'If You Can Keep It': The Deal With Dark Money

0:00The Lindsay Clancy trial shined a light on how little we know about postpartum psychosis. I went sort of from feeling a little off all day to suddenly believing people were watching me. On the Sunday story, how the Clancy trial sparked a new conversation about maternal mental health. Listen now to the Sunday story from the Up First podcast on the NPR app.

0:29At least a billion dollars of untraceable cash is flowing through the midterm election. That's according to an analysis by the New York Times from late last month. These funds, referred to as dark money by campaign finance experts, are coming from super PACs, nonprofits, and wealthy donors. But tracing exactly how much dark money is flowing through campaigns is difficult. Money spent to hire influencers online, on direct mail campaigns, and to employ door knockers isn't always publicly disclosed as campaign spending. Untraceable spending in politics isn't new, But after the landmark Citizens United decision of 2010, campaign financing rules loosened.

1:08Since then, campaign spending has ballooned, reaching what some call an industrial scale. I'm Jen White. And I'm Todd Zwilling. You're listening to the 1A Podcast. Today on If You Can Keep It, our weekly series on the state of our democracy, the role of dark money in our midterm elections. That's after this.

1:30Looking for love? One New York event promises to find you your perfect match using Palantir, though not affiliated with the actual software company. They can sue me. I could lose everything, but it would all be worth it if at least two people here have a spark. So no pressure. The facts, myths, and dark jokes surrounding Palantir. Listen to Planet Money on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. This week on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me Comedian and SNL icon Leslie Jones Tells us what she thinks of our show What is this? A cheap jeopardy? What is this? Why is the black guy Buy the short white guy?

2:10Don't miss our full conversation And the rest of our games Listen to the Wait Wait Don't Tell Me podcast On the NPR app Or wherever you get your podcasts Starting the conversation on Dark Money with us is Theodore Schleifer, reporter at the New York Times covering billionaires and money in politics. Theodore, welcome. Thanks for having me. And with us in studio is Daniel Wiener. He's the senior director of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Dan, welcome back. It's a pleasure to be here. Dan, before we jump into campaign spending, what types of spending falls under that dark money umbrella?

2:47Well, that's a great question, Jen. And I think the term dark money sometimes gets thrown around and it's good to sort of define it. So when we talk about dark money in the electoral context, we mean money that is spent to influence voters where we do not know the ultimate source of the money. We do not know the donors that ultimately supplied that. And that can come in the form of – that can be spending by organizations that sort of directly just spend money and don't disclose their donors. But it can also be money that's funneled through other organizations where, again, we don't know that ultimate source of the funds.

3:23Is it like the Wild West? I mean, what are the rules for dark money and how they interact with campaigns? Maybe we don't have time for all of them. That's a great question. Is it unregulated or? I mean, it is in theory regulated, but I think that we – and the reporting from The Times that Ted worked on shows this. It is getting to the point at least where the regulations are more or less optional, at least if you have a good campaign lawyer, right? So in theory, there are rules. Whether those rules apply to anyone that doesn't want to be disclosed is another question. Now, we mentioned that at least a billion dollars are flowing through the midterm elections this year.

3:59Theodore, how did you and your colleagues at The Times begin to trace that funding, especially since we're talking about anonymous donors? Yeah, I mean, look, this is not easy to do. And the figure, what we're citing in the story is probably a significant undercount. I mean, we're sort of looking at the amount of dark money that is the most visible, the amount of spending that you can actually see. But beneath the surface, you know, there could be another billion or another two billion or another 20 billion. And it's really hard to know. And these figures, you know, break through into the public conversation we're talking about right now because we're able to, you know, talk about a few donations, which hopefully we can get into later in the program.

4:43But I think we should all keep an open eye and an open mind here to the idea that there's a lot that we're not seeing and be thankful that we can we can talk about any of it. What kinds of donations, Dan, are campaigns required to disclose? There's dark money, then there's regular old campaign money. So what's a – I'll call it above board here. Sure. And I really think Theodore's point is exactly that, is that there could be a lot more that we don't know about. But when you make a donation to a candidate, and we all get lots of emails to do that now, and you send that donation, if it is above a certain threshold, a couple hundred dollars, then it is required to be disclosed.

5:23And so when you go online and you look at the report and you see how much has been given to the candidate, that's what you're seeing is you're seeing those donations. It's the same for parties and for sort of political action committees. But often now when you look at a particular election, there's actually more money coming from groups that either do not disclose their donors or that undisclosed money is sort of coming through those groups than there is that money directly coming from regular donors into the candidate. And it's only the latter that is required to be disclosed. Well, that takes us to this question from James who emails, how much do foreign governments contribute to dark money?

6:02Dan, do we know? That is a great question. I'm getting back to Theodore's point is we don't really know, right? So because the money isn't disclosed, you don't know where it's coming from. And now, of course, we have new medium of communication. So, for instance, paid content creation, right? And we've seen some evidence that foreign governments are behind some of that. That is a complete black box. There's no real law there that requires that to be disclosed. We should say foreign contributions to American elections are illegal, dark or not dark. They are decidedly illegal. What we do know, and we get little snippets of this.

6:34So, for instance, when the Federal Election Commission, which is the federal agency here that supposedly regulates this, but not really, when they were actually doing this, there were a number of cases of sort of examples where a foreign oligarch or someone connected to a foreign government gave to a super PAC. And it sort of wound its way through the regulatory process, and eventually there was some sort of penalty. So we know it happens. But, no, it's impossible to quantify because, again, so much of the money is in the shadows. Well, dark money spending happens in races on both sides of the aisle.

7:08Last month, an organization founded in Wyoming called Choose Freedom Incorporated reserved about$22 million in ads to help Republican races in multiple states. Another Republican nonprofit spent$22 million in campaigns in 41 House districts also in August. Theodore, how much do we know about these organizations and who's behind them? Not much. Some of these organizations, the entity itself may be publicly facing, but the donors behind it are never going to be public potentially ever. and even the amounts they raised could only be public a few years down the line. You might know how much they spend, but not how much they raise.

7:53Even since we wrote this story, my colleague and I, a couple of colleagues of mine at the Times, and I wrote about a new super PAC that came out a few days ago called No Going Back PAC, which has spent, I think, about$70 million or$80 million on the midterms. this group was intentionally started to basically avoid a disclosure deadline. It's one of the biggest spenders in the midterms, and this happened after that billion-dollar figure we reported in the New York Times late last month. So look, I mean, this is just kind of the new normal. Like, you know, you mentioned a couple examples there just because they happen to be in the news.

8:31But frankly, every day there's always a new organization that you could talk about. And the specifics might be different whether they're public-facing or not, whether their donors are semi-disclosed or disclosed eventually or never disclosed. There's a thousand different permutations here. And in fact, when an entity is disclosed, there's something almost quaint about it. There's something that feels abnormal when you do see donor disclosure. And that says a lot about kind of the current moment. Theodore, you really got my attention with something you just said. There was a disclosure deadline coming up, so a new super PAC sprung up.

9:13That sounds like kind of regulatory whack-a-mole. You just invent a new shell and you avoid disclosure. Yeah. I mean, these are called in the business pop-up super PACs. And what that means is all of these entities – or all the people that set up these entities these days are sophisticated political lawyers and accountants and operatives. And they know when disclosure deadlines are, and they know what time they need to wait until if they want to avoid disclosure as long as possible. So without going too into the weeds here, but in this specific example I'm talking about, the entity wasn't started on September 1st, and that is because that is the first date of the third quarter of the year.

10:04And if this entity was started on August 23rd or even a few days before September 1st, they would have to disclose some donors much earlier. But by waiting until September 1st and then immediately somehow having$80 million, however that happened, they can avoid disclosing their donors until mid-October. And that sort of pop-up is the term of art because it pops up. Suddenly, they have all this money. So it wasn't truly on September 1st they decided, let's start a super PACA cycle. They start – they have all the money, and then it's a way for operatives to delay and maybe hide funding from unsaved resources.

10:50I should say both parties really do this. This is sort of not either party. Michigan is a good example of dark money spending. Representative Haley Stevens, who lost her Democratic primary bid in Michigan's Senate election to Abdul El-Sayed, more than$62 million came in from the outside and anonymous groups. Daniel, who supports this type of spending? Because I will say, you know, when we talk to our listeners and we hear from them, they collectively say there's too much money in politics. But who says, no, actually, this is good for our democracy? It's such a good question. I will say just I want to emphasize your bipartisan point.

11:31You know, in the 2024 presidential election, especially Democrats who benefited more from dark money than Republicans, particularly Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. So I think it's an important point not to make this overly partisan that way. It's a great question. You know, we put out a poll of 2 ,000 registered voters in June. And what we found is when you talk to, you know, Americans, there aren't that many Americans who say, wow, gee, this is a great thing, right? But I think within the ranks of political elites, they want to have this option. And I think that there is a real under the dome within here in D.C.

12:08sense of wanting to preserve this as a way of engaging in campaigns that's at odds with what voters want. Coming up in Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins is running for reelection against Democrat Troy Jackson. Dark Money on both sides has raised at least$75 million for advertising. We hear from Maine about the impact Dark Money is having on that race right after this quick break.

12:37This message comes from BetterHelp. Imagine carrying a backpack every day. Inside it, every conversation, every mistake, every expectation. It is easy not to notice how heavy it is until someone asks if you want to put it down. Sometimes feeling better starts exactly like that. Better isn't one size fits all. Better is personal. It's therapy tailored to the individual to help lighten what you carry. Match with a therapist who truly understands. Visit BetterHelp.com slash NPR. How do products end up on big box shelves? Well, we at Planet Money pitch the Planet Money board game. I'm trying not to think how much of a big deal it is and how much work has gone into.

13:20It's really big. Is it helpful if I remind you how big it is? It's sort of the whole thing. We go inside the minds of the people who decide what goes on store shelves. Listen to Planet Money on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. At NPR, there's a little something for everyone. If you need advice for that big life change, try listening to Life Kit. If you want to know more about that new TV show, check out Pop Culture Happy Hour. And if you want to dive deeper into your favorite podcasts and enjoy perks like bonus episodes, archive access, and more, check out NPR+. Find out more and support the shows you love at plus.npr.org.

13:59Back now to our discussion about the influence of dark money in this year's midterm elections. And we're hearing from you, Sethi Mills. This has got to stop. There is no rationale that a billionaire in Texas should be able to financially affect an election in Maine or any other state outside their primary resident state. Nor should a corporation be able to donate to any candidate. A business is not a person. The persons within still get a vote, just like the rest of us. And we're going to talk about some of the biggest dealers of dark money. But first, let's take a look at Maine. It's a small media market with a small population, but still tens of millions of dollars are flowing in from anonymous sources, all to influence the Senate race there.

14:41Steve Mistler is the chief political correspondent and state house bureau chief at Maine Public, and he joins us now. Steve, welcome. Thanks for having me. So Dark Money is paying for$75 million in advertising on both sides of Maine's Senate election. That's according to a New York Times analysis of data from Ad Impact, which tracks political ads. Who are these groups spending so much on advertising in your state? Well, there's a whole array of these organizations. And what's interesting about them is a lot of them are routing their spending through PACs, which have to disclose donors, right? And they're routing that spending through those PACs that are connected in some way to party leadership in the U.S.

15:26Senate. On the Republican side, you have the Senate Leadership Fund. And then on the Democratic side, you have the Senate Majority PAC. And both of those groups are in some ways receiving a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars from these dark money groups. And those groups, those partisan organizations, those party committees, if you will, are some of the biggest spenders in the race in Maine. It's just that a lot of that money is coming from dark money sources. And we obviously, as Teddy has outlined earlier, we just don't know who those folks are for the most part. And then there's also another super PAC, which is probably one of the most prolific spenders in the race.

16:07It's called Pine Tree Results. They spent close to$10 million so far. And there's, I think, something close to 100 billionaires that are funding that organization and their spouses. And then that organization is also receiving a big slug of dark money spending. What's interesting about all of these groups is how, especially on the Republican side, is how they work together as almost a machine. And so the practical effect is that you have one group that's run is kind of dominating the airwaves and running ads either in favor of Senator Susan Collins or against her opponent, Troy Jackson, the Democrat.

16:48at. In addition to that, though, there are other, the dark money groups are spending separately to promote messages through issue advocacy ads that are basically boosting or amplifying Senator Collins's chief campaign strategy, which is to talk a lot about all the money, the federal money that she's bringing back to the state. And those groups, that one group is called One Nation, which is also the largest funder of the Senate Leadership Fund. And that group has been active in this state for the past year, running a lot of ads, just talking about Senator Collins and what she's done with various tranches of funding she's brought back.

17:34All right. So, Steve, let's talk a little bit more about it. You have Pine Tree Results, One Nation, all these euphemistic names for these super PACs. That's part of the story for me. Whenever you hear Stars and Stripes, Inc., you know you're on to something. Here's another one. Stronger America Incorporated spent more than$11 million on ads to help Senator Susan Collins. She's the only candidate they've supported. In July, Senator Collins attended a dinner hosted by that nonprofit. It was held at the townhouse in Washington owned by the tech company Oracle, giant corporation. That was revealed by The New York Times in their reporting last month.

18:11Now, Senator Susan Collins is also the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which explains all of those other ads that you talked about, about all the money that she's helped pour into Maine because she has the clout to do it in the Senate. So the question is, how much does Susan Collins know about the groups behind the dark money that's helping her? Voters might not know about it, but to Senator Collins, who has all the power to appropriate, does she know? Well, you would think so. I mean, she has steered clear of these questions. But one thing, one example that does help answer your question is the Pine Tree Results Pack, which is actually connected to Senator Collins' fundraising apparatus.

18:53This is the first time that's ever happened for her. And so that group, the Pine Tree Results Pack, is also receiving money from that group you just mentioned, Stronger America, which appears to be linked to another PAC that's actually doing get out the vote efforts here in the state, you know, door knocking canvassers and text messages. And that group is called Stronger Maine. So you have Stronger America and what appears from tax filings that I've looked at is connected to Stronger Maine, which is the dark money group. So it's just, it's interesting because of course, as you mentioned, there's a lot of questions about what all these organizations have to gain from boosting Senator Collins, who's a chief appropriator in the U.S.

19:38Senate. And so I think that's just a central question for voters to consider, you know, as they're getting bombarded by all these ads, which are just, you know, I mean, the Republicans have a big advantage in the state, which I think is probably the case nationwide, too, just given the Democratic group's funding disadvantage so far. Well, Elon Musk's America PAC donated$170 ,000 to Collins're-election campaign. It's part of their commitment to spend up to$120 million across the country to help Republicans in midterm elections. And Collins was asked about that last week. She said she wasn't aware of the specific donation and said this about their relationship.

20:14Elon and I had discussions when he was head of Doge. I didn't support many of the cuts that he proposed. I did support others where I felt that he did ferret out waste and fraud and abuse that was costing taxpayers money. Now, Steve, you said that Collins has an advantage in Maine. I'm curious how the 940 ,000 registered voters in your state are reacting to this dark money pouring into this race. Well, I think generally speaking, they don't like it just for the same reason that your callers have inundated you with the feedback. Voters just don't like this. They want to know where the money is coming from and who stands to benefit from outlaying these millions and millions of dollars.

21:07So they're generally speaking, they don't like it. I mean, I think the problem is, is that when you get into this, explaining the mechanics of it, it's hard for the regular person to follow. And so anyway, I think, you know, it is it's on the other thing that's interesting about the Elon Musk spending that you brought up, which is, you know, he's his America PAC is spending separately to do electioneering here. It's a relatively modest sum, given how much money that PAC has in its coffers. But Elon Musk has also donated directly to Pine Tree Results, that PAC that I mentioned earlier. So not only is he spending money on his own electioneering efforts, he's also bolstering electioneering efforts by another super PAC.

21:56Well, that's Steve Missler. He's chief political correspondent and state house bureau chief at Maine Public. Steve, thank you. Thank you. Dan, as we were listening to Steve describe the funding in Maine, this meme came to mind. I think it's from, it's always sunny in Philadelphia, of the guy standing in front of the board and they're like names and pictures and red strings going everywhere. I mean, it is seemingly impossible to untangle. What do you think that does for voter confidence in our electoral system, which I think is the big question? I think it is really – you're absolutely right and I think it's terrible for voter confidence.

22:36And I think that we have to ask ourselves – when you say things like we believe in democracy, what do we mean by democracy? And everyone in public life generally thinks that transparency is an important value and it's an important part of what it means to have a functioning democracy. And we don't have transparency in our elections right now. And you can see voters are very, very, very angry about this. I really want to emphasize this is low-hanging fruit. In many, many other advanced democracies, unlimited money in politics isn't a thing and unlimited money in elections. We do have that. Thank you to the Supreme Court and Citizens United.

23:17But even the Supreme Court and Citizens United said, well, yeah, but it will all be transparent. So you can make your own decisions about who's trying to influence you and what they want. But we don't have that transparency. So what went wrong? If the Supreme Court didn't anticipate this reality and they said, don't worry, everybody, it'll be fine. Well, the problem is that the Supreme Court in its campaign finance decisions, at least, has a habit of making assurances that apparently it either didn't know were not really accurate or maybe did know and didn't care. So one of the big things, one of the pillars of Citizens United is we do not think in general that you should be able to limit money in politics, but transparency provides this countervailing force.

23:58We believe Americans should make their own decisions. The courts never really acknowledge that, in fact, transparency doesn't really exist for a lot of election spending. Now, they might say, well, that's on Congress. Congress could pass laws to update the rules to provide more transparency, and that's true. It's a combination of the court but also Congress and regulatory agencies that haven't really done their jobs. Nevertheless, the reality we find ourselves in that was promised to voters, which is that you will know where the money is coming from and you can make up your own minds. That promise has not been kept.

24:31Well, that opacity – I mean we got this email from Alec who says, how are these super PACs not accused of money laundering? And Dan, I think that goes to – or Theodore, let me ask you. I think that goes to the idea that Jen had about a meme of red strings going everywhere. It's all convoluted and complicated. You're not meant to get to the bottom of it. That opacity is what we're talking about, whether it's money laundering or not. Just how unclear is it to get to the bottom of it? Well, money laundering is a crime. And the only kind of crimes here, which are prosecuted, I'll say, occasionally, but the only crime would be an intentional effort to avoid disclosure by basically giving to a nonprofit, a dark money group, and then intentionally having that dark money group give to a super PAC as sort of a pass through.

25:28But a lot of this stuff is in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately, in terms of what people want to enforce. The crime is what's enforced. And the FEC and the IRS do not really enforce a lot of these laws in part for political reasons, in part because of budget cuts. And people can get away with a lot. I mean I'll just tell you as someone who reports on this stuff and deals with lots of operatives in anonymous conversations, people are not scared at all. There's a sense of impunity and there's a sense of people can get away with whatever they want. And the fear that the regulatory state can sometimes engender is nowhere to be found when it comes to kind of dark money.

26:15Well, I think that that point about the culture of impunity that Theodore made is just so important because that gets to sort of the larger stakes for our democracy, right? When there is a sense that there are rules on the books but they don't really apply, particularly to the wealthiest and the most powerful, that has a broader ripple effect. So, yes, we want to know who is behind election spending. We also want a sense that there are rules that apply to everyone. And I think one of the challenges we are facing right now, and this is how you connect money and politics to the other challenges in our democracy, is people sense that there's one set of rules for the powerful and one for everyone else.