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

Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

An in-depth interview with Elizabeth Rasmussen of Better Boundaries on Utah’s redistricting battle, Proposition 4, and the fight to protect ballot initiatives, fair maps, and democratic accountability.

The Fahey Q&A with Elizabeth Rasmussen

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Elizabeth Rasmussen is the Executive Director for Better Boundaries, a Utah-based organization fighting for fair maps, defending the citizen initiative process, preserving checks and balances, and building a better future. Currently making headlines in the state, Better Boundaries is working to protect Proposition 4, and with it, the rights of Utah voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
A sign that reads, "Voter Registration," hanging from the cieling, pointing to an office with the words, "Voter registration," above its doorway.

The voter registration office at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi, Texas on Sept. 11, 2024. Voting rights groups are challenging the state's use of a federal database to check the citizenship status of people on the state's voter roll.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Voting Rights Groups Challenge Texas’ Removal of Potential Noncitizens From the Voter Roll

What happened?

Voting rights groups are suing the Texas Secretary of State’s Office and some county election officials to prevent the removal of voters from the state’s voter roll based on use of a federal database to verify citizenship. They also claim the state failed to crosscheck its own records for proof of citizenship it already possessed before seeking to remove voters.

Keep ReadingShow less
People at voting booths, casing their votes in front of a mural depicting the American flag, a bald eagle flying, and children holding hands in the foreground.

Virginia voters cast their ballots at Robius Elementary School November 4, 2025 in Midlothian, Virginia.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Fixing Broken Systems: America’s Path Beyond Polarization

"A bad system will beat a good person every time" is a famous quote by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician most often credited with the Japanese economic miracle after WWII. Even talented, hardworking people cannot overcome a flawed, dysfunctional, or unfair system, making system improvement more crucial than solely blaming individuals for failures.

Fixing “bad systems” is viewed by political scientists and reform organizations as the primary path to reducing America’s political dysfunction. Current systemic structures often create "misaligned incentives" that reward extreme partisanship and obstruction rather than governance. The most prominent electoral system reforms proposed by experts include:

Keep ReadingShow less