Dark money
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Dark money — political spending by groups that do not disclose their donors — surged in recent cycles, with one analysis finding nearly $2 billion of dark‑money spending in the 2024 election, roughly double 2020 levels [1]. Nonprofits, donor‑advised funds and shell entities channel hundreds of millions through networks that span left and right, fueling big grants to advocacy groups and affecting competitive races [2] [3] [4].
1. What “dark money” means and why it matters
“Dark money” refers to political spending where the ultimate source of funds is not disclosed; that includes nonprofits that aren’t required to reveal donors and donor‑advised funds that can anonymize contributors [5] [2]. The Brennan Center and OpenSecrets describe how Citizens United and post‑2010 rules created pathways for unlimited, often opaque, spending that can shape campaigns, judicial races and policy debates [2] [6].
2. How big the phenomenon is — recent numbers
Journalistic and think‑tank reporting shows growth: a Brennan Center‑linked analysis estimated dark‑money groups spent almost $2 billion in 2024, about twice 2020 totals, and Politico reported a single liberal dark‑money hub distributed nearly $311 million in 2024 via grants to progressive causes [1] [3]. OpenSecrets and OpenSecrets‑style trackers likewise document rising dark money flows into federal committees and super PACs over multiple cycles [7] [6].
3. Vehicles and actors: nonprofits, DAFs, networks
Dark money moves through established vehicles: 501(c) nonprofits, super PACs, shell companies and donor‑advised funds (DAFs). Investigations found major financial firms’ DAFs funneled at least $171 million to Project 2025‑aligned nonprofits, illustrating how mainstream institutions can enable anonymity [4]. Politico’s reporting shows large grants from a single dark‑money hub to a range of climate and voting‑rights groups, demonstrating the scale and targeted nature of such giving [3].
4. Political effects and contested narratives
Advocates for disclosure warn dark money threatens impartial courts and democratic accountability; Brennan Center analysis highlights risks to state supreme courts and local elections [2] [1]. Critics argue the term is weaponized to delegitimize legitimate philanthropy; coverage from ideologically aligned outlets frames dark money as “lawfare” or a response to policy fights — for example, commentators tie anonymous funding to climate advocacy or to claims of campaigns against energy independence [8] [9]. Both sides use the opacity to allege undue influence.
5. Case studies that show impact and ambiguity
High‑profile examples illustrate range: Politico documents a network awarding seven‑ and eight‑figure grants to climate and progressive groups, altering organizational budgets and GOTV efforts [3]. DeSmog’s analysis shows DAFs at Fidelity, Schwab and Vanguard channeled $171 million to Project 2025 groups, raising questions about donor intent and consequences [4]. At the same time, streaming documentaries and investigative pieces link dark money to corruption scandals, as in the Ohio story covered by The Dark Money Game [10] [11].
6. Data limits and methodological disputes
Measuring dark money is inherently incomplete: analysts can only count spending that is visible in filings or traceable through intermediaries, so published totals underestimate the real picture; Brennan Center researchers explicitly state identified spending may be much lower than the true total [1]. OpenSecrets and other trackers depend on FEC and tax data that can lag, omit non‑advertising political activity, or be obscured by legal structuring [6].
7. Policy debates and competing remedies
Reform proposals include stricter disclosure rules, tightening donor‑advised fund transparency and congressional action to override judicial precedents — the Brennan Center calls for legislation and increased transparency to curb runaway influence [2] [1]. Opponents warn such regulations could chill charitable giving or be used selectively against political opponents; commentary in energy and opinion outlets frames disclosure campaigns as politically motivated “lawfare” [8] [9].
8. What to watch next
Watch tax filings and new investigative journalism: large dark‑money networks release grant disclosures that reveal priorities and targets [3]. Also monitor legislative moves and court battles that seek to alter disclosure obligations or restrict specific vehicles like DAFs — debates that will determine whether the $171 million‑plus flows and the near‑$2 billion spending figure become more transparent or move deeper underground [4] [1].
Limitations: available sources document scale, vehicles and notable cases but do not provide exhaustive donor lists or the “true” total of hidden funding; they underscore that any public estimate is a floor, not a ceiling [1] [6].