The term “dark money” refers to political donations that are made without revealing the source of the funds. While most political donations made by individuals and political groups are publicly disclosed, dark money flows in a way that keeps its origin hidden. Candidates, political parties, and Political Action Committees (PACs) are required to report the names of their donors who contribute over $200. However, dark money bypasses this transparency. The money comes from politically active nonprofits and limited liability companies (LLCs) that are not required to disclose their donors, often making the source of the funds completely invisible to the public.

Dark money typically finds its way into elections through nonprofit organizations, particularly those formed under sections 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) of the tax code, which are not legally bound to disclose their donors. Similarly, LLCs formed in certain states like Delaware or Wyoming are used to funnel money into political campaigns without revealing their backers. The money can be used directly to fund political ads, or it can be donated to Super PACs that do not face the same donation limits as other political organizations. These vehicles allow dark money to infiltrate political campaigns, creating a system where the public has little insight into who is influencing elections.

Dark money is not a small issue. During the 2012 election cycle, dark money groups contributed roughly $300 million to political advertisements, with much of that money coming from conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity, backed by the Koch brothers. The influence of dark money extends beyond just one election cycle, however. These groups have spent hundreds of millions more on issue-based advertisements that shape public opinion. While dark money doesn’t affect every election, its impact is disproportionately felt in high-profile races where the stakes are highest.

The answer is yes — both major political parties are involved in the dark money game. While conservative groups have historically outspent liberal ones, with dark money on the right outpacing the left by an 8-to-1 ratio in 2012, liberal dark money groups have grown in number and influence. In the current political climate, neither party is willing to fall behind in the race for dark money, leading to a steady increase in the use of these secretive funds on both sides of the political spectrum.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is directly tied to the rise of dark money. The Court ruled that corporations, including certain types of nonprofit organizations, could spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. This decision overturned previous campaign finance laws, allowing organizations to pour money into elections without disclosing their donors, thus fueling the rise of dark money. Since then, politically active nonprofits have spent more and more to influence elections and shape the political landscape.

Campaign finance reform activists argue that dark money undermines democracy by allowing wealthy interests to wield disproportionate influence over elections. Voters deserve to know who is funding political ads and messages so they can make informed decisions. Without transparency, it’s impossible for the public to know whether their elected officials are being influenced by powerful corporations or special interest groups. As Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, has stated, “history makes clear that unlimited contributions and secret money are a formula for corruption.” Transparency in campaign finance, he argues, is essential for maintaining a fair and functioning democracy.

There are some who argue in favor of dark money, citing the historical precedent of anonymous political speech during the nation’s founding. The Center for Competitive Politics, for example, claims that the term “dark money” is used pejoratively and that the threat of dark money is overstated. They argue that disclosing the identity of donors could potentially chill free speech and expose donors to harassment. However, these arguments tend to come from those who benefit from the system — corporations and wealthy individuals who have the most to gain from influencing elections without being held accountable.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the primary body that regulates political contributions. However, the FEC is deeply divided along partisan lines, with significant disagreements over how to regulate dark money. Additionally, the IRS regulates nonprofit organizations, but only a few have had their tax-exempt status revoked for political activity. The Department of Justice can pursue criminal cases for violations of campaign finance law, but such cases are rare. This lack of oversight and accountability means that dark money continues to flow largely unchecked.

Tracking dark money is challenging but not impossible. Journalists and watchdog organizations have developed methods to follow the flow of these funds, though their efforts are often slow and reveal results long after the money has been spent. For instance, AIPAC Tracker has been a consistent watchdog, monitoring politicians on both sides of the aisle who receive significant financial support from the American Israel Political Action Committee. Interestingly, these politicians often vote in line with AIPAC’s interests, conveniently (as they would have you believe) coinciding with their growing campaign donations. While dark money groups sometimes receive funds from organizations that must disclose their donors, this process is often convoluted, offering only limited insight into the true sources of the money.

The question remains: who really runs our country? Is it the voters who show up at the polls, or is it the interest groups pouring millions into the political system, manipulating the democratic process for their own gain? Dark money has created an environment where corporate interests, rather than the average citizen, have the loudest voice in politics. Until campaign finance reform is enacted and transparency is restored, it’s clear that democracy in America is being hijacked by a system that favors the few at the expense of the many. As we continue to watch dark money influence our elections, we must ask ourselves: what kind of democracy do we want to preserve?

That does not mean we are powerless. These large federal positions are still highly influenced by corporations; but local government, in many ways, remains untouched. Real change that impacts real lives happens at the county and municipal levels. Additionally, with education on dark money and other corrupt ways corporations are influencing politics, we can potentially turn the tide on their influence. It will take a lot of work, but that’s what we are here for. Let’s make a difference.