Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which domestic groups funded 2024 election-related protests and how much did they spend?
Executive summary
Reporting and research on 2024 show that “dark money” — including 501(c) nonprofits, shell companies and allied groups that don’t disclose original donors — was a major funder of election-related activity, with estimates near $1.9–$2.0 billion for the federal cycle and at least $1.3 billion in undisclosed transfers into super PACs (a key vehicle for financing ads and protests) [1] [2]. Available sources catalog large outside spenders (e.g., Future Forward and affiliated dark groups) and overall PAC dominance in spending, but they do not present a single, complete line‑item list of every domestic group that funded 2024 election‑related protests or an exact dollar total for protests specifically [3] [4].
1. Big picture: dark money and PACs drove most outside spending
Scholars and watchdogs say most of the non‑campaign spending in 2024 flowed through PACs and dark‑money conduits. USAFacts counted PACs as the source of roughly 56.5% of expenditures as of April 2024 (about $2.2 billion), while FEC tallies and Brennan Center analysis show billions spent in independent expenditures and communications [4] [5] [6]. The Brennan Center’s study places total dark‑money spending near $1.9 billion in federal races, and documents that shell companies and undisclosed nonprofits funneled roughly $1.3 billion to super PACs — effectively hiding original donors while concentrating firepower in outside groups [1] [2].
2. Who the major outside spenders were — and how they channeled money
OpenSecrets and Brennan Center reporting point to a small set of extremely large spenders and allied entities. For example, Future Forward USA (and its associated dark group Future Forward USA Action) was among the top outside spenders — OpenSecrets reports the PAC took large unnamed contributions from its allied dark money group and spent heavily in support of the Democratic presidential effort [3]. Brennan Center reporting similarly highlights large super PACs and their affiliated dark groups as central nodes that redirected nine‑figure sums into election activity [1] [2].
3. Protests vs. ads vs. other election activity: the data are aggregated, not protest‑specific
Available sources quantify dark money and independent expenditures broadly — ad buys, voter mobilization, litigation, and transfers to super PACs — but they do not disaggregate spending on “election‑related protests” as a separate, auditable category. The Brennan Center and OpenSecrets document how funding flowed into super PACs and nonprofits and note that some of that money paid for ads or field programs that could coincide with protests; however, they do not provide an itemized total for spending explicitly labeled “protests” [2] [3]. Thus, precise dollar figures for domestic groups funding protests alone are not found in current reporting.
4. Competing narratives about which side benefited most
Different analyses stress different partisan patterns. The Brennan Center notes that while both parties benefited from dark money, a majority of traceable dark money backed Democrats in 2024 and that a large share of that money was funneled to Future Forward, which backed the Biden/Harris effort [2]. Other commentators and outlets emphasize large conservative funding for voter‑restriction and anti‑voting efforts, citing donor networks that supported groups focused on ballot rules and litigation [7]. The sources therefore present two complementary frames: record levels of dark money overall, and partisan variation in which networks received the most traceable support [2] [7].
5. What the numbers mean — limits and implications
The Brennan Center warns that its $1.9 billion tally is likely an undercount because much spending is concealed and because new techniques (shell companies, transfers into super PACs) mask origins [2]. OpenSecrets’ work on Future Forward and related entities shows how a single top outside spender can direct hundreds of millions into one campaign’s ecosystem [3]. USAFacts and the FEC summaries emphasize the overall scale: PACs and independent expenditures dominated the money landscape, making grassroots small‑donor totals comparatively small parts of the whole [4] [6].
6. What reporting does not (yet) show and next steps for readers
Available reporting does not list every domestic group that specifically funded 2024 election‑related protests nor a definitive protest‑only dollar figure; the public record aggregates spending by type (ads, independent expenditures, transfers) rather than by whether funds financed street demonstrations [1] [2]. For a protest‑specific accounting, one would need granular disclosures from nonprofits, shell companies and PACs tied to protest organizing — disclosures that many dark‑money entities are structured to avoid. Researchers and journalists cite reforms (greater disclosure rules) as the path to clearer answers [2] [8].