And just like that, dark money was thrust back into the national spotlight.
Issue One, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group, recently unveiled a database of dark money donors, as well as a report profiling the top 15 dark money groups in federal elections from 2010 through 2016.1 Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court lifted a stay in a case that, per a lower court ruling, required politically active nonprofit organizations—referred to as “dark money” groups—to disclose the identity of donors that gave $200 or more.2
Dark-money activity in congressional and presidential elections often overshadows its omnipresence in state elections. To balance that, the National Institute on Money in Politics reviewed the top 15 dark money groups in the Issue One report, as well as the PACs controlled by these groups,3 and discovered that the majority spent heavily on state campaigns as well. Eleven of the 15 groups contributed $38.9 million to state campaigns during the 2009-2016 period, while nine of the groups spent $18.3 million independently in 27 states from 2011-2016.4
Figure 1: Dark Money Organizations' Political Spending on State Elections, 2009-2016
These dark money groups notably increased their direct contributions to candidates during the 2009-2016 period. Their contributions in the midterm elections doubled from $1.5 million in 2009 and 2010 to $3 million in 2013 and 2014. In presidential election cycles, contributions to candidates more than doubled from almost $420,000 in 2011 and 2012 to just over $876,000 in 2015 and 2016.
Independent expenditures in state elections are also on the rise. Five of the dark money groups spent $6.5 million independently on state elections in 25 states in 2015 and 2016, a 117 percent increase from the total given during 2011 and 2012. Six groups spent $8.9 million independently in 22 states in the 2013 and 2014 midterm elections.
Direct Contributions
Eleven of the 15 dark money groups gave $38.9 million in direct contributions: 83 percent ($32.3 million) to ballot measure committees; 15 percent ($5.8 million) supported state candidates; and just 2 percent ($823,225) filled the coffers of political parties.
Figure 2: Dark Money Organizations' Direct Contributions to State Campaigns, 2009-2016
The National Rifle Association (NRA) led the dark giving with $10.4 million, more than a quarter of the direct contribution total from all 15 dark money groups. A large majority was spent fighting two background check measures in 2016: Question 1 in Nevada passed despite $6.6 million spent in opposition by the NRA; and Question 3 in Maine was rejected with the help of $1.1 million from the NRA. The NRA also gave $1.5 million to state candidates—the second-largest total among the dark money groups—more than two-thirds of which helped Republicans win. Finally, the NRA was also the top donor to state parties, giving $315,683 during the eight-year span.
Three other dark money spenders prioritized contributions to ballot measure campaigns:
- The National Association of Realtors gave $7.6 million, three-quarters of which supported committees that helped pass Oregon’s Measure 79 in 2012 and Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 3 in 2010, both measures to curb real estate transfer taxes.
- The League of Conservation Voters donated $6.4 million, including $5 million to committees that failed to pass Proposal 12-3, a 2012 Michigan initiative to establish a renewable energy target for electric utilities.
- American Future Fund contributed $4.1 million in support of Proposition 32, a 2012 California measure to restrict payroll deductions by labor unions for political contributions. The measure failed.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) gave $2.3 million to Democrats running for office—nary a dime supported Republicans—making it the top dark money donor to state candidates from 2009 through 2016. The leading recipient was Terry McAuliffe, the winner of Virginia’s 2013 gubernatorial race, who collected $1.7 million in PPFA money. Another $453,423 went to other Virginia Democrats, while the rest was scattered to candidates in more than a dozen other states. In all, just 5 percent of PPFA’s contribution total went to candidates who lost.
Independent Spending
Nine of the 15 groups independently spent $18.3 million in 27 states from 2011 through 2016: 64 percent ($11.7 million) targeted gubernatorial candidates; 24 percent ($4.3 million) was invested in state legislative races; 8 percent ($1.5 million) targeted other statewide candidates, including high court candidates; and 8 percent ($1.4 million) was spent in ballot measure campaigns. An additional $1.4 million in other independent spending was reported to state agencies.5
Figure 3: Dark Money Organizations' Independent Spending in State Elections in 27 States, 2011-2016
Once again, the NRA led the way. The gun-rights giant spent $8 million independently, including $5.8 million supporting candidates who won, and $687,622 opposing candidates who lost. The vast majority of it was spent on gubernatorial races.
-
The NRA boosted Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, twice reelected during this period, with $2.7 million in support of his candidacy and $646,486 opposing Tom Barrett, Walker’s Democratic opponent.
-
In Colorado, the NRA spent nearly $1 million on the 2014 governor’s race - $654,360 opposing incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper, who won, and $272,530 in support of Republican Bob Beauprez.
The National Association of Realtors spent $3.5 million independently, including $2.3 million that targeted state legislative candidates, which is more than any of the other dark money organizations spent on legislative contests. Virtually all of that money supported candidates.6
Republicans benefited from $1.7 million in spending, 70 percent of which went to the winner. Democrats, meanwhile, were bolstered by $653,941 of independent spending, 72 percent of which supported the winner.
PPFA spent $2.7 million independently—the third-largest total among the dark money groups—in five states, of which 45 percent targeted candidates in two races: in North Carolina’s 2016 gubernatorial race, PPFA spent $557,574 supporting Democrat Roy Cooper and $432,309 opposing incumbent Republican Pat McCrory, who ultimately lost to Cooper; and Michigan Democrat Mark Schauer lost his 2014 gubernatorial bid despite PPFA spending $243,618 in support of his candidacy. All told, about two-thirds of the money PPFA spent independently targeted races in which its preferred candidate won ($1.8 million).
Regional, State, and Local Chambers of Commerce
While Issue One discovered the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent “about $1 of every $6 spent on political ads by dark money groups between 2010 and 2016,”7 the group did not spend independently on state elections during this time, and gave just $1.2 million in direct contributions. However, the regional, state, and local chambers of commerce mostly picked up the tab. And while direct contributions from these groups have waned in recent years, their independent spending is rising precipitously.
Chambers of commerce directly contributed $70.1 million from 2009 through 2016: 52 percent ($36.7 million) went to ballot measure committees; 34 percent ($24.6 million) went to state candidates; and 13 percent ($8.9 million) supported state political parties.
Figure 4: Chambers of Commerce Direct Contributions to State Campaigns, 2009-2016
These business associations were most generous in the initial two election cycles covered in this analysis. State candidates collected $13.1 million from 2009 through 2012, and $11.5 from 2013 through 2016—a 13 percent drop. Ballot measure committees got $11.1 million from 2013 through 2016, a 56.6 percent decline from the $25.6 million handed out from 2009 through 2012. There was, however, a noticeable uptick in party contributions: $3.6 million was donated in the initial two election cycles, compared to $5.3 million in the latter two cycles.
Chambers of commerce spending independent of the campaigns is trending upward in a big way: 11 groups spent $3.6 million independently in seven states in 2012; followed by $4.4 million from 12 spenders in nine states in 2014; and in 2016, independent spending shot up to $8.6 million, courtesy of 13 spenders in 10 states.
Figure 5: Chambers of Commerce Independent Spending in State Elections in 12 States, 2011-2016
From 2011 through 2016, chambers of commerce spent $12.5 million independently on state legislative races in 12 of the 28 states where independent spending data was collected, the ninth-largest total among all business classifications. Spending on state legislative elections accounted for almost three-quarters of the total spent independently by chambers of commerce. It started with $2.4 million in 2011 and 2012, and reached $6.5 million in 2015 and 2016 -- a 172 percent increase.
Conclusion
Across the country, candidates and voters alike are realizing the tentacles of dark money stretch far beyond levers of power in Washington, D.C. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, fresh off an investigation into his own political nonprofit,8 faced more criticism for headlining a fundraiser for a dark money group in late 2017.9 More than 90 percent of voters in Tempe, Arizona passed a 2018 measure to uncover anonymous spenders in local elections.10 Wyoming legislators drafted legislation to address politically active nonprofits after this year’s dark-money-rich gubernatorial primary.11
There will be no shortage of stories about the money spent by these dark money groups in the current 2017 and 2018 election cycle. To date this election cycle, Institute data shows these groups have contributed $3.6 million around ballot measure campaigns, more than $600,000 to candidate campaigns, and more than $50,000 to political parties. After independent spending reports are collected, the Institute is likely to uncover even more money spent by these dark money groups on state campaigns. Observers should not hesitate to look at down-ballot races when investigating dark money spending.
- 1. Beckle, Michael, “Dark Money Illuminated,” Issue One, September 12, 2018, available from https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Dark-Money-Illuminated-Report.pdf, accessed September 17, 2018.
- 2. Levinthal, Dave and Sarah Kleiner, “‘Dark money’ in politics is about to get lighter,” The Center for Public Integrity, September 18, 2018, available from https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/09/18/22264/dark-money-about-get-lighter, accessed September 19, 2018.
- 3. This report covers both dark money groups and PACs associated with those groups. The latter may not qualify as “dark money,” as many states require those PACs report contributions and identify donors. This is especially true in states where direct corporate contributions are prohibited. For more information, please review the Campaign Finance Institute’s Laws Database.
- 4. The Institute does not collect independent spending data in 20 states that have poor independent spending disclosure. Furthermore, the Institute did not start collecting independent spending data in many states until the 2011-2012 election cycle. Therefore, this report limits independent spending analysis to the 28 states in which complete data was collected from 2011 through 2016.
- 5. Some expenditures are reported to the states without identifying a target. Additionally, some spenders report a target other than a state candidate or ballot measure.
- 6. None of the National Association of Realtors’ independent expenditures were reported as opposing a candidate, but $265,686 was reported without a position.
- 7. Beckel, Michael, Issue One.
- 8. Berthelsen, Christian and Henry Goldman, “N.Y. Mayor De Blasio Avoids Corruption Charges, U.S. Says,” Bloomberg, March 17, 2017, available from https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/2017/03/16/u-s-says-no-charges-to-be-filed-against-n-y-mayor-de-blasio#gs.PybJYOQ, accessed September 21, 2018.
- 9. Sanders, Anna, “Fundraiser headlined by de Blasio is shrouded in ‘dark money,’” New York Post, December 2, 2017, available from https://nypost.com/2017/12/02/fundraiser-headlined-by-de-blasio-is-shrouded-in-dark-money/, accessed September 21, 2018.
- 10. Forzan, Antonia Noori, “Update: Tempe Voters Pass Dark Money Ban: Your Move, Arizona Legislature,” Phoenix New Times, March 14, 2018, available from https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/tempe-wants-to-ban-dark-money-legislature-wants-to-un-ban-it-10202523, accessed September 21, 2018.
- 11. Reynolds, Nick, “After a primary full of dark money, Wyoming lawmakers weigh new campaign finance rules,” Casper Star Tribune, September 20, 2018, available from https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/after-a-primary-full-of-dark-money-wyoming-lawmakers-weigh/article_3a7dce51-f4e0-58c9-9f27-1ed36fc29cf5.html, accessed September 21, 2018.
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!