Dark Money

Written By Jamie Joyce

The founders gave us a government of, by, and for the people — dark money turned it into a government of, by, and for whoever can write the biggest anonymous check.

Executive Summary

Nearly $2 billion in anonymous money shaped the 2024 federal elections. The people who spent it don't want you to know who they are. And under current law, they don't have to tell you. The MAD Act aims to change that. While that sounds like a lot of money, let’s keep in mind that as late as May 8th, 2025, Bill Gates has been reported to have spent at least $52 billion on philanthropy. For the most wealthy, influencing politics may actually be considered cheap. However, for everyday citizens, this sum is beyond what we could ever imagine having - or spending.

"Dark money" is money spent to influence elections by groups that hide where the money comes from. In 2006, these groups spent less than $5.2 million. By 2024, that number had exploded to roughly $1.9 billion — and researchers say even that is an undercount. [1] Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, at least $4.3 billion in dark money has poured into federal elections. [1] That money has shaped who holds office, who sits on the Supreme Court, and what laws get passed — all while the American people are left in the dark about who is paying for it.

This is not a partisan problem. Both parties are swimming in dark money. And voters on both sides overwhelmingly want it to stop. The MAD Act would require organizations spending on elections to disclose their donors, close the loopholes that let foreign money into U.S. campaigns, and bring transparency to the massive anonymous spending that now shapes who sits on the federal bench. This report lays out the evidence for why that legislation is not just desirable — it is urgent.

A note on the numbers: the $1.9 billion figure is what researchers were able to track. The real total is almost certainly higher, because it doesn't capture radio ads, streaming video, billboards, flyers, or paid social media influencer campaigns that aren't voluntarily disclosed. [1]

I. The Founders' Warnings

America's founders thought deeply about what could destroy the republic they were building. Many of their warnings describe, with startling precision, the very system dark money has created.

A necessary note before we begin. Some of the men quoted in this section held views and engaged in conduct that are rightly condemned today. It is important to note that not all of the founders supported slavery. John Adams opposed it throughout his life. Alexander Hamilton helped found the New York Manumission Society. Benjamin Franklin, though he owned slaves earlier in his life, became one of the most prominent abolitionists in the founding generation. In 1787, he became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery — the first abolition society in the United States. In 1789, he signed a Society statement declaring slavery "an atrocious debasement of human nature." And his last public act before his death was signing and sending a petition to the first Congress on February 3, 1790, urging lawmakers to "step to the very verge of the Powers vested in you for discouraging every Species of Traffick in the Persons of our fellow men." He died two months later. [49] [50]

But other founders, including Thomas Jefferson, did not merely support slavery in the abstract. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which manages Monticello, now affirms — based on DNA evidence, documentary records, and oral history — that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a woman he enslaved. [47] [48] Because Hemings was held in bondage, she could not have freely consented to that relationship. Many historians describe Jefferson's conduct as sexual exploitation or rape within the system of chattel slavery. [47]

These are serious moral failures, and this report does not minimize them. But we do not quote the founders here to hold them up as saints. We quote them because they designed the system of government we still live under, and because their insights into how that system could be corrupted remain sharp enough to cut. A person can be profoundly wrong about the central moral question of their era and still be right about the mechanics of self-government. To throw out their warnings about transparency, corruption, and concentrated wealth because of their failures on slavery would be to disarm ourselves against the very dangers they identified — dangers that are playing out right now. We can hold two truths at once: the founders were deeply flawed people, and they were also right that a democracy cannot survive if the public doesn't know who is trying to control it.

The people must be informed — or democracy is a lie. James Madison wrote to W.T. Barry on August 4, 1822: "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." [2] [3]

Madison's point is the foundation of the entire case for the MAD Act: if the people are supposed to run the government, they need to know what's going on. When $1.9 billion flows into elections from hidden sources, the people are not governing — they are being governed by whoever can write the biggest anonymous check. This quote is now carved into the wall of the Library of Congress building that bears Madison's name.

Thomas Jefferson made the same point even more bluntly. To Charles Yancey on January 6, 1816: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." [5] You cannot have freedom without an informed public. Period. To Edward Carrington on January 16, 1787: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right." [4] Protecting the public's ability to form informed opinions isn't a nice-to-have — it is the first duty of a functioning democracy.

George Washington reinforced this in his Farewell Address of 1796: "In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." [6] The more our system depends on what the people think, Washington was saying, the more important it is that they actually know the truth. Dark money is the opposite of enlightened public opinion. It is engineered ignorance.

Concentrated wealth is a direct threat to the republic. Jefferson wrote to George Logan on November 12, 1816: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." [7]

Jefferson was watching wealthy interests in his own time start to overpower government, and he was sounding the alarm. Today, a single anonymous donor can hand $1.6 billion to one operative and reshape the entire federal judiciary. [23] That is not the trial of strength Jefferson feared — it is the result of losing it.

Madison warned at the Constitutional Convention on August 7, 1787, that without safeguards, ordinary citizens could "become the tools of opulence and ambition," and that liberty could be destroyed "by an oligarchy founded on corruption." [8] An oligarchy founded on corruption is a small group of rich people running the country through bribes and backroom deals. When anonymous donors spend $35 million to determine who sits on the Supreme Court, and we don't even know their names, that is what oligarchy looks like in practice.

Benjamin Franklin put it plainly in 1776: "an enormous Proportion of Property vested in a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights, and destructive of the Common Happiness, of Mankind." [9] When too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands, everyone else's rights and happiness suffer. Dark money is the mechanism by which that concentrated wealth is converted into concentrated political power — invisibly.

Corruption must be stopped early — before it's too late. Jefferson wrote in Notes on the State of Virginia (1785): "The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered." [10] Don't wait until corruption has already taken root. By the time you see the damage, it may be too late to undo it. The MAD Act is the door that needs to be closed.

Washington's Farewell Address warned that partisan fighting "opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions." [6] As Section V of this report documents, that door is now wide open — and foreign money has walked through it.

John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia on October 11, 1798: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [11] Adams was making a broader point: the Constitution only works if the people running the system act in good faith. When wealthy interests rig elections from behind a curtain of anonymity, they are not acting in good faith — they are exploiting the system's trust.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 1: "A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government." [12] The most dangerous power grabs, Hamilton warned, don't announce themselves — they wrap themselves in populist language. Dark money groups don't say "we're buying influence for anonymous billionaires." They call themselves names like "Americans for Prosperity" and "Future Forward." The mask is the point.

II. The Explosion of Dark Money: From $5.2 Million to $1.9 Billion

The growth of dark money in American elections has been staggering — and the trend is accelerating.

In 2006, groups that hid their donors spent less than $5.2 million on federal elections. [13] Then came Citizens United in 2010, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts. Dark money immediately surged to roughly $135.6 million — about 44% of all outside spending that cycle. [14] By 2012, it topped $308 million. [14] By 2020, it crossed $1 billion. [1] And in 2024, it nearly doubled again to about $1.9 billion. [1]

That is a 36,000% increase in less than two decades.

Total outside spending on the 2024 elections hit approximately $4.5 billion. More than half came from groups that don't fully reveal where their money comes from. [15] The MAD Act's congressional findings note that shell companies and nonprofits funneled $1.3 billion to super PACs in 2024 alone — more than in the two previous election cycles combined. [16]

How does dark money actually work? The main tool is something called a 501(c)(4) organization — a nonprofit classified as a "social welfare" group under the tax code. These groups can take unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, or unions, and they never have to tell the public who gave them money. They're allowed to do some political activity as long as it's not their "primary purpose," but the IRS has done almost nothing to enforce that rule. [13]

Super PACs — political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited money — are technically required to name their donors. But they can take money from 501(c)(4)s and shell companies that don't disclose their donors. So the original source stays hidden. It's money laundering for political identity: the check clears, but the name on it disappears. [13]

Both parties benefit. In 2024, about $1.2 billion in traceable dark money helped Democrats and about $664 million helped Republicans. [17] This is not one party cheating — it is the entire system operating in darkness.

And the problem is getting worse, not better. Dark money groups used to buy their own ads — spending that at least got reported to the FEC. Now they increasingly write huge checks to super PACs or buy ads outside the windows that trigger disclosure, making a growing share of political spending completely invisible. [16] The methods have become more sophisticated. The secrecy has gotten deeper. And without the MAD Act, there is nothing to stop it from getting worse still.

III. Dark Money and the Federal Judiciary

Dark money doesn't just shape who wins elections. It shapes who sits on the federal bench — including the Supreme Court. And unlike elected officials, federal judges serve for life.

The Judicial Crisis Network (now called the Concord Fund) has been the biggest dark money spender on Supreme Court confirmation fights. Based on reporting by PolitiFact, OpenSecrets, the Brennan Center, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, JCN spent:

  • More than $7 million to block President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland in 2016. [19] [20]

  • $10 million to support Neil Gorsuch's confirmation. [19] [20] [21]

  • Approximately $10 million or more on Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. [19] [20] [21]

  • Approximately $10 million in under two months to support Amy Coney Barrett. [20]

That is at least $37 million spent by one group to shape the Supreme Court — and we don't know who paid for it. Tax filings show JCN received a $17.9 million anonymous donation during the Garland/Gorsuch fight, followed by a $17.1 million anonymous donation during the Kavanaugh fight. [19] PolitiFact confirmed the amounts but could not determine whether they came from one donor or two. [19] Think about that: it is entirely possible that a single person spent $35 million to determine two seats on the highest court in the land, and the American people have no idea who they are or what they want.

Leonard Leo and the $1.6 billion donation. Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, served as the key outside adviser on judicial picks during the Trump administration. The Washington Post reported in 2019 that his network was funded by at least $250 million in dark money. [22]

Then came the largest known political donation in American history. In 2020-2021, Barre Seid, a 90-year-old Chicago electronics company owner, transferred 100% of his shares in Tripp Lite to a nonprofit Leo controlled called the Marble Freedom Trust. The company was then sold for $1.65 billion. Because the sale went through a tax-exempt nonprofit, Seid avoided an estimated $400 million in taxes, according to experts consulted by ProPublica and CNN. [23] [24]

The Marble Freedom Trust then sent hundreds of millions to other groups in Leo's network, including $153 million to the Rule of Law Trust and $16.5 million to the Concord Fund (JCN). [25] One man's fortune, routed through one operative's network, is reshaping the American judiciary — and it was only discovered because investigative journalists dug it up, not because any law required disclosure.

This creates invisible conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court itself recognized this danger. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that when someone spends large amounts to help a judge get their seat, and that person later has a case before that judge, basic fairness requires the judge to step aside. [26] But when the spending is anonymous, nobody — not the public, not the opposing lawyers, possibly not even the judge — knows the conflict exists.

ProPublica reported in 2023 that Leo organized a luxury fishing trip for Justice Samuel Alito in 2008, with hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer providing a private jet. Singer's firm later appeared before the Court multiple times; Alito did not step aside. [27] ProPublica also reported that Justice Clarence Thomas received years of unreported luxury travel and gifts from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. [28]

The MAD Act would, for the first time, require disclosure of spending on federal judicial nomination campaigns — closing a gap that current law does not touch.

A note on balance: Dark money influence on the judiciary is not limited to one side. Liberal-aligned groups, including the Arabella Advisors network, have also spent significant amounts on judicial matters, though their spending on judicial nominations has been documented as smaller than Leo's network. [29] The solution isn't to pick sides — it's to require everyone to show their cards.

IV. What the Supreme Court Has Said About Disclosure

Here is the part that should make every American angry: the Supreme Court has repeatedly said disclosure is constitutional. The dark money crisis exists not because courts struck down transparency laws, but because Congress hasn't passed strong enough ones.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976): The Court said disclosure serves three purposes: helping voters make informed decisions, deterring corruption, and enforcing other campaign finance laws. It called disclosure one of the least restrictive ways to fight "campaign ignorance and corruption." [30] [31]

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Even as the Court struck down spending limits 5-4, it upheld disclosure requirements by an overwhelming 8-1 vote. Justice Kennedy wrote that transparency "enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." [32] [33] The Court assumed that unlimited spending would be transparent. It wasn't — because the laws weren't strong enough and the FEC was too broken to enforce them.

The MAD Act would fulfill the promise the Court made in Citizens United: that the people would know who is spending money to influence their votes.

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009): A coal company CEO named Don Blankenship spent about $3 million helping Brent Benjamin win a seat on the West Virginia Supreme Court — while a $50 million verdict against Blankenship's company was on appeal. Benjamin refused to step aside and voted to overturn the verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that basic fairness required Benjamin to recuse himself. [26] If a known $3 million creates a disqualifying conflict, what about $35 million from unknown sources aimed at the U.S. Supreme Court?

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021): The Court struck down a California rule requiring nonprofits to report major donors to the state. But this case was about general nonprofit donor disclosure to a state attorney general — not campaign finance disclosure. Legal experts disagree on its implications for future transparency laws. [34] Importantly, the Court did not overrule its longstanding support for campaign finance disclosure.

The legal path is clear. The constitutional path is clear. What is missing is the political will to act.

V. Foreign Money and the Dark Money Pathway

Federal law bans foreign spending in U.S. elections. But dark money makes that ban nearly impossible to enforce — because if you can't see who's giving the money, you can't check whether it came from overseas.

The Brennan Center has identified dark money channels as one of the biggest vulnerabilities in American elections. [35] Several real cases show how easily the system can be exploited:

  • Maria Butina, a Russian national, infiltrated the NRA and conservative political groups from 2015 to 2017, working on behalf of Russian officials. She pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as a foreign agent and was sentenced to 18 months. [36] A Senate investigation found that NRA officials had repeated contact with senior Russian government officials during this period. [37]

  • Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani, used a shell company to funnel $325,000 from a foreign source to a pro-Trump super PAC. Parnas was convicted and sentenced to 20 months. [38]

  • The MAD Act's congressional findings describe a 2021 case in which a political consultant offered to hide a $2 million foreign donation by routing it through his company and two 501(c)(4) organizations. The scheme was only discovered because a British newspaper caught it on video. [16]

These aren't hypothetical risks. They are documented cases. And for every case that was caught, how many weren't? When the door is open and the lights are off, you have no way to know who walked in.

The FEC — the agency supposed to enforce campaign finance law — is structurally paralyzed. It has six commissioners split evenly between the parties and frequently can't get the four votes needed to act. Brennan Center senior counsel Daniel Weiner testified that FEC dysfunction has made dark money, contribution limit evasion, and foreign interference significantly worse. [39]

The MAD Act would close the loopholes that foreign money exploits, strengthen enforcement tools, and require coordination with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to track illicit money flows.

VI. Public Opinion: Americans Overwhelmingly Want What the MAD Act Would Deliver

This is perhaps the most damning part of the story: Americans have been asking for exactly what the MAD Act would provide, and they've been asking for years.

A Pew Research Center survey in early 2025 found that about 70% of Americans see money in politics as a "very big problem" — the top concern on the entire list of national issues tested. [40] [41] Pew also found that 72% of adults — including 76% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans — want limits on campaign spending. [42] Fully 85% said campaign costs keep good candidates from running, and 84% said special interest groups have too much influence. [42]

A Campaign Legal Center poll found that 83% of voters support requiring public disclosure of political contributions. [43] An Issue One/YouGov poll in 2025 found that 63% of Americans disagreed with Citizens United — including 73% of Democrats, 53% of Republicans, and 61% of independents. [44]

Meanwhile, trust in government has collapsed. Pew data shows that trust peaked at 77% in 1964 and has fallen to around 20% in recent years. [45] Is it any wonder? When people believe — correctly — that anonymous money controls their government, why would they trust it?

The MAD Act is not a radical proposal. It is what the overwhelming majority of Americans have already said they want.

VII. The Compounding of Unaccountable Power

The MAD Act's congressional findings identify something that makes dark money uniquely dangerous: the same anonymous donors can influence multiple branches of government at the same time. [16]

Here is how the machine works. Anonymous donors fund groups that run ads for or against judicial nominees. Once their preferred judges are confirmed, affiliated groups file legal briefs telling those judges how to rule. The same donors fund campaigns for the legislators who vote on those judges. They fund the lobbyists who pressure those legislators on policy. They fund the litigation that brings strategic cases before the judges they helped install. One anonymous donor — or one anonymous network — can shape who holds office, who sits on the bench, what cases reach those judges, and what arguments those judges hear. All without the public ever knowing a single name.

The congressional findings describe this as a system that "creates the conditions for conflicts of interest that are invisible to litigants, to the public, and potentially to the judges themselves — undermining the actual and perceived independence of the Federal judiciary." [16]

The DISCLOSE Act, which would require groups spending on elections to reveal any donor who gives $10,000 or more, has been introduced repeatedly since 2010. It has passed the House but been blocked in the Senate every time. [46] The MAD Act builds on and strengthens that framework. The question is no longer whether the policy is right — it is whether Congress has the courage to act.

VIII. Conclusion: Pass the MAD Act

Jefferson warned that it is "better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered." [10]

The wolf is not at the door. It is inside the house.

Dark money has grown from a minor nuisance to a nearly $2 billion force that shapes who wins elections, who sits on the bench, and whose interests the government serves — all while hiding the identities of the people behind it. The Supreme Court has upheld disclosure laws by 8-1. Voters of both parties demand transparency by margins of 70% to 83%. The founders — for all their flaws — warned us explicitly about every piece of this: the danger of an uninformed public, the threat of concentrated wealth, the corruption of the judiciary, the vulnerability to foreign influence. Every warning has come true.

What has not happened is the obvious response. Congress has not passed a comprehensive dark money disclosure law. The FEC remains paralyzed. And with every election cycle, the system grows more opaque, more expensive, and more unaccountable.

The MAD Act would change that. It would require organizations spending on elections to reveal their donors. It would close the loopholes that let foreign money slip into American campaigns. It would bring transparency, for the first time, to the anonymous spending that shapes who sits on the federal bench. It would give the American people the one thing Madison said they needed above all else: the information required to govern themselves.

Madison's words are carved in stone at the Library of Congress: "A people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." [2]

Dark money takes that power away. The MAD Act would give it back.

Congress should pass it.

Sources

This report was compiled using primary source documents (Founders Online at the National Archives, Library of Congress), nonpartisan research organizations (Brennan Center for Justice, OpenSecrets, Pew Research Center), investigative journalism (ProPublica, The Washington Post, CNN, PolitiFact), legal analysis (Campaign Legal Center, Proskauer Rose LLP), government records (U.S. Department of Justice, Senate Finance Committee, congressional testimony), the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello, and the text of the MAD Act as provided. All founding-era quotations have been verified against primary archival sources where available.

Jamie Joyce
Previous

Surveillance
Next

ICE