Darkmoney
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Dark money — political spending by entities that do not disclose their donors — surged after Citizens United and is a major, growing force in U.S. elections: one analysis finds nearly $2 billion in dark‑money spending in 2024, roughly double 2020 totals [1]. Research and investigative reporting tie large, sometimes covert flows to both left‑ and right‑leaning networks, donor‑advised funds, and new intermediaries that obscure original funders [2] [3] [4].
1. What “dark money” means and why it matters
“Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that are not legally required to disclose their donors; that lack of transparency lets wealthy individuals and institutions influence elections and policy without public accountability [5] [6]. The Brennan Center explains the term in the context of post‑Citizens United rules and warns that undisclosed funds now reach executive, legislative and judicial contests, threatening impartiality and democratic oversight [7] [1].
2. The scale: billions and a rising trajectory
New analyses show dark‑money spending ballooned in recent cycles: a journalist’s study published by the Brennan Center found dark money groups spent almost $2 billion in 2024 — roughly double 2020 — and observers say measured totals likely undercount the real flow [1]. OpenSecrets and OpenSecrets‑style trackers document that dark money continues to be a large portion of outside spending in federal races and that contributions from opaque sources rose substantially between 2018 and 2022 [4] [5].
3. Who’s using dark money and the ideological spread
Dark money is not a partisan monopoly. Recent reporting shows large progressive networks used dark money to channel hundreds of millions in 2024, with one dark‑money hub distributing nearly $311 million that cycle to groups working on issues from abortion to climate [2]. On the right, investigations have documented major flows to Project 2025 groups via donor‑advised funds and other opaque vehicles, with at least $171 million traced from DAFs operated by mainstream financial firms [3]. OpenSecrets and DeSmog reporting underline that both sides use opacity to shape policy and elections [4] [3].
4. New vehicles: donor‑advised funds, consultancies, networks
The mechanics of secrecy have evolved. Donor‑advised funds at Fidelity, Schwab and Vanguard have been identified as conduits that allowed at least $171 million to reach Project 2025 affiliates, because DAFs give donors anonymity [3]. Large consultancies and grant‑making hubs — such as networks run through intermediaries like Arabella Advisors — have been documented distributing seven‑ and eight‑figure grants that are difficult for the public to trace [2] [3].
5. Consequences for policy, courts and campaigning
Analysts warn that when huge sums flow without disclosure they can sway tight races, shape judicial selection, and fund long‑term policy projects that alter governance beyond a single election [7] [1]. Reporting on specific campaigns — for example contested House primaries or state judicial contests — shows anonymous money entering at critical moments and magnifying particular issue positions [8] [2].
6. Competing narratives and political framing
Different outlets frame dark money through their lenses. Advocacy groups like the Brennan Center pitch transparency reforms and portray dark money as a systemic democratic problem [7] [1]. Political commentators in energy and climate debates have characterized dark money as driving litigation or “lawfare” against certain industries; those pieces often come from more partisan outlets and connect funding to broader policy fights [9] [10]. Both perspectives agree money is influential; they diverge on which actors and policies are most culpable.
7. What the data do — and don’t — show
Major trackers (OpenSecrets, Brennan Center, POLITICO reporting) quantify spending and identify recipients and some intermediaries, but they acknowledge limits: some spending is inherently opaque and the true total may be substantially higher than measured [4] [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a complete inventory of all hidden donors or a precise dollar figure beyond the estimates cited [1] [2].
8. Takeaway for citizens and policymakers
The reporting and research show dark money is systemically significant, ideologically bipartisan, and increasingly sophisticated in its methods — donor‑advised funds and intermediary networks matter as much as the nonprofits and PACs that receive grants [3] [2] [4]. Reform advocates call for stronger disclosure rules; opponents argue donor privacy and legal protections matter. Readers should weigh both the empirical estimates of scale (nearly $2 billion in 2024 by one analysis) and the admitted data gaps that mean the real influence could be larger than these sources can trace [1].