World & U.S. News

Dark Money in the 2024 Elections

How Billionaires and Hidden Donors Shaped Democracy

What is Dark Money? Dark money refers to political spending intended to influence elections where the true source of the funds is not disclosed. This often happens through nonprofits, such as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations or shell companies, which are not legally required to reveal their donors. These groups can funnel unlimited amounts of money into super PACs, effectively masking the original donor’s identity. While super PACs must disclose their contributors, donations from dark money groups obscure the real people or corporations behind the spending.

Emily Lau, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains, “When people talk about dark money, they’re usually referring to money spent on elections that comes from sources that cannot be identified.” This lack of transparency creates an environment where voters are left in the dark about who is funding the political messages they see and hear.

The Problem with Dark Money The lack of transparency in dark money spending undermines the principles of a democratic society. Voters are unable to fully understand who is trying to influence their choices, and elected officials may feel more accountable to wealthy donors than to their constituents. The rise of dark money also opens the door for potential misuse, such as foreign influence in domestic elections or the funneling of corporate profits into political campaigns without public accountability.

Campaign finance watchdog Saurav Ghosh warns, “The amounts of money involved, the brazenness of setting up a company and making a seven-figure contribution almost immediately — it shows that this tactic is alive and well, and I don’t see any reason for that to change unless the FEC starts enforcing the law and dishing out penalties.”

Dark Money in the 2024 Elections The 2024 election shattered records, with outside spending exceeding $4.5 billion, over half of which came from dark money sources. This represents a dramatic escalation compared to previous election cycles. In 2016, dark money contributions were under $72 million, but by 2020, they had soared to $653 million. The 2024 race not only broke financial records but also cemented the dominance of anonymous donors in the political system.

At the center of this spending were super PACs aligned with both major candidates. Future Forward USA PAC, supporting Vice President Kamala Harris, spent approximately $517 million, with over $136 million of that originating from its dark money affiliate, Future Forward USA Action. Billionaire media mogul Mike Bloomberg reportedly gave $50 million to Future Forward’s nonprofit arm, along with $19 million to the hybrid PAC itself. George Soros’s Democracy PAC also contributed $10 million, while LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman added another $10 million.

On the Republican side, pro-Trump groups like Make America Great Again Inc. and America PAC, backed by billionaires such as Timothy Mellon and Elon Musk, collectively spent hundreds of millions. Mellon alone contributed $151.5 million to Trump’s primary super PAC, while Musk funneled $118.6 million into America PAC, including $43.6 million in October alone.

The enormous sums flowing from these groups highlight the way dark money shapes campaign strategy and outcomes. The cycle’s top spender, Future Forward USA PAC, not only raised funds but also directly influenced Harris’s campaign strategy through an affiliated consulting firm called Blue Rose Research. This blurred the lines between independent expenditure and direct coordination.

How Does Dark Money Compare to Open Contributions? While candidate campaigns and transparent PACs still raise significant amounts, dark money has become an outsized force. Open contributions remain subject to strict donation limits and disclosure requirements, while dark money donations face minimal oversight. For example, super PACs like Senate Majority PAC and Senate Leadership Fund, funded heavily by anonymous donors, outspent many candidate campaigns directly.

In some cases, dark money groups effectively became campaign strategists. Future Forward USA PAC not only raised funds but also directly influenced campaign messaging and strategy, blurring the lines between independent expenditure and coordination. According to Ian Vandewalker, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center, “You have all these different P.O. boxes, but they’re all run by the same people and the money is ultimately going through the same bank accounts.”

The Influence of Dark Money on the 2024 Elections The impact of dark money on election outcomes cannot be overstated. In critical battleground states like Montana and Ohio, millions poured into Senate races from dark money groups, often tipping the balance. Crypto-backed super PACs, such as Fairshake, targeted vulnerable incumbents like Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio with tens of millions in negative advertising.

In Montana, Majority Forward funneled $38.4 million into Last Best Place PAC, which spent over $33.8 million attacking Republican candidate Tim Sheehy and boosting Democratic incumbent Jon Tester. Despite heavy spending, Tester ultimately lost his seat.

At the presidential level, Harris’s campaign, despite outspending Trump nearly 3-to-1, ultimately failed to secure victory. This highlights a paradox: while dark money can flood the airwaves and digital platforms with ads, it cannot always guarantee electoral success.

What Can Be Done About Dark Money? Efforts to regulate dark money have largely stalled at the federal level. The DISCLOSE Act, a bill aimed at increasing transparency by requiring large donors to be publicly identified, has repeatedly failed in Congress. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), plagued by partisan deadlock, has been slow to enforce existing rules.

At the state level, some progress has been made. States like California and Washington have passed laws requiring more robust donor transparency, but these efforts are often met with legal challenges.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, sums up the problem: “That, combined with an FEC in which half the commissioners refuse to enforce disclosure laws, ends up yielding a very unhealthy system in which voters can’t fully understand in many cases who is trying to influence their votes.”

Conclusion The 2024 elections demonstrated how deeply entrenched dark money has become in American politics. With billions spent in secrecy, the democratic process risks being overshadowed by the interests of a wealthy few. Without meaningful reform, the influence of dark money will only grow, further eroding public trust in elections. Transparency remains the first step toward addressing this growing issue, but achieving it will require both political will and sustained public pressure.

As Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America, puts it, “We need to get more creative and experimental with the levers of power we have control over, and I see this as the best way forward.”

Categories
World & U.S. News