How The MAD Act Fights Dark Money Influence

Title IV: Donor Disclosure, Foreign Money Ban, Judicial Nomination Transparency & Stand By Every Ad

The Problem
What's Protected
What the MAD Act Does
Enforcement
Context / Background

Dark money spending in federal elections has grown from less than $5 million in 2006 to approximately $1.9 billion in the 2024 election cycle — nearly doubling the prior record. Since Citizens United, dark money groups have spent at least $4.3 billion on federal elections. Total outside spending in 2024 reached a record $4.5 billion, with more than half coming from groups that do not fully disclose their funding sources. Shell companies and nonprofits contributed $1.3 billion to super PACs in 2024 alone — more than in the prior two cycles combined. Title IV of the MAD Act does four things: it requires covered organizations that make campaign-related disbursements over $10,000 to disclose all significant donors; it extends disclosure for the first time to spending on federal judicial nominations; it closes loopholes that allow foreign money to enter domestic elections through shell companies and intermediaries; and it requires that every political ad include a "Stand By Every Ad" disclaimer identifying who paid for it and their top funders.

≡ Findings
What Congress Found About Dark Money in American Politics
  • Citizens United assumed transparency: The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC was premised significantly on the assumption that the new election spending it permitted would be transparent. The Court stated that "disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech." In the years since, that assumption has proven false — the spending exploded, the transparency did not follow.
  • Dark money has grown exponentially: Less than $5 million in 2006. More than $300 million by 2012. Over $1 billion in 2020. Approximately $1.9 billion in 2024. The methods have become more sophisticated: dark money groups have increasingly shifted from purchasing their own ads (which at least triggers FEC reporting) to making large contributions to super PACs and purchasing ads outside mandatory disclosure windows — rendering a growing share of political spending effectively invisible.
  • Foreign money enters through opacity: Without disclosure of the true sources of funds, the prohibition on foreign national participation in U.S. elections cannot be meaningfully enforced. The bill cites a 2021 FEC enforcement action where a political consultant knowingly and willfully offered to route a $2 million foreign contribution through his company and two 501(c)(4) organizations to conceal its origin — a scheme discovered only because it was captured on video by a journalist.
  • Dark money shapes the judiciary too: A single network of dark money organizations tied to one individual has channeled more than $250 million into efforts to reshape the federal judiciary. One organization within that network raised a record $48.1 million from anonymous donors in a single year. This spending is not subject to any disclosure under current law because federal election law covers only electoral politics — not judicial nominations.
  • The compounding problem: The same undisclosed donors may simultaneously shape who holds elected office, who sits on the federal bench, and what cases reach those judges. Without disclosure in both domains, hidden influence compounds across the branches of government.
† Disclosure
Who Must Disclose, What They Must Disclose, and When
  • Covered organizations: Corporations (other than 501(c)(3)s), LLCs, 501(c)(4)/(5)/(6) organizations, labor organizations, 527 political organizations, and super PAC accounts that accept unlimited contributions. 501(c)(3) organizations — which are legally prohibited from engaging in campaign activity and are subject to independent enforcement of donor restrictions under UPMIFA — are explicitly excluded.
  • $10,000 trigger: Any covered organization making campaign-related disbursements aggregating more than $10,000 in an election reporting cycle must file a disclosure statement within 24 hours of each disclosure date — under penalty of perjury.
  • What must be disclosed: The organization's name and principal place of business; beneficial owners (for corporations and LLCs); each disbursement over $1,000 and who received it; the election involved and any candidate identified; a certification that the spending is not coordinated with any candidate or party; and — the key provision — the name, address, date, and amount of every payment of $10,000 or more received from any person during the reporting period.
  • Covered transfers — closing the pass-through loophole: The bill defines "covered transfers" to capture money passed between organizations for the purpose of making campaign-related disbursements. If a covered organization designates, requests, or suggests that transferred funds be used for campaign spending — or knew or had reason to know the recipient would make $50,000+ in campaign disbursements — the transfer triggers disclosure. A look-through rule catches funds routed through 501(c)(3) intermediaries.
  • Segregated fund option: Covered organizations that want to limit disclosure to a specific pool of donors may establish a campaign-related disbursement segregated fund and make political spending exclusively from that account — disclosing only the donors to that fund rather than all organizational donors.
† Judiciary
Extending Disclosure to Federal Judicial Nomination Spending — For the First Time
  • The gap: Under current law, spending to influence the nomination and confirmation of federal judges falls entirely outside the Federal Election Campaign Act. Organizations can spend unlimited amounts on advertising campaigns supporting or opposing Supreme Court nominees, vetting potential nominees, and funding strategic litigation — all without disclosing a single donor.
  • What the bill does: A disbursement for a "federal judicial nomination communication" is now treated as a campaign-related disbursement for purposes of the disclosure requirements. The same $10,000 trigger, the same 24-hour filing deadline, the same donor disclosure rules apply — but with dollar thresholds calculated separately from electoral spending, so judicial nomination disclosure stands on its own.
  • What qualifies: Any communication by broadcast, cable, satellite, paid internet, paid digital, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising, mass mailing, or telephone bank (500+ calls in 30 days) that promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes the nomination or Senate confirmation of a specific individual as a federal judge or justice — during the period from the public announcement of the nomination through 120 days after confirmation, rejection, or withdrawal.
  • The constitutional interest: The Supreme Court held in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009) that due process requires recusal when a person with a personal stake in a case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case. Without disclosure of who spends money to support or oppose judicial nominations, this constitutional principle cannot be enforced — because the conflicts of interest are invisible to litigants, to the public, and potentially to the judges themselves.
✗ Prohibited
Closing the Foreign Money Loopholes
  • Expanded definition of prohibited disbursements: The bill extends the existing foreign national ban (52 U.S.C. § 30121) to cover expenditures, independent expenditures, electioneering communications, paid online ads referring to candidates near elections, paid broadcast ads promoting or opposing candidates for any office, paid issue ads discussing national legislative issues in election years (by covered foreign nationals only), paid internet activity promoting or opposing candidates, and disbursements for federal judicial nomination communications.
  • Ballot initiatives and referenda: The foreign money ban is extended to state and local ballot initiatives and referenda — but only for covered foreign nationals (foreign governments, foreign political parties, their agents, and OFAC-designated persons), not for ordinary foreign nationals who may have lawful resident status.
  • Shell company prohibition — criminal penalty: It is now a federal crime (up to 5 years imprisonment) for any owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent to establish or use a corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal a foreign national's prohibited election activity. A safe harbor protects professionals providing ordinary services who lacked actual knowledge and took reasonable steps to ascertain the entity's lawful purpose.
  • FinCEN coordination: The Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network must provide the FEC with information necessary to administer and enforce the disclosure requirements. Within 6 months of enactment, the FEC Chairman and FinCEN Director must jointly report to Congress with recommendations for additional legislative authority.
  • GAO study on illicit foreign money: For each 4-year election cycle (beginning with 2024), the Comptroller General must study and report on the incidence of illicit foreign money in federal elections, including targeting of specific communities — rural communities, minority communities, and military and veteran communities.
† Disclaimers
The "Stand By Every Ad" Act — Putting Names on Political Spending
  • Personal accountability statement: Every political ad not authorized by a candidate — in audio, video, or digital format — must include a disclosure statement from the person paying for it: "I am [name], the [title] of [organization], and [organization] approves this message." For individuals: "I am [name], and I approve this message." The person must say it themselves in audio ads and appear in writing for video and digital.
  • Top Five Funders list: Video ads and digital communications paid for with campaign-related disbursements must display the names of the five largest funders (anyone who gave $10,000+ in the preceding 12 months) and the amount each provided. For short-format ads where this would be impractical, a website URL or hyperlink to the full list is required instead.
  • Top Two Funders list: Audio ads must name the two largest funders and amounts. For short-format audio, a website URL is sufficient.
  • Video display requirements: Funder information must appear in writing at the end of the ad or in a crawl along the bottom, with reasonable color contrast, for at least 6 seconds. Short-format video (10 seconds or less) gets modified requirements: 4-second display plus a website address visible for the full duration.
  • Prerecorded telephone calls: Robocalls with political content must include the same disclaimer requirements as audio ads, with the disclosure statement at the beginning of the call.
✓ Protected
What the Bill Explicitly Protects
  • 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded: Charitable organizations prohibited from campaign intervention are not covered organizations under this title. Their donor lists are not subject to disclosure. The bill explicitly distinguishes them from 501(c)(4)/(5)/(6) entities on the basis that 501(c)(3) donor restrictions are independently enforceable under UPMIFA and by state attorneys general, whereas donor restrictions at covered organizations are private contractual arrangements without independent verification.
  • Harassment protection: If a covered organization can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence a reasonable probability that disclosure of a specific donor would subject that person to serious threats, harassment, or reprisals, the FEC may grant a 2-year, person-specific exemption. Generalized allegations of hostility are insufficient — the petition must demonstrate a specific and credible threat to the individual named.
  • Ordinary business transactions excluded: Payments received in commercial transactions in the ordinary course of business, and investment income, are excluded from disclosure — unless the organization knew or had reason to know the payment was made for the purpose of funding campaign-related disbursements, or the payment substantially exceeds fair market value.
  • News media exemption: News stories, commentary, and editorials distributed through broadcasting stations, newspapers, magazines, or online publications are excluded from the definition of campaign-related disbursements and judicial nomination communications — unless the facility is owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate.
  • No expansion of internet disclaimer requirements: Nothing in this title requires any person not already subject to disclaimer requirements to add disclaimers to internet communications. The bill does not create new obligations for individual social media users or small online publishers.
⚖ Enforcement
Judicial Review and Expedited Proceedings
  • FEC authority to petition for certiorari: The FEC is explicitly authorized to petition the Supreme Court for review — closing a gap in current law where the Commission's litigation authority was ambiguous at the cert stage.
  • All constitutional challenges go to D.C.: Any action challenging the constitutionality of the campaign finance provisions must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Both courts must expedite.
  • Congressional standing: A group of not fewer than one-fifth of the members of either chamber may bring an action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any provision. Individual members may intervene in existing cases.
  • Takes effect immediately: The disclosure requirements and disclaimer requirements take effect on the date of enactment, without regard to whether the FEC has promulgated implementing regulations. The bill does not wait for the FEC to act.

Sources & Legislative Record

Primary Source
MAD Act, Title IV — "Political Spending Disclosure Act" (Sections 4001–4022) — Full Legislative Text (on file)
Citizens United
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) — "Disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech"
Buckley
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) — Disclosure requirements as "least restrictive means of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption"
Caperton
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) — Due process requires recusal when disproportionate influence placed a judge on the case
AFP v. Bonta
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) — Did not involve campaign finance disclosure; did not overturn longstanding recognition of substantial interests
Dark Money Data
From <$5M (2006) to ~$1.9B (2024); $4.3B+ since Citizens United; $4.5B total outside spending in 2024 — cited in Sec. 4002 findings
Judicial Dark Money
Single network channeled $250M+ into reshaping federal judiciary; one org raised record $48.1M from anonymous donors in a single year — cited in Sec. 4002(15)
FEC Enforcement
MURs 7165 & 7196 (Great America PAC, et al.) — $2M foreign contribution concealment scheme; Conciliation Agreement June 28, 2021
FECA
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. — Amended by Sections 4003–4011 and 4014–4019
Foreign Money Ban
52 U.S.C. § 30121 — Existing foreign national prohibition, expanded by Sections 4003, 4005, 4006, and 4011
Shell Company Crime
New 18 U.S.C. § 612 — Up to 5 years imprisonment for establishing or using a corporation to conceal foreign election activity