Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

High court rules against a donor's secrecy, maybe boosting disclosure

FEC commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Ellen Weintraub, a member of the Federal Election Commission, says she plans to reveal the name of a secret donor to a GOP super PAC.

Paul Morigi/Getty Images

In what is being hailed as a victory for campaign finance transparency, the Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to keep secret the name of a donor who gave $1.7 million to a Republican super PAC eight years ago.

The decision holds some potential to make it more difficult for so-called dark money groups to shield the identities of their biggest contributors in this campaign season and beyond. Increasing sunlight on the forces pouring so many millions into American politics is a main goal of democracy reform groups at a time when increased regulation is not a realistic hope.

The high court on Monday let stand an appeals court's ruling that the donor — a trust fund and its trustee identified only as "John Doe" in court filings — has no right to remain anonymous and may be publicly identified by the Federal Election Commission.


Ellen Weintraub, the most assertive regulator on the commission, says she plans to unmask John Doe as soon as the court's decision is processed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She would be acting unilaterally at a time when the FEC has almost entirely ceased operating for lack of a quorum.

The donation was made in 2012, early in the rise of the "dark money" system decried by campaign finance reform advocates. Dark money groups are nonprofits regulated by the IRS, not the FEC, and therefore do not have to disclose their sources of revenue. They are similar to super PACs in that they may spend unlimited amounts on a campaign but are not directly affiliated with the candidate. Super PACs are regulated by the FEC and must disclose their donors.

It is not yet clear how much impact this case will have on increasing campaign finance transparency, because the Republican who funneled the money to the super PAC is going to be exposed only because of a connection to a case at the FEC.

That was a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, maintaining the $1.7 million donation to the Now or Never PAC was illegal because it was listed as coming from someone other than the real donor — the so-far-unidentified trustee.

According to an agreement settling the complaint, on the same day as that donation, money was given by the same secretive donor to a group called the Government Integrity Project. That group in turn donated to the American Conservative Union, which then gave $1.7 million to the Now or Never PAC.

Now or Never PAC, which was terminated in 2018, was created in 2012 to support candidates who favored balancing the federal budget. It made millions of dollars in independent expenditures mosty in support of Republican congressional candidates and against Democratic candidates.

The FEC in Novembrer 2017 signed off on the settlement, which called for the groups to pay $350,000 in fines for the money funneling. Normally that would have triggered public release of all the case documents. But attorneys for the unnamed donor got a court order to redact the name while their attempt to keep it permanently secret moved through the courts. They argued release of the names violated privacy and federal election and public records laws. But the district court and the appeals court rejected all of those arguments.


Read More

​U.S. President Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Eric Lee/Getty Images

Trump’s Elections Speech Was Not the Opening Shot; It was the Latest Salvo

President Donald Trump’s recent address repeating his claim that he won the 2020 election was widely portrayed as a dramatic escalation of his attacks on our election system. It wasn’t.

It is nothing new!

Keep ReadingShow less
  Creative Images Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video Close-up of woman holding a smartphone.

Can secure mobile voting expand election access? Explore how smartphone voting could increase turnout, improve accessibility, and modernize U.S. elections.

Sitthiphong/Getty Images

Mail-In Ballots Are Still Under Attack. Mobile Voting Can Protect Access To The Ballot Box.

Late last year, I became CEO of The Mobile Voting Project. Previously, I served as Chief of Staff to two United States senators, Chief of Staff at the US Department of Education, and Chief of Staff for Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. At every step in my public service career, I have always had one clear goal: making government work better for everyday people.

I believe that we cannot make government work better if we do not start at the very foundation of our government itself: democracy and voting. In my current role with The Mobile Voting Project, we are focused on making voting more seamless, secure, and accessible. We believe that putting democracy — literally — into the palms of every American’s hand is how we can boost turnout, reduce extremism, and strengthen our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Woman voting on election day

Proportional representation is gaining momentum in the U.S. Explore ranked choice voting, open-list systems, constitutional limits, and the future of electoral reform.

Getty Images, Tetra Images

Which Proportional Voting System Best Fits America’s Constraints?

In the wake of recent redistricting battles, proportional representation is having a moment. Ezra Klein devoted an entire episode to touting it as a solution to gerrymandering. A flock of Substackers and influencers chimed in. Even Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg came out as PR curious.

From the hubbub, you might assume that most students of US elections believe that multi-winner districts with proportional representation are the only full solution to the redistricting wars, and you’d be right. But beyond that point of consensus, agreement breaks down. Proponents split into camps over which type of proportional representation to pursue.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people at separate voting booths, filling out a ballot.

Voters cast their ballots in Colorado's primary election at the Central Library on June 30, 2026 in Denver, Colorado. Voters are deciding on candidates for Colorado Governor, US Senate and other races.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Closed Primaries Let 7% of Voters Choose 87% of Congress

Consider this wacky football scenario: What if only fans who declared their team loyalty before the game are allowed to watch the Super Bowl? Yep, unless you pick a team, you can’t get into the stadium. This is similar to how closed primary elections work, in which only registered voters of a specific political party can participate in that party's primary. That’s the brilliant analogy the Unite America Institute uses in a new, short explainer video describing the highly undemocratic system that dominates American primary elections.

“In most elections, the real contest is not the general election but the party primary held months before,” said Beth Hladick, Policy Director at Unite America. The new video is part of a year-long fellowship project: the Democracy and Public Service Initiative, a partnership between the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bridge Alliance.

Keep ReadingShow less