In 2024, the Left’s massive dark money network poured $1.5 billion into reshaping the electorate, securing abortion-rights victories in red states, and financing legal and political operations designed to tilt the playing field.
Key 2024 totals at a glance, Created by Campaign Now with Gemini (key figures from cited sources).
The 2024 election cycle saw one of the most aggressive deployments of “dark money” in recent American politics, driven largely by a network of nonprofits fiscally managed by Arabella Advisors. While presidential top-lines dominated headlines, this parallel funding operation executed a billion-dollar strategy aimed at ballot initiatives, voter registration and turnout systems, and “lawfare” campaigns that shape the rules of elections themselves.
This analysis breaks down where the money went—and what outcomes it helped produce—based on filings and investigative reporting, including Restoration News coverage and Sixteen Thirty Fund tax disclosures.
The scale of the Arabella network’s 2024 footprint is the first strategic takeaway. Across major entities—New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, Windward Fund, and North Fund—the network reported roughly $1.51 billion in revenue for the year.
Screenshot from Restoration News
Two hubs did most of the heavy lifting. The New Venture Fund reported $662 million in revenue, with a significant share concentrated among a small set of anonymous donors. Sixteen Thirty Fund, the network’s primary 501(c)(4) advocacy arm, reported $282 million in revenue. That kind of election-year surge is typical for entities built to scale spending during major cycles.
Restoration News summarizes the donor-and-pass-through design bluntly:
“In reality, Arabella's organizations were more like puppets for far-left mega-funders like the Ford Foundation, Reid Hoffman, or George Soros. Through Arabella, those deep-pocketed donors exploited our loose charitable laws to funnel gobs of money into partisan causes...” — Hayden Ludwig, Restoration News
Whatever language you use to describe it, the operational point is the same: the model concentrates fundraising scale at the top, then pushes money outward into dozens—or hundreds—of aligned projects that can fight on multiple fronts simultaneously.
The network’s most measurable “return” in 2024 came through state ballot measures—especially abortion. These fights were not treated as side projects. They were funded like top-tier races, with professionalized coalitions, saturation messaging, and ground operations designed to overcome the traditional advantages Republicans hold in red-state candidate contests.
Restoration News describes the overwhelming financial disparity that secured these victories:
“And they did it by outspending pro-lifers no less than 26 times in Arizona and an unbelievable 93 times in Montana.” — Hayden Ludwig, Restoration News
Ballot results and spending advantage snapshot, Created by Campaign Now with Gemini (key figures from cited sources).
In Arizona (Prop 139), the Sixteen Thirty Fund contributed $1.25 million to Arizona for Abortion Access, and the measure passed—enshrining abortion protections into the state constitution. Reporting indicates the pro-abortion coalition outspent pro-life opponents by roughly 26-to-1.
In Missouri (Amendment 3), Sixteen Thirty routed $4.5 million to Missourians for Constitutional Freedom. The measure passed, weakening the state’s near-total ban.
In Montana (CI-128), the spending imbalance was even more dramatic. Restoration News reports the pro-abortion side outspent opponents by 93-to-1. Sixteen Thirty contributed roughly $3 million to Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights—and the measure passed.
The core lesson for conservatives is uncomfortable but simple: in ballot campaigns, liberal policy outcomes can win even where Republican candidates win—because initiatives detach the issue from party branding and allow massive outside spending to dominate the information environment.
Florida (Amendment 4) was the network’s biggest financial gamble and the clearest evidence that heavy spending is not automatic victory.
Restoration News highlights the sheer scale of the financial injection:
“Sixteen Thirty Fund's $23.5 million contribution constituted one-fifth of the group's $122 million budget.” — Hayden Ludwig, Restoration News
Sixteen Thirty’s disclosures show a $14 million grant to Floridians Protecting Freedom, described as part of a broader $23.5 million contribution to the campaign. The measure won 57%—a clear majority—but failed to clear Florida’s 60% constitutional threshold.
For GOP strategists, Florida is the counterexample to fatalism. Threshold rules matter. Early counter-messaging matters. And disciplined coalition-building can still stop a heavily financed initiative—especially where victory requires more than a bare majority.
Ballot measures are the visible fights. Turnout infrastructure is the durable one.
The standout line item is America Votes, described as the coordination hub for progressive turnout operations.
Restoration News defines the scope of this investment:
“Arguably the single largest organized effort to register and turn out Democrat voting blocs in swing states nationwide.” — Hayden Ludwig, Restoration News
The network reportedly poured $40.5 million into America Votes and its education fund, and Sixteen Thirty alone accounted for $27.85 million in direct grants.
This is not “late TV.” It’s year-round capacity: voter registration systems, mobilization programs, partner networks, and operational coordination across swing states. The point is to make turnout a machine, not a campaign-season scramble.
Additional large grants underscore the same goal. The network reportedly sent $19 million to the Clean Slate Initiative (focused on record expungement efforts tied to eligibility restoration) and $16 million to the Institute for Responsive Government, an Arabella-incubated group tied to automatic voter registration advocacy.
Turnout Infrastructure Investment by Arabella Network, Created by Campaign Now with Gemini | Source: Sixteen Thirty Fund Form 990, Restoration News
Even if conservatives disagree with the agenda, the strategic design is clear: expand the electorate, lower friction to participate, and mobilize the most reliable progressive-aligned blocs at scale.
A core feature of the Arabella model is the “pop-up” strategy. These projects present as independent grassroots groups, but legally operate as trade names or sponsored initiatives under Arabella-managed nonprofits.
How money flows through the network, Created by Campaign Now with Gemini (key figures from cited sources).
“We call them 'pop-up' groups for a reason: They’re little more than websites designed to look like fully independent, grassroots advocacy groups; yet they can be unplugged the minute a campaign wraps up.”
This is what makes the model so difficult to contest in real time: donors don’t have to build a new organization from scratch for every fight. They can spin one up, fund it quickly, and move on—while outside observers struggle to track who is financing what until disclosures land later.
The network did not limit itself to ballot issues and turnout. It also funded legal activism and political hardball designed to shape the terrain of elections.
In Wisconsin, the network funded Law Forward ($200,000), described as part of a broader push to “paint Wisconsin bright blue”—including litigation connected to maps, election rules, and ballot drop boxes.
In Colorado, an Arabella-backed PAC reportedly spent $475,000 boosting a MAGA-aligned candidate in a Republican primary under the theory that he would be easier to beat in the general election.
Restoration News details the specific mechanic:
“In 2024, the PAC blew $475,000 supporting MAGA 'election denier' Ron Hanks in the Republican primary... believing him easier to beat... it's a strategy Democrats have used to devastating effect—meddling in GOP primaries...” — Hayden Ludwig, Restoration News
Not every effort worked. In Ohio, Sixteen Thirty reportedly contributed $6 million to Citizens Not Politicians to push a redistricting commission. Despite the spend, the measure was defeated.
The lesson isn’t that every check cashes into a win. It’s that this network finances a wide portfolio of power plays—some fail, but the winners can reshape policy or rules for multiple cycles.
One of the most controversial components of the Arabella ecosystem is the ballot-measure loophole involving foreign nationals. Federal law bars foreign donors from funding candidates, but many states do not explicitly prohibit foreign money in ballot issue campaigns.
Americans for Public Trust reports that Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has contributed at least $280 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund over time. APT also reports that since 2014, Sixteen Thirty has spent $130 million on ballot issue campaigns across 26 states.
The practical concern for conservatives is straightforward: the ballot-measure channel can become a legal pipeline for foreign-influenced funding to shape state policy—even if those same donors are prohibited from directly funding candidates.
Arabella’s 2024 activity shows how well-funded outside networks can drive results through ballot measures, especially when issues are separated from party branding and backed with overwhelming spending. For campaigns, that means ballot fights have to be treated like top-tier races—planned early, resourced seriously, and run with disciplined messaging and ground execution.
The filings also reinforce that the real advantage isn’t a late-cycle ad blitz, but durable infrastructure that operates year-round. Large investments in turnout coordination, registration pathways, and allied partner networks can compound across cycles and shape the electorate over time.
Finally, the network’s pop-up and pass-through structure makes the ecosystem harder to track in real time, which is part of the strategic edge. Countering it requires faster monitoring, earlier funding decisions, and sustained parallel capacity built for long-term competition—not just election-weekend sprints.