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

Americans Vote In The 2024 Presidential Election

Voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2024 in Jefferson, New Hampshire.

John Tully/Getty Images

Non-Popular Vote Presidents: Conservatives’ Pathways for Abandoning Fiscal Responsibility

In political science and macroeconomic analysis, conservative administrations that win governance through the Electoral College without securing the national popular vote (historically exemplified by administrations like George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) navigate specific structural, ideological, and strategic pathways that often lead to the abandonment of traditional fiscal restraint.

Supply-Side Supremacy and "Starve the Beast"

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas City, Galveston County, industrial skyline.

Texas City, Galveston County, industrial skyline. While still battling legal challenges over a map in 2021 that voting rights advocates said diluted the voting power of Black and Latino voters, Galveston County has now redrawn its precinct lines again, just months before the 2026 general election.

Getty Images

What We Know About Galveston County’s Redistricting and What It Means for Voters

Galveston County’s decision to redraw local precinct lines this year between the primary and general elections means some voters could cast general election ballots in contests where they had no say in the primary, unless the courts intervene.

Election experts say they’re not aware of any prior instance where this has happened. Galveston County’s latest round of changes is adding new complications to a long-running lawsuit over the maps the county had adopted in 2021, and voting rights advocates say the new maps could further dilute Black and Latino voting power in the county.

Keep ReadingShow less
Montanans Urged To Defend Voter Integrity in November Elections

The Trump administration’s Justice Department has filed 30 lawsuits against states refusing to hand over voter rolls, which include personal information including Social Security and driver’s license numbers.

Adobe Stock

Montanans Urged To Defend Voter Integrity in November Elections

Democracy watchdogs warned President Donald Trump is setting the stage to tap emergency powers to ensure Republicans do not lose control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Since January, the Trump administration has used federal law enforcement to raid election facilities to seize ballots and voting machines in places like Georgia and Puerto Rico. Trump continues to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in Montana and across the nation.

Keep ReadingShow less
GOP Claims of Voter Disenfranchisement Are a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Repeated claims of voter fraud have eroded Republican trust in mail-in voting. Explore how GOP rhetoric surrounding mail ballots risks depressing conservative turnout ahead of the 2026 midterms.

ArtMarie/Getty Images

GOP Claims of Voter Disenfranchisement Are a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Trump’s efforts to sow seeds of doubt in the election process have had an unintended yet predictable effect on the 2026 midterms: many Republican voters no longer trust mail-in voting.

When City Councilmember Nithya Raman surged from behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary as late mail-in ballots were counted, some members of the GOP pointed to a broken election system. In reality, they were watching California elections function exactly as designed — slow, scrupulous, but secure.

Keep ReadingShow less