Good evening. Tonight we’re joined by Theodore Schleifer, who has the latest on the explosion of so-called gray money in political campaigns.
I’ve read a lot of campaign finance reports over 10 years of writing about money in politics. They have never been less helpful. That is what motivated the investigation I published last week, exploring the totally underappreciated explosion in “gray money” — contributions to super PACs from dark-money nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors. This is one of the defining trends in campaign finance, and I wanted to see whether my frustration with disclosure deadlines was borne out in the data. The question: How much of the money flowing into the political system is ultimately untraceable? Is it a lot, or am I going crazy? Dear reader, I am not going crazy. My colleague Steven Rich and I found that almost one of every five dollars donated to super PACs in the 2024 election cycle came from organizations that don’t disclose their donors. Back in the 2012 cycle, only one of every 100 dollars given to super PACs was similarly “gray.” Driving this trend is the explosion of new nonprofits in the Democratic universe. With similar patriotic-sounding names — American Opportunity Action, Future Forward USA Action, Bright Future Fund and Our American Future — these groups have helped the Democratic Party leapfrog the Republican Party in the dark-money games. And now it’s time for the midterms. The biggest spenders in the midterms are typically the super PACs aligned with House and Senate leadership in both parties. Those groups file with the Federal Election Commission regularly, listing out their biggest donors, the dates of the contributions and the amounts given. But much of their money these days comes from their own nonprofit groups, which do not disclose their donors. The biggest donor to the G.O.P. super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, this cycle? One Nation, the SLF’s sister organization, which contributed $35.3 million of the $103.4 million raised so far. SLF’s Democratic counterpart, Senate Majority PAC, is trailing the SLF in fund-raising this cycle, having raised only $54.1 million. But at any point, Senate Majority PAC could get a big transfer from Majority Forward, its own nonprofit and biggest donor, to even the score. Majority Forward has so far supplied $8 million of the super PAC’s haul.
Other big spenders this cycle will be a coterie of ideological groups, like the United Democracy Project, which is spending to elect pro-Israel Democrats. The super PAC has raised $83.8 million this cycle, and $30 million of that money comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is a nonprofit and, you guessed it, won’t disclose its donors. In individual races, the trend continues apace. A super PAC behind Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico is called Lone Star Rising PAC and raised about $6.5 million. Over half of that came from a super PAC called Government That Works PAC, which itself was totally funded by six different nonprofits, some of which were just created. The upshot for Texas voters is that they didn’t really know who funded all the ads they saw that helped Talarico win in March. On the right, one of the single biggest donations this cycle was to a little-known pro-Republican group called Conservative Americans PAC. The $27.8 million check in December came from the American Prosperity Alliance, an equally little-known nonprofit started in 2022 that has seen its revenue boom from undisclosed donors. Conservative Americans PAC then distributed millions more to two other obscure super PACs — each with “Conservative” in the name. State races are similar. There’s a big election in Virginia this month over redistricting. Almost all the cash raised by the two main committees of Virginia Democrats and Republicans comes from dark-money groups. That’s a rather extreme example. Most super PACs disclose plenty of individual contributors. The majority, even. Some of the biggest super PACs this cycle are funded by the A.I. and crypto industries, and we know the companies behind the cash. But the trend line is going in the wrong direction in the view of transparency advocates. Democratic and Republican operatives I spoke with said they’re doing this because, well, they can. It is illegal to directly route a contribution to a nonprofit in order to cloak the identity of the giver to super PACs. But misconduct is hard for the weakened I.R.S. to police. And even if all the money donated by a billionaire to a nonprofit cannot technically be used for campaigns, it can always be passed to a different nonprofit, which might have creative uses for the money. And liberals are particularly drawn to these dark-money groups, operatives told me, because of President Trump’s promised retribution campaign against people who oppose his agenda. Disclosure just isn’t worth the trouble.
An early look at 2028A crowd of Democrats seen as potential 2028 presidential candidates are descending on Midtown Manhattan this week. Our colleague Tim Balk explains what’s happening. The National Action Network’s annual convention, hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton, is an opportunity for possible contenders to bring their message — and introduce themselves — to Black voters, who have played a key role in selecting the Democratic nominee in past presidential races. Sharpton said he invited every possible 2028 contender to the convention, which runs until Saturday. “I want to first know what their vision is now,” he said, “and what they’re doing now.” The first to take the stage was Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who appeared with Sharpton on Wednesday morning. Shapiro, who is up for re-election in November, said he wasn’t focused on 2028, telling reporters, “No one should be looking past these midterms — I’m certainly not.” Democrats should have a simple message this November, he said. “We need a national referendum on Donald Trump and on what is happening in Washington, D.C.,” Shapiro said. “If you don’t like what you see on TV, if you are upset and angered — rightfully so — by the chaos and the cruelty and the corruption that we see every day, well you’ve got to get out and vote.” Got a tip? QUOTE OF THE DAY
“The two parties see us as an existential threat.”That’s Paul Johnson, the chairman of Arizona’s third political party, which hoped to use the name Independent Party. Both the Democratic and Republican parties in Arizona sued the group, originally a chapter of the centrist No Labels organization, over the name, underscoring the tension in the state as it enters a high-stakes midterm season with the governorship, the attorney general’s post and multiple U.S. House seats on the line.
2026 WATCH Warnings for Republicans out of Wisconsin and GeorgiaThat’s what my colleague Reid Epstein took note of as he watched the results come in from elections there on Tuesday night. He spells it out with three takeaways.
Taylor Robinson contributed reporting. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.
|
