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

The American Experiment at the Brink Due To  Minority Rule

Can America overcome minority rule? Examining the Electoral College, NPVIC, campaign finance, and democratic reform in the 21st century.

adamkaz / Getty Images

The American Experiment at the Brink Due To Minority Rule

The challenge for continuing the American Experiment is recovering from the "Second Gilded Age" (1980s to the present). As of early 2026, the U.S. national debt is 122% to 125% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This situation has been exacerbated since 2000, when the U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP was 33% to 35%. Americans can attribute this worsening situation to two non-popular vote presidents, Bush-43 and Trump-45. Directly, during their terms, and indirectly, with the aftermath of the 2008 Great recession and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 1894, toward the end of the 19th century “Gilded Age," the U.S. national debt was approximately 7% of gross domestic product GDP.

Minority rule occurs when a numerical or ideological minority holds the power to consistently thwart the will of the majority or govern over them. It thrives through the coordinated reinforcement of specific electoral, institutional, and legal mechanisms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Full frame shot of pins that say “vote” with red, white, and blue American flag theme.

An analysis of Project 2025, the Electoral College, and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, examining democracy, representation, and presidential elections.

Adrienne Bresnahan / Getty Images

Spirit of 1776 – Rejected by Project 2025, Embraced by NPVIC

Project 2025 is a structural undoing of the "Spirit of 1776." It fundamentally undermines the foundational principles of the Declaration of Independence in the following areas: democratic representation, equality, liberty, and checks/balances. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) restores the founding ideals of civic equality.

Spirit of 1776 – Rejected by Project 2025, Embraced by NPVIC

Keep ReadingShow less
California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

California voters increasingly distrust both major parties. Here's why the state's Top Two primary gives independent voters more power to shape elections.

Image: Duncan Shelby on Alamy.

California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

SAN DIEGO, Calif. - California voters have already received ballots for the June 2 primary, and the message they have going into these elections may not be what the political class wants to hear: They are not thrilled with either major party.

A recent analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that majorities of likely voters have unfavorable views of both parties—61% unfavorable toward the Democratic Party and 70% unfavorable toward the Republican Party.

Keep ReadingShow less
How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Mitchell Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris, and other guests at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

Yoichi Okamoto - Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum

How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

In 2002, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, nearly lost his South Texas seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar. So when the GOP used its newfound majority in the state Legislature to redraw the voting maps the next year, they sawed through Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo and scattered Latino voters, who tended to vote Democratic, into other districts.

Latino advocacy groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone provision of the law that prevents government bodies from diluting the voting power of specific groups. The Supreme Court found Texas lawmakers had taken away Latino voting power “because they were about to exercise it.”

Keep ReadingShow less