The Brennan Center notes that an astounding $1.9 billion in “dark money” flooded into federal elections.
In a year dominated by political volatility and digital-first campaigning, the 2024 federal elections also shattered records for another reason: dark money. According to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice, more than $1.9 billion in funds from undisclosed donors poured into campaigns, a jaw-dropping sum that nearly doubles the previous record from the 2020 cycle.
These funds, often routed through opaque nonprofits or shell entities, allowed donors to influence the outcome of elections—from Senate battles to the presidential race—without voters ever knowing who was behind the cash. It’s a development that signals a dangerous new normal: elections increasingly bankrolled by shadow players with no public accountability.
|
While the phrase dark money has become shorthand for campaign spending from anonymous or opaque sources, it's not without issues. Critics of the term argue it oversimplifies a complex system and can imply nefarious intent where legal ambiguity is often the real culprit. Still, the term persists because it captures a core truth: these funds, often routed through nonprofits or shell entities, allowed major donors to shape election outcomes—from Senate races to the presidency—without public scrutiny. The trend foreshadows a dangerous new normal where elections are increasingly financed by untraceable influence, leaving voters and democratic accountability in the "dark." |
Perhaps the most surprising finding of the Brennan Center’s analysis is the party breakdown. While Republicans have long been seen as the primary beneficiaries of dark money, the 2024 cycle flipped that script. Democratic-aligned groups pulled in a staggering $1.2 billion in undisclosed contributions, dwarfing the $664 million received by Republican-aligned groups.
Image generated by DALL·E. Data sourced from the Brennan Center for Justice (2025).
In addition to being a tale of more aggressive fundraising, this also represents a structural shift in how left-leaning donors now use secrecy to engage in a high-stakes battle of messaging and media. Democratic super PACs with dark money arms flooded battleground states with advertisements, voter outreach, and digital persuasion efforts, taking full advantage of lax disclosure laws.
Groups like Future Forward USA Action, which raised hundreds of millions through its nonprofit affiliate, were instrumental in propping up Kamala Harris’s campaign in swing states. The organization’s allied super PAC spent heavily on targeted TV and digital ads, while the nonprofit conducted polling and message testing shielded from public disclosure requirements. Likewise, Priorities USA committed tens of millions solely to digital organizing and persuasion, including through partnerships with anonymous donors via its nonprofit wing.
Official White House Portrait of Kamala Harris. Source: Library of Congress.
These interlinked PAC-nonprofit ecosystems allow massive political influence to move through channels that sidestep traditional transparency, raising fresh concerns about voter manipulation and the growing normalization of campaign finance opacity.
Over $1.3 billion of the $1.9 billion went through super PACs, the Brennan Center found. These political committees are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates—a restriction critics argue is often loosely enforced. Super PACs serve as convenient “clearinghouses” for anonymous dollars, giving wealthy donors a way to shape elections at scale without disclosing their identity.
Source: Brennan Center, 2025
In many cases, super PACs are linked to “social welfare” nonprofits—classified under 501(c)(4)—that aren’t required to disclose their donors. These nonprofits can funnel unlimited sums into super PACs, which then run ads for or against candidates. Legally, the super PAC must disclose the nonprofit as the donor, but not the individuals behind it. This creates a layered system of secrecy that shields true sources of political influence. Groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund exemplify this strategy, having quietly moved millions through such channels in recent election cycles.
Over $1.3 billion of the $1.9 billion in dark money spent in the 2024 cycle flowed through super PACs, according to the Brennan Center. These entities can legally raise and spend unlimited funds—often receiving money from nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors. The result? A polished route for anonymous dollars to drive election outcomes.
Real-World 2024 Examples:
|
Super PACs tied to both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris absorbed huge sums from undisclosed donors. Trump’s support was buoyed by super PACs reportedly backed by Elon Musk and other high-dollar benefactors, while Harris relied heavily on Future Forward USA Action, a nonprofit that funneled over $200 million into pro-Harris ads and operations.
Sources: Brennan Center, NYT, Politico (2024–2025)
These groups didn’t just run ads—they built entire campaign infrastructures in key states. As the Brennan Center notes, the line between coordination and independence often blurred, with shared consultants and messaging tactics. Meanwhile, groups poured over $300 million into digital ads without proper FEC disclosure.
The 2024 race showed how presidential campaigns are increasingly shaped by money voters can’t trace—fueling urgent calls for transparency and reform.
Liberal organizations continue to lead the charge for campaign finance reform, even as their side benefits most from the current system. The Brennan Center for Justice and sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act—primarily Democrats—have renewed efforts to mandate donor disclosure and restrict the use of nonprofits in political giving.
Their argument centers on transparency: that voters should know who is funding election activity. In 2024, however, Democratic-aligned groups accounted for roughly two-thirds of all dark money spending, giving them a clear advantage under the very rules they now seek to change.
While these groups push for reforms, others view anonymous political giving as a form of constitutionally protected free speech. Under current law, individuals and organizations may support causes without disclosing their identities—a principle rooted in the First Amendment and upheld by the courts. Until laws change, both sides are operating within a legal framework that protects donor privacy and political expression. Campaign Now recognizes that reality and serves clients accordingly.
The 2024 election served as a stress test for the entire campaign finance system, not just the candidates. And by nearly every measure, that system failed to uphold transparency. As Democrats and Republicans alike escalate their use of dark money tools, the very structure of democratic elections risks being outsourced to the highest anonymous bidder.
According to the Brennan Center's report, the figures are a warning, not just statistics. If the rules don’t change soon, American elections may become a high-dollar bidding war where the loudest voices aren’t the voters—they're the ones with the deepest pockets and the darkest wallets.
