Why ‘Dark Money’ Dems Want The Names Of Conservative Donors

In recent years, the activist left has built a network of left-leaning nonprofits to help tilt elections and ballot initiatives in favor of realizing far-left policy outcomes on abortion, gender identity, and DEI, among others. Politico highlighted the Arabella network’s role in the 2018 midterms, describing “an unprecedented gusher of secret money” that was “fueled by massive anonymous donations.” The New York Times noted how, in 2020, left-of-center nonprofits outspent “groups aligned with Republicans” $514 million to $200 million.

This surge in spending has brought scrutiny from Republicans in Congress and in the states, particularly around the role of foreign donors to candidate and ballot issue campaigns. Conservative media now features a steady drumbeat of coverage about “dark money” supporting various left-of-center causes. On Capitol Hill, Republicans hosted a hearing that highlighted the left’s growing nonprofit activities and the apparent hypocrisy of Democrats who spent much of the previous decade condemning conservative organizations and donors as “dark money.”

All of this raises a question: If “dark money” is so beneficial to Democrats, why do the party’s leaders consistently push for new and expansive donor disclosure laws?

The answer may be simple: Even when the left outspends the right, the value of silencing conservatives far exceeds the value of spending by left-leaning nonprofits.

Eric Kessler, the founder of Arabella Advisors, which serves as the head of the left’s sprawling nonprofit network, recently pledged his support to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s plan to “end the scourge of dark money.”

“I support the DISCLOSE Act, which would go a long way, even as a first step toward overturning the mistake in American politics, which is the conservative-led Citizens United decision. I’m in favor of campaign finance reform for all — evenly across the board — and I think that we should have a new playbook and a new set of rules for everybody,” Kessler told The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Kessler’s interest in rewriting the rules is notable given Arabella’s seeming mastery of the current landscape. Why change now?

Note that Kessler’s support for the DISCLOSE Act is premised on “overturning” Citizens United — the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that said corporations, nonprofits, and unions have a First Amendment right to independently voice their support or opposition to candidates for federal office. The DISCLOSE Act, meanwhile, is congressional legislation that would force both left-of-center and conservative advocacy groups like the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, NRA, and Moms for Liberty America to publicly disclose their donors.

By establishing nonprofit donor databases, the DISCLOSE Act would open the door for Democrats to potentially create target lists of conservative donors and businesses to harass and bully into silence. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer infamously put it years ago, the “deterrent effect” of disclosure “should not be underestimated.”

Many organizations will likely choose to stay silent about the left’s radical agenda rather than allow their members and supporters to be victimized by corrupt government agencies and activists. That’s what makes the DISCLOSE Act a reasonable approximation of “overturning” Citizens United. It’s not about transparency; it’s about censorship.

Such a goal is attractive to the Democratic establishment. When they consider the partisan implications of exposing nonprofit donor lists, it is not a simple calculation of which side spends more money. Rather, it’s a calculation of which side stands to gain or lose when a list of everyone’s donors falls into the public domain. Undoubtedly, conservative nonprofits will be most at risk if their donors are placed on a government database. The left has a sprawling infrastructure of activists posing as media and nonpartisan “experts,” like ProPublica and the Center for Media and Democracy, which are devoted entirely to whipping up outrage against supporters of conservative advocacy groups.

If exposing the money behind Arabella-aligned organizations is the price for outing every conservative donor in the country, that’s a trade Democratic operatives would gladly make. Even if some left-leaning donors are exposed, leftist ideas would still receive enormous platforms in the media, entertainment industry, academia, and government bodies. Conservatives, despite being outspent by the left in recent election cycles, are uniquely dependent on their donors and nonprofits to support their intellectuals and promote their ideas; disclosure mandates would be akin to declaring open season on these conservative institutions.

Recent media coverage hyping Arabella and the role of “dark money” on the left may cause some readers to be surprised by Kessler’s full-throated endorsement of the DISCLOSE Act. For longtime observers, however, it only confirmed the obvious. While everyday Americans benefit from a strong First Amendment and personal privacy rights, those at the upper echelons of power in the left’s political ecosystem would prefer to surveil and chill the speech of their conservative critics.

Brian Hawkins is the senior director of external affairs at People United for Privacy Foundation.