Fighting Dark Money in Elections
-
Stop Dark Money
States Lead the Dark Money Revolt
Efforts to fight big money and anonymous money in U.S. elections
File:States lead the dark money revolt.m4a
- [Watch the Video](https://youtu.be/c_EL7T17164)**
Two-Page Summary: Efforts to Fight Big Money and Anonymous Money in U.S. Elections
The articles collected here show a growing national effort to reduce the influence of excessive, corporate, billionaire, foreign-linked, and anonymous money in U.S. elections. These efforts are taking many forms: state laws, ballot initiatives, public financing programs, federal legislation, court challenges, watchdog lawsuits, disclosure campaigns, and enforcement actions. The central problem is that modern campaign finance rules allow wealthy donors, corporations, nonprofits, LLCs, super PACs, and other political entities to spend huge amounts of money in elections, often while hiding the true source of the funding. The articles describe a reform movement trying to restore transparency, limit corruption risks, and give ordinary voters a stronger voice.
A major theme is the attempt by states to push back against the post-Citizens United campaign finance system. Hawaii has become one of the most important current examples. Multiple articles report that Hawaii enacted a first-of-its-kind law aimed at reducing corporate political spending by changing the powers granted to corporations under state law. Instead of simply regulating campaign spending after it occurs, Hawaii’s law challenges whether corporations should be granted the legal power to spend corporate treasury money in elections at all. Supporters argue that because corporations are created and authorized by states, states can define or withhold certain corporate powers, including election spending. This is a bold legal strategy and is expected to face constitutional challenges, but reform groups describe it as a possible model for other states.
Montana is another key example of this “corporate power reset” approach. Articles on the Transparent Election Initiative and Montana Initiative 194 describe a proposed 2026 ballot measure that would restrict political spending and contributions by artificial entities, including corporations. Like Hawaii’s law, the Montana effort is based on the argument that states have authority over the legal privileges they grant to corporations. Reformers argue that corporate political spending has distorted elections and that states should not be required to grant corporations unlimited political spending powers. The Montana effort also shows that campaign finance reform is not only happening through legislatures; it is also being pursued through citizen initiatives and ballot measures.
Maine represents a different but equally important reform path: limiting contributions to super PACs. Several articles focus on Maine’s voter-approved $5,000 limit on donations to super PACs. Super PACs have become one of the most powerful vehicles for wealthy donors because they can accept unlimited contributions and spend independently to support or oppose candidates. Reformers argue that this system allows a small number of wealthy individuals and special interests to exert disproportionate influence over elections. Maine’s law directly challenges the assumption that contributions to super PACs must remain unlimited. The legal fight over Maine’s law could become a major test case for whether states can regulate the huge donations that flow into independent expenditure committees.
The Maine articles also show how dark-money networks can influence legal and political battles. Reporting on a dark-money network linked to Leonard Leo illustrates how wealthy donor networks can shape litigation and campaign finance policy across the country. This highlights a larger problem: reform laws often face opposition from groups that benefit from the current system. Passing campaign finance reform is only one part of the battle; states and watchdog organizations must also defend those reforms in court.
Another major reform strategy is disclosure. Arizona’s Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act, is one of the strongest examples. Articles on the Arizona law explain that it requires disclosure of major donors behind election spending. The purpose is to expose anonymous campaign money so voters know who is trying to influence them. The Arizona Supreme Court allowed a legal challenge to continue, showing that disclosure laws remain contested. Supporters argue that voters have a right to know who funds political advertising and campaign messages. Opponents often claim disclosure can chill political participation or expose donors to harassment. The Arizona case illustrates the continuing struggle between transparency and donor privacy arguments.
New Mexico’s reform effort focuses on closing dark-money loopholes. The New Mexico article explains that political money can move through intermediaries, shell entities, nonprofits, and other structures that make it difficult to identify the original source. Even when disclosure laws exist, sophisticated donors can sometimes evade them. New Mexico’s effort shows that strong campaign finance reform often requires technical legal changes to prevent political actors from hiding behind layers of organizations.
At the federal level, several articles focus on the DISCLOSE Act and the SHINE Act. The DISCLOSE Act would require groups that spend money in elections to reveal major donors and would strengthen transparency around digital political spending, LLCs, and other intermediaries. The SHINE Act is another federal proposal aimed at cracking down on dark money by requiring clearer disclosure of hidden political interests. These bills reflect the idea that state-level reforms are important but incomplete. Because federal elections involve national networks of donors, nonprofits, super PACs, and political committees, reformers argue that national disclosure standards are needed.
Watchdog lawsuits and enforcement actions are another major theme. Campaign Legal Center and CREW filed a lawsuit challenging a Federal Election Commission advisory opinion that they argue creates a loophole allowing candidates and parties to coordinate canvassing spending with outside groups. Reform advocates warn that this could let campaigns outsource major political activity to outside organizations while avoiding ordinary contribution limits and disclosure rules. The lawsuit shows how FEC decisions can either strengthen or weaken campaign finance enforcement.
Other articles focus on dark-money nonprofits. Campaign Legal Center and CREW have pushed courts to enforce limits on 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits, which have often been used as vehicles for undisclosed political spending. A Times Union investigation found that hundreds of tax-exempt nonprofits may have made political donations despite restrictions on campaign activity by 501(c)(3) organizations. These articles highlight a recurring enforcement problem: nonprofit status can be used to shield donors and political activity from public view. Weak IRS and FEC enforcement makes it easier for money to move through organizations that were not supposed to function primarily as campaign vehicles.
Public financing is another major tool for reducing the influence of big money. California reform groups are supporting the California Fair Elections Act, which would remove California’s ban on public financing of campaigns. If approved, state and local governments in California could create public campaign financing programs designed to reduce candidate dependence on wealthy donors, corporations, and special interests. Supporters argue that public financing can make elections more competitive and allow candidates to rely more on ordinary voters.
Seattle and New York provide working examples of public financing. Seattle’s Democracy Voucher program gives residents publicly funded vouchers to donate to participating candidates. The program broadens participation because residents who may not have disposable income can still help fund campaigns. Seattle voters renewed the program for another ten years, showing continuing public support for this model. New York’s small-donor matching program similarly amplifies contributions from ordinary constituents. These systems do not ban outside spending, but they give candidates an alternative to relying mainly on wealthy donors and special interests.
The articles also address foreign influence in elections. MultiState, BakerHostetler, and NCSL describe state efforts to restrict campaign spending by foreign-influenced entities. Several states enacted or advanced laws in 2025 aimed at preventing foreign-linked corporations and organizations from spending in U.S. elections. These efforts go beyond the federal ban on direct foreign-national contributions by addressing corporations with significant foreign ownership or control. The concern is that foreign-linked money can enter elections indirectly through corporate or organizational structures.
Several articles provide context on why reformers are pushing so hard. The Brennan Center reported that dark money reached a record $1.9 billion in federal races in 2024. The Washington Post article on SpeechNow.org v. FEC explains how the modern super PAC system emerged after courts eliminated contribution limits to independent expenditure committees. Guardian articles on California show how tech billionaires and industry-backed super PACs spent unprecedented sums in state races, helping shape election outcomes. These articles demonstrate that the problem is not abstract. Large donors and organized industries can now spend heavily enough to affect elections at every level of government.
Taken together, the articles show that efforts to fight excessive and anonymous money in elections are happening on several fronts at once. Hawaii and Montana are testing whether states can limit corporate political spending through corporate law. Maine is testing whether states can cap contributions to super PACs. Arizona and New Mexico are strengthening disclosure and closing loopholes. Congress is considering the DISCLOSE Act and SHINE Act. California, Seattle, and New York are using or expanding public financing to strengthen small-donor power. Watchdog groups such as Campaign Legal Center, CREW, Brennan Center, Issue One, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters are pushing enforcement, litigation, legislation, and public education.
The common goal is to restore democratic accountability. Dark money weakens elections because voters cannot fully evaluate political messages if they do not know who paid for them. Excessive money weakens elections because candidates can become dependent on billionaires, corporations, super PACs, or special interests rather than ordinary voters. The reforms in these articles do not all use the same method, and many will face legal or political opposition. But together they show a broad and growing movement to make election spending more transparent, reduce the dominance of wealthy interests, and give voters a clearer view of who is trying to influence American democracy.
Crow Introduces SHINE Act to Crack Down on Dark Money in Politics
| Office of Rep. Jason Crow | June 2026
Rep. Jason Crow introduced the SHINE Act, aimed at forcing more transparency around dark-money political spending. The bill targets hidden interests and undisclosed influence in elections by requiring clearer disclosure of who is funding political activity.
CLC, CREW Sue Federal Election Commission to Strike Down Unlawful Advisory Opinion
| Campaign Legal Center | May 6, 2026
Campaign Legal Center and CREW filed a lawsuit challenging a Federal Election Commission advisory opinion that they argue creates a loophole allowing candidates and parties to coordinate canvassing spending with outside groups. The lawsuit seeks to preserve transparency, contribution limits, and anti-corruption rules that prevent supposedly independent groups from becoming hidden extensions of campaigns.
New Lawsuit Challenges Illegal FEC Opinion That Greenlights Coordinated Spending on Canvassing
| Campaign Legal Center | May 7, 2026
This article explains the legal theory behind the CLC and CREW lawsuit against the FEC. Reform advocates argue that the FEC opinion allows federal candidates to outsource and conceal millions of dollars in coordinated canvassing activity through groups not subject to ordinary disclosure obligations or contribution limits.
After languishing in state legislatures across the country, a novel approach to curtailing money in politics becomes law in Hawaii
| Will Lennon and Beatrice Peterson | ABC News | May 21, 2026
This article reports on Hawaii’s first-of-its-kind law designed to curb corporate political spending. The law uses state corporate authority to restrict the political spending powers granted to corporations, creating a new state-level strategy for challenging the influence of corporate and dark money after Citizens United.
New Hawaii law targets corporate influence in politics after Citizens United ruling
| Jennifer Sinco Kelleher | Associated Press | May 2026
Hawaii enacted a law aimed at reducing corporate and dark-money influence in elections by redefining corporations in a way that blocks them from spending in elections. Supporters describe it as a model for other states, while opponents say it will face serious constitutional challenges.
Corporate Power Reset Movement: Updates from the States
| Alliance for Justice | May 19, 2026
This article discusses the “corporate power reset” strategy being pursued in states such as Hawaii and Montana. The reform approach argues that states can limit the political powers they grant to corporations, including the power to spend corporate money in elections.
Bipartisan panel at Montana State University highlights the necessity of campaign finance reform
Issue One reports on a bipartisan Montana State University panel focused on campaign finance reform and the need to reduce corporate and dark-money influence. The article highlights Montana’s proposed Transparent Election Initiative, also known as the Montana Plan, which would stop giving corporations authority to spend unlimited money in elections.
Transparent Election Initiative files new plan to stop corporations from political spending
| Daily Montanan | January 8, 2026
Montana reformers filed a revised proposal for a 2026 ballot initiative aimed at curbing corporate political spending. The initiative would limit political spending by artificial entities and is part of a broader effort to reduce corporate and dark-money influence in state and local elections.
Montana Initiative 194, Prohibit Entities from Contributing to State and Local Candidate and Ballot Measure Elections Initiative
This overview explains Montana Initiative 194, a proposed 2026 ballot measure that would prohibit artificial persons from contributing to campaigns, ballot measure elections, or political parties. The measure is another example of reformers trying to reduce the role of corporate and institutional money in elections.
Whitehouse, Pappas, and Colleagues Reintroduce Updated DISCLOSE Act to End Corrupting Influence of Dark Money in American Elections
| Office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse | 2026
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and congressional colleagues reintroduced the DISCLOSE Act to require greater disclosure of political spending. The updated bill would expose billionaire and special-interest influence, strengthen disclosure for digital political activity, and make it harder for dark-money groups to hide who is funding election messages.
Rep. Mullin Reintroduces Bill to End Dark Money in American Elections
| Office of Rep. Kevin Mullin | March 6, 2026
Rep. Kevin Mullin joined House and Senate Democrats in reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act. The article frames the bill as a federal effort to end dark money by requiring transparency about who is paying to influence voters and government.
It’s Time for Congress to DISCLOSE Election Spending
| Saurav Ghosh | Campaign Legal Center | March 4, 2026
Campaign Legal Center argues that the DISCLOSE Act would improve transparency by requiring groups that spend money in elections to reveal major donors. The article emphasizes that the bill would not ban election spending, but would require public disclosure so voters can identify who is trying to influence them.
Demanding Disclosure from Dark Money Nonprofits
| Campaign Legal Center | March 11, 2026
Campaign Legal Center and CREW filed an amicus brief urging courts to enforce limits on 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits. The case focuses on how lax IRS interpretation has allowed nonprofits to become major conduits for undisclosed election spending.
Across U.S., nonprofits are making potentially illegal campaign donations
A Times Union investigation found that hundreds of tax-exempt nonprofits may have made political donations despite federal restrictions on campaign activity by 501(c)(3) organizations. The investigation highlights weak enforcement and the difficulty of policing nonprofit involvement in elections.
Leading Democracy Reform Groups Launch Campaign for California Fair Elections Act
| California Common Cause | February 20, 2026
California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, and the California Clean Money Action Fund launched a campaign for the California Fair Elections Act. The measure would remove California’s ban on public financing of campaigns, allowing state and local governments to create systems that reduce reliance on wealthy donors and special interests.
California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure
This measure would repeal California’s prohibition on candidates and public officials using or accepting public funds for campaign purposes. If approved, it would allow public campaign-financing programs that could help reduce dependence on large private donors.
Lift the Ban on Public Financing of Campaigns in California
| League of Women Voters of California | 2025
The League of Women Voters of California supports lifting the state ban on public financing of campaigns. The article argues that mega-donors and corporate-funded independent expenditures dominate elections and that public financing would help restore voter power.
Bill Introduced to Allow Local Governments and California to Have Public Financing Elections
| Office of California Sen. Tom Umberg | February 6, 2025
California legislators introduced SB 42 to allow public campaign financing at the state and local levels. The bill was presented as a response to voter concerns about big money in politics and would give governments new tools to support fairer campaign funding systems.
Seattle Renews Its Unique Approach to Public Campaign Financing
| Amy Sundberg | Bolts | August 8, 2025
Seattle voters renewed the city’s Democracy Voucher program for another 10 years. The program gives residents public vouchers to donate to participating candidates, helping broaden who funds campaigns and reducing candidates’ reliance on wealthy donors.
State and Local Programs Help Take Big Money Out of Politics
| Cinthia Illan-Vazquez and Celina Avalos Jaramillo | Brennan Center for Justice | August 4, 2025
The Brennan Center explains how state and local public-financing programs can counter the influence of wealthy donors. The article highlights Seattle’s Democracy Voucher program and other small-donor systems as tools for making campaigns more dependent on ordinary voters.
New York State’s Public Campaign Financing Program Empowers Constituent Donors
| Brennan Center for Justice | February 6, 2025
The Brennan Center analyzes New York State’s small-donor public financing system. The program matches small contributions from residents, shifting fundraising power toward ordinary constituents and away from large donors outside a candidate’s district.
Dinner Table Action v. Schneider
| Brennan Center for Justice | October 30, 2025
The Brennan Center and Ropes & Gray filed an amicus brief urging the First Circuit to uphold Maine’s contribution limits for super PACs. The case is important because Maine’s voter-approved law directly challenges the unlimited-donation model that allows wealthy donors to pour large sums into independent political committees.
Dinner Table Action et al. v. Schneider et al. and Equal Citizens et al. — Maine Super PAC Contribution Limits
| Campaign Legal Center | November 3, 2025
Campaign Legal Center joined the legal fight to defend Maine’s voter-approved super PAC contribution limit. The organization argues that super PACs have become a vehicle for wealthy special interests to corrupt politics and undermine democratic accountability.
How a little-known Maine ballot initiative could defang super PACs before the 2028 election
| New York Post | February 12, 2026
This article reports on Maine’s voter-approved effort to cap super PAC contributions at $5,000 per donor. The case is now part of a broader legal battle that could affect whether states can regulate the huge donations that flow into super PACs.
Legislation Addressing Foreign Influence in Elections Expanded Across Multiple States in 2025
| MultiState | January 23, 2026
This article reports that five states enacted new foreign campaign contribution laws in 2025 and ten others advanced similar bills. These efforts seek to block foreign-influenced corporations and other foreign-linked entities from spending in U.S. elections.
States Tighten Rules on Foreign Influence and Political Spending
| BakerHostetler | October 10, 2025
This article surveys state efforts to restrict political spending by foreign-influenced entities. It explains how states are moving beyond existing federal foreign-national bans to address corporations or organizations with significant foreign ownership or control.
Foreign Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
| National Conference of State Legislatures | Updated December 16, 2025
NCSL summarizes state and federal laws governing foreign contributions and election spending. The article provides useful background for understanding why states are adopting new rules to prevent foreign-linked money from influencing elections.
A case that lets billionaires spend big on elections never reached Supreme Court
| Washington Post | December 1, 2025
This article explains how SpeechNow.org v. FEC helped create the modern super PAC system by eliminating contribution limits to independent expenditure committees. It provides important background for why reformers in Maine and elsewhere are trying to challenge unlimited super PAC donations.
Tech billionaires are spending unprecedented sums in California races. Experts say it's the tip of the iceberg
This article documents the scale of billionaire and tech-industry spending in California elections. While it is more about the problem than a reform proposal, it helps explain why public financing, disclosure rules, and anti-dark-money reforms are gaining urgency.
Tech industry wins big in California after millions spent on primary election
This follow-up article reports that major tech-backed super PAC spending helped shape California primary outcomes. It provides recent evidence of how large outside spending can influence state and local elections, strengthening the case for reforms such as California’s proposed public-financing measure.
New Hawaii law targets corporate influence in politics after Citizens United ruling
| Jennifer Sinco Kelleher | Associated Press | May 2026
Hawaii enacted a new law aimed at reducing corporate and “dark money” influence in state elections by redefining corporations in a way that prevents them from spending on elections. The law is designed as a direct state-level response to Citizens United and is expected to face legal challenges, but supporters argue it could become a model for other states.
What to know about states' efforts to limit corporate donations in politics
| Jennifer Sinco Kelleher and Geoff Mulvihill | Associated Press | May 12, 2026
This article explains the emerging state-level strategy behind Hawaii’s corporate-spending bill and Montana’s proposed ballot initiative. It describes how reformers are trying to use state corporate law to limit corporate political spending, while opponents argue the strategy may conflict with Citizens United and First Amendment doctrine.
Addressing Questions Surrounding Hawaii’s Bold Move To Undo Citizens United
| Tom Moore | Center for American Progress | April 29, 2026
The Center for American Progress defends Hawaii’s proposed corporate-spending reform as a constitutionally grounded use of state corporate-law authority. The article argues that states can define the powers they grant to corporations and can therefore withhold the power to spend corporate money in elections.
Hawaii’s pioneering, bipartisan effort to fight corporate and dark money spending in elections is a model for rest of country
Issue One praises Hawaii’s legislation as a bipartisan model for limiting corporate and dark-money influence in elections. The piece frames the law as a state-level reform that could inspire similar efforts elsewhere.
Transparent Election Initiative
| Tom Moore | Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance | August 7, 2025
This article describes Montana’s “Transparent Election Initiative,” a proposed ballot measure that would limit corporate political spending by changing the powers granted to corporations under state law. It presents Montana as another state testing a new path for reducing corporate and dark-money influence after Citizens United.
How a dark money network linked to Leonard Leo factors into Maine’s super PAC lawsuit
| Maine Morning Star | April 27, 2026
This article examines Maine’s voter-approved $5,000 contribution limit for super PACs and the legal fight surrounding it. The article connects the challenge to broader national dark-money networks and shows how Maine has become a major test case for whether states can limit the influence of very large donors and super PACs.
The Maine Lawsuit That Could Save Democracy From Big Money
| The Nation | December 11, 2025
This article analyzes Maine’s voter-approved super PAC contribution cap as a direct challenge to the post-Citizens United campaign finance system. It argues that Maine’s reform could become a major legal vehicle for revisiting the assumption that super PACs may accept unlimited contributions.
Arizona Supreme Court Grapples with Challenge to “Dark Money” Disclosure Law
| Eric Petry | State Court Report | March 17, 2025, updated September 30, 2025
This article explains the legal challenge to Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act. The law requires disclosure of major donors behind election spending and was adopted to expose anonymous campaign spending from large donors.
Arizona Supreme Court allows GOP lawmakers to challenge voter-approved dark money disclosure law
| Arizona Mirror | September 29, 2025
This article reports that the Arizona Supreme Court allowed Republican lawmakers to continue challenging Proposition 211, while not yet deciding the law’s constitutionality. The case highlights the continuing legal struggle over state efforts to require donor disclosure in political campaigns.
Bill aims at dark money loopholes
| Marjorie Childress | New Mexico In Depth | February 5, 2025
This article reports on a New Mexico bill aimed at closing loopholes in the state’s campaign finance laws. It explains how political groups can evade disclosure rules and how reformers are trying to make it harder for donors to hide behind intermediaries when influencing elections.
It’s Time for Congress to DISCLOSE Election Spending
| Saurav Ghosh | Campaign Legal Center | March 4, 2026
Campaign Legal Center argues for passage of the federal DISCLOSE Act, which would require groups spending money in elections to disclose major donors and trace money routed through LLCs and other intermediaries. The article frames the bill as a federal response to dark-money tactics that hide the true sources of election spending.
Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races
| Anna Massoglia | Brennan Center for Justice | May 7, 2025
The Brennan Center documents the scale of the dark-money problem, reporting that undisclosed election spending reached a record $1.9 billion in the 2024 federal cycle. The article provides background for why states and reform institutions are pursuing stronger disclosure laws, public financing, and other anti-dark-money reforms.
New York comptroller race draws $4.6M in matching funds
| Timothy Fanning | Times Union | May 22, 2026
This article reports on New York’s public matching-funds program, which is designed to amplify small donors and reduce candidates’ dependence on wealthy donors and special interests. The comptroller race shows how public financing can help candidates raise significant money through small-dollar participation rather than relying primarily on large donors.
Seattle Democracy Voucher program up for renewal on August ballot
| Josh Cohen | Cascade PBS | July 21, 2025
This article explains Seattle’s Democracy Voucher program, a local public-financing system that gives residents publicly funded vouchers to donate to participating candidates. Supporters argue the system broadens who funds campaigns and reduces reliance on wealthy private donors.
State and Local Programs Help Take Big Money Out of Politics
| Cinthia Illan-Vazquez and Celina Avalos Jaramillo | Brennan Center for Justice | August 4, 2025
The Brennan Center surveys state and local public-financing programs, including Seattle’s democracy vouchers, as tools for reducing the influence of big money in elections. The article emphasizes small-donor public financing as one way institutions can counterbalance wealthy donors and dark-money spending.
The inside story of how the FEC investigated a dark money group but failed to hold it accountable
| Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington | March 16, 2026
CREW analyzes the Federal Election Commission’s investigation into Freedom Vote Inc., a nonprofit accused of acting like a political committee while avoiding donor disclosure. The article shows how enforcement breakdowns at the FEC can allow dark-money groups to avoid accountability, while also illustrating how watchdog litigation can expose hidden campaign spending.
