Dark money groups are growing rapidly and often funnel funds into Super PACs, creating a hybrid system where disclosure rules are effectively bypassed.  While Super PACs are technically transparent, the ultimate sources of much of their funding remain hidden, undermining accountability.

Dark Money undermines transparency by hiding the authentic sources of political influence.  This lack of transparency has significant implications for accountability.

Here’s why:

• No Donor Disclosure: Unlike traditional PACs or candidates, 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on elections without revealing who funds them.  Voters see the ads but not the Money behind them.
• Layered Funding: These groups often route Money through multiple entities, making it nearly impossible to trace the original donor.  For example, a Corporation can give to a nonprofit, which then gives to a Super PAC—creating a legal smokescreen.
• Dark Money’s influence on accountability is profound.  When policymakers receive support from undisclosed donors, the public’s ability to evaluate potential conflicts of interest is severely compromised.  This erosion of trust makes it increasingly difficult to hold officials accountable for decisions that favor special interests.  Restoring transparency is crucial to rebuilding public trust.
• The scale of dark money influence is staggering.  Since Citizens United (2010), billions have flowed into federal elections, with unknown actors funding a significant portion of political messaging and campaign support.

Examples of Dark Money Influence

• Americans for Prosperity (Koch Network): This 501(c)(4) group has spent tens of millions on issue ads and grassroots campaigns opposing tax increases and environmental regulations.  Its donors remain undisclosed, but its influence on conservative policy is widely recognized.
• Majority Forward: A Democratic-aligned nonprofit that poured over $70 million into Senate races in 2022, primarily through advertising and voter outreach, without revealing its donor base.
• One Nation: Linked to Republican leadership, this group spent $85 million in 2022 on ads supporting GOP candidates and opposing Democratic initiatives, all funded by anonymous donors.
• Sixteen Thirty Fund: A progressive nonprofit that distributed over $400 million in 2020 to liberal causes and campaigns, making it one of the most prominent dark money players in recent History.

Here’s a concise explanation of the laws and rulings that enable dark Money in U.S. politics:

Key Legal Foundations of Dark Money

·       Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

·        The Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures.

·        This decision struck down restrictions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), opening the door for unlimited outside spending.

·        The Court assumed transparency would prevent Corruption, but disclosure rules did not apply to many nonprofit entities, creating a loophole for anonymous spending.

·       SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010)

·        A lower court ruling following Citizens United allowed the creation of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited Money on elections, provided they do not coordinate with candidates.

·        While Super PACs must disclose donors, they often receive funds from nonprofits that do not, creating a pipeline for dark Money.  legalclarity

·       501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) Nonprofit Rules

·        Under the Internal Revenue Code, these organizations can engage in political activity as long as it is not their “primary purpose.”

·        They can accept unlimited donations and are not required to publicly disclose donors, making them ideal vehicles for dark Money.skadden+1

·       Weak Federal Disclosure Requirements

·        Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules only require disclosure of donors who earmark contributions for specific ads or expenditures.

·        This narrow definition allows nonprofits to spend millions on elections without revealing their funding sources.wiley+1

Bottom Line:

Dark Money thrives because of a combination of Supreme Court decisions (Citizens United and SpeechNow), tax code provisions for nonprofits, and disclosure gaps in FEC regulations.  These legal frameworks allow billions of dollars to flow into U.S. elections without transparency, undermining accountability and public trust.

Reforming the laws that enable dark Money would require closing loopholes and strengthening disclosure requirements.

Here are practical approaches:

1.  Expand Donor Disclosure Rules

• Require all organizations that spend Money on elections—including 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits—to disclose donors above a certain threshold (e.g., $10,000).
• Mandate real-time reporting of contributions and expenditures to improve transparency.

2.  Tighten “Primary Purpose” Definition

• Currently, nonprofits can claim their primary purpose is not political while spending heavily on elections.  Reform could set a clear percentage cap (e.g., no more than 10% of total spending on political activity).

3.  Overhaul FEC Enforcement

• Give the Federal Election Commission stronger enforcement powers and resources to monitor compliance.
• Impose meaningful penalties for violations to deter abuse.

4.  Reverse or Limit Citizens United

• Pass a constitutional amendment or legislation to restrict unlimited corporate and union spending on elections.
• Alternatively, shareholder approval for corporate political expenditures.

5.  Increase Transparency for Intermediary Transfers

• Close the loophole that allows nonprofits to funnel Money into Super PACs without revealing original donors.
• Require “trace-back” reporting so voters know the trustworthy source of funds.

6.  Public Financing Options

• Expand small-donor matching programs or public financing systems to reduce reliance on significant, opaque contributions.

Public financing options are designed to reduce the influence of big Money and dark Money in politics by giving candidates alternative funding sources.

Here are the main approaches:

7.  Matching Funds Programs

• Small donations from individuals (e.g., $50 or $100) are matched at a high rate, such as 6:1, by public funds.
• Example: New York City’s program matches small contributions up to $250 at 8:1, encouraging candidates to rely on grassroots donors rather than extensive fundraising.

8.  Democracy Vouchers

• Citizens receive vouchers (e.g., $25 each) that they can give to candidates of their choice.
• Example: Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program provides residents with $100 in vouchers every election cycle, boosting participation and reducing reliance on wealthy donors.

8.  Full Public Financing

• Candidates who agree to spending limits receive a fixed amount of public funds to run their campaigns.
• Example: Maine and Arizona’s Clean Elections programs offer full public funding for candidates who meet qualifying criteria and reject private contributions.

9.  Hybrid Systems

• Combine matching funds with spending caps or vouchers to maximize fairness and participation.

Why It Matters:

Public financing shifts the incentive structure.  Instead of courting a handful of wealthy donors or opaque nonprofits, candidates focus on broad-based support from ordinary voters.  This reduces the influence of dark Money and increases transparency.