Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
Good morning, Roca Nation. Here are today’s four need-to-know stories:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its September jobs report (free)
Trump called for the arrest of six Democratic lawmakers after they released a video reminding military personnel that they can refuse illegal orders
The Trump Administration is drafting an executive order to sue states that regulate AI (free)
Investigators found signs of metal fatigue and stress fractures in the engine mount of the UPS cargo plane that crashed earlier this month (free)
This is part 3 of a three-part series on how the Citizens United decision led to the rise of Super PACs and “dark money.” If you missed part 1 (free for all readers) or part 2, read them at those links.
By Max Frost
Citizens United opened up the world of Super PACs. And Super PACs opened up the world of “Dark Money.”
Consider this: Pre-2010, if you wanted to donate to a political campaign, you could give only a few thousand dollars directly to a candidate or party, through a regulated channel, and your name would appear on an FEC disclosure list for anyone to see.
After Citizens United (and the follow-up SpeechNow.org decision), those walls came down: You could spend or contribute unlimited sums to independent groups that supported your candidate – as long as you didn’t “coordinate” directly with the campaign. And if you routed that money through a nonprofit “social-welfare” group or trade association, your identity could remain hidden.
That shift created the architecture for what we now call dark money: Billions of dollars flowing into elections from sources the public can’t trace, funneled through layers of nonprofits and Super PACs. What had once been a transparent, capped system of contributions became a vast, opaque network of political influence.
In today’s deep-dive, we look at who has used this system, which party has benefited from it more, and whether it can be linked to a change in American politics and lawmaking.
This full report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
What are your thoughts on this system? Should it be allowed or not? Should nonprofits be forced to disclose their donors, or would that chill free speech? It’s worth noting that while it’s now liberal groups that are often worried about such legislation, until recently, it was conservative groups. Times are always changing.
Anyways, if you have thoughts, let us know here.
And in case you missed them, find parts 1 and 2 of this series, along with our other most recent stories, below:
Thanks for reading. See you tomorrow.
—Max and Max
