Dark Money’s Influence in the 2024 Election Campaigns
Dark money, the financial contributions from groups that keep the identities of their donors secret, remains a contentious issue in U.S. elections. The Federal Election Commission’s data suggests a decline in dark money spending on campaign advertisements since its peak in 2012. However, this apparent reduction may be misleading, as these groups have shifted their focus. Many now channel their funds into super PACs or time their ad spending to bypass disclosure requirements, leaving both their identities and the extent of their financial influence unknown.
Over the last decade, both Democrats and Republicans have developed “shadow party” super PACs, which are allowed to raise unlimited funds under the Citizens United ruling. These super PACs are expected to function independently from candidates and parties, but this independence is weakly regulated and rarely enforced. As a result, they often operate with the blessing of party leaders, are managed by seasoned party operatives, and essentially extend each party’s campaign operations. These groups significantly outpace official party committees in fundraising, often receiving donations that are otherwise impermissible for the parties themselves.
While theoretically, the origins of these funds should be public, shadow parties increasingly rely on dark money groups that are affiliated with them. Each super PAC linked to congressional leadership has a corresponding dark money sister group, allowing them to collect donations from those preferring anonymity.
Dark money contributions to shadow party super PACs have surged significantly, with the current election cycle seeing these groups donate a record $182 million to their super PAC counterparts by the end of September, more than doubling the amount in the same period of 2020. Although super PACs make this funding traceable, the direct ad spending by dark money groups often evades federal disclosure laws, which cover only specific types of ads and time frames.
Republican-aligned dark money groups, for instance, have claimed over $105 million in spending this cycle—$20 million from the American Action Network and $85 million from One Nation—while their Democratic counterparts lag behind with $17 million from House Majority Forward. These figures are additional to their super PAC contributions, yet they remain unverifiable, as plans can change, and some spending might not be disclosed.
Shadow parties typically focus their spending on a select number of competitive races, aiming to influence control of Congress. For example, the Senate Leadership Fund has targeted its entire $140 million of independent expenditures on just five Senate races, mirroring One Nation’s substantial ad buys. This strategy results in voters in these critical areas receiving a barrage of ads with little transparency regarding their financial backers.
Closing existing legal loopholes remains crucial to ensuring transparency in campaign donations. The DISCLOSE and Honest Ads Acts, which passed the House but were subsequently blocked in the Senate, aim to tighten these disclosure requirements. As efforts to reform campaign finance continue, these bills are poised to play a significant role in future legislative efforts.
