3. April 2026

Dark Money Networks: Wealthy Donors Funneling Political Cash Through Secret Nonprofits

WASHINGTON-- The landscape of political fundraising in the United States is undergoing a significant shift — and increasingly, the biggest sources of money are not individuals.

So far in the current midterm election cycle, the 10 largest contributions total nearly $300 million. None of those donations came directly from a human being. While some funding sources can be partially traced, others originate from little-known nonprofit organizations whose donors are unlikely to ever be disclosed.

The trend reflects a broader transformation in campaign finance. Rather than writing large, traceable checks to candidates or political committees — which would require public disclosure to the Federal Election Commission or state regulators — wealthy donors are increasingly channeling money through nonprofits. These organizations, often bearing patriotic or philanthropic names, can give substantial sums to super PACs without revealing the original source of the funds.

So-called “dark money” is not new, but its use has surged. A review of election filings and internal fundraising documents obtained by The New York Times shows a sharp increase in the role of such groups in federal elections. The shift has been particularly pronounced among Democrats, who have expanded their reliance on these vehicles since 2020, outpacing Republicans.

About 17% of the money donated to super PACs in the 2024 election cycle — roughly $1.5 billion — came from organizations that do not disclose their donors, according to the analysis. That share is more than double the level seen in 2020, which itself marked a significant rise from 2016.

Two major nonprofits aligned with the Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns alone raised nearly $900 million.

“We are moving toward a system where transparency is just optional,” said Dan Weiner, a campaign finance expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

The influence of such funding extends beyond federal races. At the state level, ballot initiatives — often viewed as a form of direct democracy — are also seeing increasing involvement from nondisclosing groups.

In Michigan, for example, voters are set to decide in November whether to hold a constitutional convention, a proposal Democrats warn could lead to sweeping conservative changes on issues such as abortion rights, the death penalty and redistricting. A group opposing the measure, Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, has presented itself as a grassroots coalition. However, records show it has been funded entirely by a newly created nonprofit, American Opportunity Action, which is itself backed by undisclosed donors and linked only to a mailing address in Washington, D.C.

Critics say such arrangements allow wealthy interests to wield influence while avoiding scrutiny — sometimes even as they accuse opponents of lacking transparency.

The rise of these intermediaries also raises questions about the practical impact of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In that ruling, the court permitted unlimited political spending but emphasized that disclosure requirements would provide accountability. The growing flow of anonymous donations through nonprofit networks has, in effect, weakened that safeguard.

Initially, Republican donors were more likely to use layered nonprofit structures to obscure contributions. In recent election cycles, however, Democratic donors have adopted — and in some cases expanded — the strategy, with some citing concerns about political retaliation.

During the 2024 cycle, more than 40% of the nearly $2 billion raised by the largest Democratic super PACs came from entities that did not disclose their donors — roughly twice the share seen among comparable Republican groups, according to the Times analysis.

Supporters of the approach argue it is a necessary response to the current political environment. “Until we have power, we can’t change the rules,” said Alexandra Acker-Lyons, an adviser to several progressive donors.

Under existing law, super PACs must disclose their donors, even as they can accept unlimited contributions. But when money passes first through a nonprofit intermediary, only the nonprofit is listed in public filings, effectively shielding the original donor.

Many of these groups are organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits, which are required to report their overall finances but not the identities of their contributors. While they are limited in how much they can spend directly on political activity, large fundraising totals can still translate into substantial political influence.

Campaign finance specialists say an industry of lawyers and consultants has emerged to navigate these limits, routing funds through multiple organizations to remain within legal boundaries while maximizing political impact.

“The moment Citizens United was decided, the shell game was inevitable,” said Dmitri Mehlhorn, a political adviser who has worked with both Republican and Democratic donors.

In some cases, super PACs and nonprofits operate in tandem. Several major political committees have established affiliated nonprofit groups, creating streamlined pathways for large contributions. The practice has given rise to what some analysts call “gray money” — funds that are technically disclosed but whose origins remain obscured.

One prominent example is Future Forward, the leading Democratic super PAC in the 2024 presidential race supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Nearly half of its funding — more than $266 million — came from its affiliated nonprofit, Future Forward USA Action. Much of that nonprofit’s donor base remains undisclosed, though some contributors have been identified through separate filings or reporting.

The scale of such funding has grown dramatically over time. In 2012, just 1% of super PAC donations came from nondisclosing entities. That figure rose to 4.5% in 2016, 7.7% in 2020 and nearly 17% in 2024.

Republican-aligned groups have also relied on nonprofit intermediaries, though to a lesser extent in some cases. Major donors to pro-Trump efforts have included both disclosed billionaires and nonprofit organizations that obscure funding sources.

As the use of these financial structures expands, even participants in the political process say they often lack visibility into where the money originates.

“Since Citizens United, there’s been a set of rules that people follow,” said Richard von Glahn, a leader of a ballot initiative group in Missouri. “I don’t do an interrogation of any single donor.”