Dark money is election-related spending funded by sources the public can't identify. The funds typically flow through 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits, 501(c)(6) trade associations, or shell LLCs that contribute to super PACs without naming the underlying donors. Recipients can run political ads, fund issue advocacy, and bankroll voter mobilization without anyone outside the group knowing whose money paid for it.
The category exists because federal law treats donor disclosure as a campaign-finance regime rather than a tax-status condition. A 501(c)(4) can engage in political activity as long as it isn't the group's "primary" purpose, and the IRS rarely enforces that standard. Donor-advised funds like Donors Trust add a second anonymizing layer, accepting deductible contributions and routing them to politically active nonprofits without disclosing the original giver.
OpenSecrets has tracked over $1 billion in dark money in federal elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision opened independent-expenditure spending to corporate and nonprofit treasuries. Both parties use these channels, though conservative networks have historically moved larger sums through them.
Voters can't weigh a political message against the speaker's interest if they don't know who's paying. Every dark-money ad arrives without the context that disclosure would supply.
People often think dark money is illegal. It's not — it's legal spending that exploits gaps between IRS rules (which don't require donor identification for (c)(4)s) and FEC rules (which don't reach issue ads).
Voters can't weigh a political message against the speaker's interest if they don't know who's paying. Every dark-money ad arrives without the context that disclosure would supply.
People often think dark money is illegal. It's not — it's legal spending that exploits gaps between IRS rules (which don't require donor identification for (c)(4)s) and FEC rules (which don't reach issue ads).