LC-16 · Politics
Dark-money election spending
Ads with no name on the check
In ordinary words
A nonprofit can run ads about a candidate, and the donors who funded the ads often never appear on a public report.
Why people call it a crime
People think buying an election in secret is corruption. The current rules call a large share of it independent speech.
A scene, not a hypothetical statute
A group called Neighbors for Tomorrow spends $4 million on ads the week before a primary. The filing lists the group. It does not list the two donors who wrote the checks.
In legal terms
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), held corporations and unions may make independent expenditures. SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Cir. 2010) cleared unlimited contributions to independent-expenditure-only committees. 501(c)(4) social-welfare groups may engage in some political activity without disclosing donors, as long as politics is not their primary purpose under IRS rules. Express-advocacy ads close to an election can trigger FEC reporting of the spender, not always of the original donor.
The Court treats independent spending as speech that does not corrupt in the quid-pro-quo sense, and tax law gives nonprofits donor privacy.
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); 52 U.S.C. § 30104; IRC § 501(c)(4).
Where it stops being legal
Coordination with a campaign converts “independent” spending into a contribution, which is capped and disclosed. Foreign-national contributions are illegal. Primary-purpose violations can threaten tax status.