Four leading super PACs aligned with Democrats and Republicans raised $197.7 million from secret donors through affiliated dark money groups between January 2025 and June 2026, according to an analysis of campaign finance filings released this week. The Republican-aligned Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, along with the Democratic Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, have now collected $714.6 million combined in that period, with dark money accounting for more than $1 of every $4 they raised.
Dark money — spending from nonprofits and shell companies that don’t disclose their donors — has become central to midterm strategy. The Republican-aligned groups have benefited more heavily from secret contributions, accounting for 58 percent of total receipts and 58 percent of the money raised from dark money groups, while Democratic-aligned groups account for 42 percent each, according to the Issue One analysis. This disparity reflects a broader pattern: while both parties use dark money, Republicans have leaned more heavily on anonymous funding.
The surge in secret campaign spending traces directly to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections. The decision struck down prohibitions on independent spending by corporations and unions, and lower courts extended the ruling to invalidate fundraising and spending restrictions for groups that operate separately from candidates — the entities now known as super PACs.
Before Citizens United, dark money spending was minimal. In 2006, less than $5 million flowed through undisclosed sources in federal elections. By the 2024 election cycle, that figure topped $1 billion, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The gap between disclosure and reality has widened because super PACs are required to report their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups whose original sources remain hidden. Legal loopholes also allow many of these groups to conceal spending on certain types of campaign advertising, including most online ads.
The mechanism of dark money operates through a deliberate structure. When a dark money nonprofit donates to a super PAC, the super PAC must disclose receiving the money but not the nonprofit’s original donors. The nonprofit itself may have received funds from individuals, corporations, or foreign entities, but it is not required to reveal those sources when it passes money to the political committee. This creates what transparency advocates call a “shell game” — money moves through multiple layers, and voters never learn who ultimately bankrolled the political ads targeting them.
The stakes for voters are significant. When donors can hide their identities, accountability breaks down. Voters cannot evaluate which ultra-wealthy megadonors or special interests are trying to buy access and influence through large political contributions. The Brennan Center notes that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United majority assumed transparency rules would force full disclosure and allow voters to evaluate the messages targeting them — but that assumption has proven incorrect. Dark money groups have exploited legal loopholes to keep their funding sources secret.
Reformers have proposed several approaches to combat the influence of dark money. Some states and localities have enacted ballot measures requiring disclosure of the true sources of funds behind political ads. Arizona voters approved a measure requiring political advertisers to identify their top three donors in ad disclaimers. Alaska voters passed a requirement that political advertisers disclose if they receive the majority of their funds from out-of-state donors. At the federal level, members of Congress from both parties have introduced legislation to require stronger disclosure, though such bills have faced resistance.
The long-term fix, according to campaign finance experts, would require either a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United or a Supreme Court decision to reverse the 2010 ruling — a prospect that appears unlikely in the near term. In the meantime, the 2026 midterms are shaping up as another election where voters will cast ballots with incomplete information about who is funding the campaigns they see.
Sources
- Issue One — Analysis of campaign finance filings showing four super PACs raised $197.7 million from dark money groups and $714.6 million combined between January 2025 and June 2026, with Republican groups accounting for 58 percent of receipts and dark money
- Brennan Center for Justice — History of Citizens United ruling, explanation of super PACs and dark money, data on dark money growth from $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in 2024 elections, and discussion of disclosure loopholes
