Dark Money in Depth: What It Is, When It Is Illegal or Unethical, and How to Track It

This lesson builds on four others. Lesson 1, The Money Map, names every kind of player. Lesson 5 covers independent expenditures and electioneering communications in Idaho. Lesson 8 covers what each kind of nonprofit may do. Lesson 13 answers who may give to whom. Here the subject is the money that arrives with a name on it that is not the name of the person who paid. As with the rest of this course, this is general education about the law, not legal advice. For official answers, the Secretary of State's elections division, the FEC and the IRS are the offices to contact.

What "dark money" means, and who means what by it

Start with what the law calls things. Federal election law speaks of contributions, expenditures, independent expenditures, electioneering communications and political committees. Tax law speaks of 501(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations, 527 political organizations and "exempt function" spending. Idaho's Sunshine Law speaks of political committees, independent expenditures, electioneering communications and nonbusiness entities (Idaho Code 67-6602). None of those bodies of law defines "dark money." It is a word from journalism and research, and it has spread to court opinions and agency speeches as shorthand.

Researchers who track it give it a working definition. The Brennan Center's May 2025 report counts spending and contributions by nonprofits and shell companies that are not legally required to disclose their donors and do not. Its 2016 piece "How Semi-Secret Spending Took Over Politics" separates two kinds of hidden money: dark money, from groups that conceal their funders, and gray money, which it describes as "spending by super PACs that disclose other PACs as donors." Gray money is technically disclosed. You just have to read three or four reports to find a human being.

The groups that defend nondisclosure rarely use the phrase at all. They speak of donor privacy, freedom of association and the right to support a cause without being targeted for it. Those arguments have real legal weight. The plaintiffs in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta won on them in 2021, and the dissent in the Ninth Circuit's 2026 Arizona case made them at length. Supporters of disclosure, from campaign-reform groups to the voters who passed Arizona's Proposition 211 with 72 percent, use "dark money" as an argument in itself: money that hides is presumed to have something to hide.

For a writer or a resident, the useful definition is narrower and more neutral than either side's. Dark money is money whose original source is not on any public report at the point where it reaches the voter. That definition says nothing about whether it is legal, whether its cause is good, or whether its donors have reason to fear exposure. It describes a gap. The rest of this lesson is about how big the gap is in a given case, whether anyone broke a law to create it, and how to close as much of it as the records allow.

The vehicles

Hidden money uses a small set of containers. Each is lawful on its own. The opacity comes from stacking them.

Vehicle	What it is	Why the trail stops there	What does get disclosed
501(c)(4) social welfare group	Nonprofit that may do some candidate work if it is not its primary activity (26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1)	Since T.D. 9898 (May 28, 2020), it reports donor amounts but not names on Schedule B	Form 990 totals, grants over $5,000 on Schedule I, political spending on Schedule C; FEC reports of its own independent expenditures; Idaho 67-6606 lists if it spends here
501(c)(6) trade association or chamber	Business league that may do some political work	Same Schedule B rule; dues payers are not public	Same as above, plus notices to members about the nondeductible share of dues
501(c)(5) labor union	Labor organization	Members' dues are not itemized publicly at the IRS	Form 990; U.S. Department of Labor reports; same campaign reports as others
LLC	A company formed under state law, often in minutes, with no public list of owners in many states	Delaware, Wyoming and many other states do not require owners' names in formation papers	The LLC's name on the recipient's report; a registered agent; in Idaho, at least one governor
Super PAC	Federal independent-expenditure-only committee after SpeechNow	It discloses donors, but a donor can be a (c)(4) or an LLC	Every donor over $200 on Schedule A; spending on Schedule E
527 chain	Political organizations giving to each other	Each one reports the last one as its donor	Form 8872 lists contributors of $200 or more (26 U.S.C. 527(j)), unless the group reports to the FEC or a state instead
Conduit or straw donor	A person or company that gives money that is really someone else's	The report shows the straw's name	Nothing true, which is why it is illegal
Shell company	An entity with no business beyond holding or moving money	Same as an LLC	Same as an LLC

Notice the last two rows. A conduit that reports its original sources, as the earmarking rules require, is legal; online platforms that forward gifts to candidates do it every day. A conduit that hides them is a crime. The vehicle does not decide legality. What it hides, and whether a law required it to show that, decides it.

The legal framework: the cases that built the system

Every disclosure rule in this lesson has survived, or been shaped by, a court challenge. The holdings are worth knowing in their own words, because both sides quote them.

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958): the right not to be listed

Alabama sued to oust the NAACP from the state and a court ordered it to hand over its Alabama membership lists. It refused, was held in contempt and fined $100,000. The NAACP showed, without contradiction, that past disclosure of members had brought "economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion" and other public hostility. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed on June 30, 1958. It held that compelled disclosure would likely deter people from joining, that Alabama's stated interest (whether the group was doing business in the state) had no substantial bearing on the names, and that "inviolability of privacy in group association" may be essential to freedom of association, especially for groups with dissident beliefs.

This is the foundation for every as-applied exemption from disclosure. It is also why supporters of anonymity reject the idea that only wrongdoers want privacy. The members in that case were doing nothing wrong. The danger came from the people who would read the list.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976): disclosure as the least burdensome tool

Buckley struck down caps on independent spending and upheld contribution limits. On disclosure it did three things that still govern.

• It named the interests. Disclosure gives voters information "as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent," it deters corruption "by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity," and recordkeeping is "an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of the contribution limitations." The opinion quotes the line about sunlight being the best of disinfectants.
• It set the test. Compelled disclosure gets exacting scrutiny and needs a "relevant correlation" between the interest and the information demanded. A minor party may win an exemption by showing a "reasonable probability" that disclosure will bring "threats, harassment, or reprisals," the NAACP showing applied to elections.
• It narrowed the reach. To avoid vagueness, the Court read the disclosure rule for groups other than committees to cover only earmarked contributions and spending on communications that expressly advocate a candidate's election or defeat. And it said "political committee" need only cover groups controlled by a candidate or "the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate." That phrase became the major purpose test, and the opening most dark money uses: a group whose major purpose is something else is not a committee, and does not report donors as one.

Ten years later, in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (December 15, 1986), the Court let an ideological nonprofit with no shareholders and no business money make independent expenditures, and warned that if such a group's independent spending became so extensive that its major purpose could be seen as campaign activity, "the corporation would be classified as a political committee."

McConnell v. FEC (2003): the electioneering communication

Campaigns adapted to Buckley's express advocacy line with ads that praised or attacked a candidate and never said "vote." Congress answered with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which created the electioneering communication: a broadcast, cable or satellite ad that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general and can reach 50,000 people in the candidate's district or state. In McConnell (December 10, 2003), the Court held that the express advocacy line was a matter of statutory interpretation, not a constitutional command, upheld the new definition as clear enough, and upheld the requirement to disclose donors of $1,000 or more on a facial challenge, leaving room for as-applied challenges. It also upheld BCRA's soft money ban on national parties.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): unlimited spending, with disclosure

Citizens United (January 21, 2010) is remembered for striking down the ban on corporate and union independent expenditures, 5 to 4. Its disclosure holding was not close. Part IV, joined by eight justices, upheld BCRA's disclaimer and disclosure rules as applied to the group's film and its ads for the film. The Court said disclosure provides "the electorate with information," that disclaimer and disclosure rules "impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities," and that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to broader regulation of speech. It repeated the McConnell as-applied exemption and found the group had offered no evidence that its donors faced threats. The single dissent on this part argued that anonymity encourages political speech and would have struck the rules down too.

So the case that opened corporate treasuries also endorsed telling voters where corporate money came from. Dark money grew in the space between those two holdings: corporations and nonprofits could spend without limit, and the statutes Congress had written did not require many of them to say who funded them.

SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): the Super PAC

Two months later, on March 26, 2010, the federal appeals court in Washington applied Citizens United to groups that only make independent expenditures. Its reasoning, as summarized on the FEC's case page: "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption," so contribution limits to such groups are unconstitutional. The same court upheld the reporting and organizational rules for them, because the public interest in knowing who funds political speech justifies the burden. That is the Super PAC: unlimited money in, every donor over $200 reported. The donor list is complete. Whether it is informative depends on whether the donors are people or other entities.

Doe v. Reed (2010): disclosure beyond candidates

Washington's public records law made referendum petitions, with signers' names and addresses, public. After more than 137,000 people signed a petition to put a domestic partnership law to a vote, some groups announced plans to post the signers online in searchable form. Signers sued. On June 24, 2010, the Court rejected their facial challenge 8 to 1 under exacting scrutiny, finding the state's interest in the integrity of the electoral process, including catching fraud and invalid signatures, sufficiently important. It left their as-applied harassment claim for the lower court. The case matters here because it confirmed that disclosure reaches ballot measure activity and that the as-applied door stays open for people with evidence.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021): narrow tailoring

California required every registered charity to file its unredacted Schedule B, the IRS list of major donors, with the state Attorney General. About 60,000 charities renew each year. The state's registry had inadvertently posted nearly 2,000 confidential Schedule Bs online. On July 1, 2021, the Court held the requirement facially unconstitutional, 6 to 3. Exacting scrutiny, it said, requires that a disclosure regime be "narrowly tailored to the government's asserted interest," though not necessarily the least restrictive means, and it applies to compelled disclosure whether the association is political, economic, religious or cultural. California had not used Schedule Bs to start investigations and had alternatives such as subpoenas. The dissent argued that plaintiffs should first have to show a concrete burden, such as a reasonable probability of reprisals, and that the ruling could put sound disclosure laws at risk.

Bonta was a charity regulation case, not an election case. But every challenge to an election disclosure law since 2021 has cited it, and every court reviewing one has had to show narrow tailoring. Arizona's Proposition 211 is the clearest test so far, covered below.

CREW v. FEC (2018): the donor rule for independent spenders

Here is the statute that governs donor disclosure for a person or group that is not a political committee but makes federal independent expenditures. Under 52 U.S.C. 30104(c)(1), anyone other than a committee who spends more than $250 in a calendar year on independent expenditures files a statement. Under (c)(2)(C), that statement identifies each person who made a contribution over $200 to the filer "for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure."

For decades the FEC's regulation, 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi), read that phrase as "for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure." In practice, a donor had to give for a specific ad before anyone had to name the donor. Few did, and 501(c)(4) groups making independent expenditures reported few or no donors.

A complaint about that gap led to CREW v. FEC. On August 3, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the regulation as inconsistent with the statute. The Chief Justice briefly stayed the ruling on September 15, 2018; the full Supreme Court lifted the stay on September 18, and the vacatur took effect that day. The FEC lacked the four votes to appeal; an intervenor appealed, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed in 2020 (971 F.3d 340). The regulation now reads "[Reserved]."

The FEC's October 4, 2018 guidance tells non-committee spenders what to do now: on Schedule 5-A, list each person (other than a committee) whose contributions to the filer exceeded $200 in the calendar year, with date and amount, and use memo text to flag those who gave "for the purpose of furthering any independent expenditure." The 24- and 48-hour reports do not need the donor information.

What changed in practice is less than the ruling suggests. In MUR 7516, a complaint alleged that Heritage Action for America, a 501(c)(4), had not identified donors behind independent expenditures it reported in September and October 2018. The FEC's lawyers recommended an investigation. The commission split 3 to 3, then three commissioners voted to dismiss as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, citing unsettled standards after the court rulings, the lack of a new rulemaking and a case backlog. The rule changed. Enforcement of it, at least in that matter, did not happen.

Van Hollen v. FEC (2016): the same phrase, the opposite result

Electioneering communications have their own donor rule. Under 11 CFR 104.20, anyone spending more than $10,000 in a year files Form 9 within a day of each disclosure date and lists donors of $1,000 or more. A spender who uses a segregated account lists that account's donors. A corporation or union that pays from its general funds lists only donors who gave "for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications," now paragraph (c)(10). A district court threw that purpose rule out in 2014. On January 21, 2016, the D.C. Circuit reversed and upheld it as a reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute. So the purpose limit was struck for independent expenditures and upheld for electioneering communications. The difference comes from the statutory text in each provision and the deference courts then gave agencies.

T.D. 9898 (2020): what the IRS stopped collecting

Until 2018, every tax-exempt group filing Form 990 listed its substantial contributors' names and addresses on Schedule B for the IRS, though the public copy for most groups left names out. Rev. Proc. 2018-38 dropped the name requirement for most groups other than charities. A federal court in Montana set that aside in Bullock v. IRS on July 30, 2019, because it skipped notice and comment. The IRS then proposed the same change as a regulation, received 8,387 comments, and finalized it as T.D. 9898, effective May 28, 2020. Now 501(c)(3)s (for gifts of $5,000 or more) and 527s still report names. Everyone else reports amounts only and must keep names in its own records for an audit. The IRS said annual collection "is not necessary for the efficient administration of the internal revenue laws." For a tracer, the practical effect is small, because those names were never public for (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s. For enforcement, the IRS now asks for them only when it examines a group.

NRSC v. FEC (2026): parties, earmarks and disclosure

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6 to 3 in NRSC v. FEC that federal limits on party coordinated expenditures under 52 U.S.C. 30116(d) violate the First Amendment, and it overruled FEC v. Colorado Republican (2001) "to the extent" it retained any vitality. Two parts of the majority's reasoning matter for dark money. It called disclosure a stronger anti-circumvention tool than it was in 2001, quoting the line that "disclosure often represents a less restrictive alternative to flat bans." And it relied on the earmarking rule in 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(8), under which earmarked gifts to a party count as gifts to the candidate, while holding that "a mere expectation or hope does not itself equate to circumvention." The dissent warned that parties could now serve as conduits, describing joint fundraising arrangements that could route more than $550,000 from one donor toward one candidate. In Idaho, the Secretary of State said in Guidance 2026-3 that it will not enforce Idaho's limits on party coordinated spending in the 2026 general election (see lesson 1).

The four words that decide most cases

Term	Federal source	What it means	Why it matters for hidden money
Independent	52 U.S.C. 30101(17); 11 CFR 109.10 (reporting); 109.21 (coordination tests)	Express advocacy not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or party	Independent spending has no limits. Spending that only looks independent is a contribution, with limits and source bans
Coordinated	11 CFR 109.21; Idaho Code 67-6602(9)	A communication paid for by one person and made with a campaign's material involvement, substantial discussion or request	A coordinated ad from a nondisclosing group is an illegal or excessive contribution, and the DOJ has prosecuted it as a crime
Earmarked	52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(8); 11 CFR 110.6	"a designation, instruction, or encumbrance, whether direct or indirect, express or implied, oral or written" that sends money to a candidate	The conduit must report the original donor. If the conduit exercises "direction or control" over the choice, the gift counts against both
For the purpose of furthering	52 U.S.C. 30104(c)(2)(C) and (f); 11 CFR 104.20(c)(10)	The donor's purpose decides whether a non-committee spender must name the donor	Donors who give "for general support" stay off the report. After CREW, independent spenders must list all donors over $200 and flag the ones who gave for independent expenditures

When hidden money is illegal: the patterns and the cases

The following patterns are where courts and agencies have actually drawn the line. Each comes with a case from official records. Organizations are named as the records name them. People are described by role.

1. Contributions in the name of another: straw donors

The rule is one sentence. 52 U.S.C. 30122: "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person," or knowingly let his name be used, and no one may knowingly accept such a gift. The FEC's regulation, 11 CFR 110.4(b), gives two examples: giving money that someone else provided without telling the recipient, and naming someone else as the source of your own gift. It applies to every person, including companies, and to every federal recipient, including Super PACs.

Penalties scale with the money. Under 52 U.S.C. 30109, a civil penalty for a knowing and willful 30122 violation runs from 300 percent of the amount involved up to the greater of $50,000 or 1,000 percent. A knowing and willful violation over $10,000 in a year is a crime, with up to 2 years in prison below $25,000 and up to 5 years at $25,000 or more, plus fines on the same 300 to 1,000 percent scale.

The cases:

• An LLC, a nonprofit and a Super PAC (MUR 6920). A complaint filed in February 2015 alleged money was routed through Government Integrity, LLC and the American Conservative Union to Now or Never PAC. The FEC found probable cause that the American Conservative Union violated 30122 and reason to believe the LLC and the PAC did. In October 2017 it accepted conciliation agreements: $350,000 from the American Conservative Union and $350,000 from the group of the LLC, the PAC and its treasurer, according to the MUR record.
• A defense contractor and a shell LLC (MUR 7690). The FEC found that PacMar Technologies LLC, a federal contractor formerly called Navatek, made a contribution in the name of the Society of Young Women Scientists and Engineers LLC: $150,000 to 1820 PAC, a Super PAC. PacMar paid a $325,000 civil penalty in February 2025, per the MUR record. Federal prosecutors charged the company's former chief executive, who pleaded guilty in 2022 to a scheme in which company money went to relatives who gave in their own names and the shell LLC passed $150,000 to the Super PAC. He was sentenced to 33 months on October 20, 2025, concurrent with a longer fraud sentence, and two other former executives got probation, Honolulu Civil Beat reported.
• Corporate reimbursement schemes. The FEC's chart of civil penalties of $50,000 or more lists dozens: Freddie Mac ($3.8 million, 2006, corporate contributions and conduits), Cancer Treatment Centers of America Global ($288,000), Mepco Holdings, LLC ($54,000), a Wisconsin firefighters' union ($58,000, reimbursing individuals) and a regional carpenters' council ($297,000). Companies and unions of every kind show up.

2. Foreign national money

52 U.S.C. 30121 bars a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, a contribution or donation "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," a gift to a party, or an expenditure, independent expenditure or electioneering communication. It bars anyone from soliciting, accepting or receiving the contributions. Lawful permanent residents are not foreign nationals. Idaho added its own ban in 2021: Idaho Code 67-6610D covers contributions to candidates, committees and measures, plus electioneering communications and independent expenditures, and makes a knowing and willful violation a felony when the total exceeds $1,000 in 12 months or on a second offense within ten years.

• A company and a presidential Super PAC (MUR 7122). American Pacific International Capital, Inc. (APIC), whose principals the FEC found to be foreign nationals, gave $1 million on March 25, 2015 and $300,000 on June 25, 2015 to Right to Rise USA, a Super PAC. In 2019 the company and associated individuals agreed to pay $550,000 and the Super PAC and its treasurer $390,000, per the FEC's conciliation letter. The commission did not find the violations knowing and willful. The Super PAC said it had relied on the company's assurance of eligibility.
• A manufacturer and its LLC subsidiary (MUR 7613). The FEC voted 6 to 0 to find reason to believe that Zekelman Industries and Wheatland Tube, LLC violated 30121(a)(1)(A), and in April 2022 it accepted a conciliation agreement with them by a 5 to 1 vote, per the MUR record; the FEC's penalty chart lists $975,000.
• Foreign money for state licenses. In a federal case in Manhattan, a jury convicted a businessman in October 2021 of campaign finance and false statement charges. Prosecutors showed that a foreign businessman agreed to wire $1 million through a series of accounts to fund contributions to candidates who could help the scheme's participants get cannabis licenses, with the gifts made in the participants' names to conceal the true donor, the U.S. Attorney's office said. He was sentenced to 20 months on June 29, 2022.

3. Failure to register as a political committee

A group that crosses $1,000 in contributions or expenditures and has elections as its major purpose is a political committee and must disclose its donors. When it does not register, its funders stay dark. The FEC explained how it applies the test in a February 2007 statement: case by case, looking at public statements, fundraising appeals, internal plans and budgets, the share of spending aimed at federal races, any state or local spending, and whether the group wound down after the election. It declined to treat every 527 as a committee, partly because that would push activity toward 501(c)(4) groups that disclose less.

The 2004 cycle produced the clearest cases, from both sides of that year's presidential race. On December 13, 2006, the FEC accepted conciliation agreements with three 527 groups for failing to register and report:

• Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, $299,500 (MUR 5511). The FEC's conciliation agreement said about 91 percent of its reported disbursements went to TV and print ads and direct mail attacking a presidential candidate, much of it aimed at battleground states.
• League of Conservation Voters 527 groups, $180,000 (MUR 5753). Budgets and plans showed a focus on the presidential race.
• MoveOn.org Voter Fund, $150,000 (MUR 5754). More than 68 percent of its 2004 spending went to TV ads opposing a federal candidate.

In 2007, Club for Growth, Inc. settled an FEC lawsuit over failure to register and report by consent judgment (MUR 5365); the FEC's penalty chart lists $350,000.

Since then, cases against 501(c)(4) groups have mostly ended in deadlock. Complaints filed in 2012 alleged that American Action Network and Americans for Job Security had elections as their major purpose. The FEC split 3 to 3 and dismissed. In September 2016 a federal court held those dismissals contrary to law. On remand the FEC deadlocked again over American Action Network, and on March 20, 2018 the court held that dismissal contrary to law too, because the commission had not presumed that electioneering communications are election-related, according to the FEC's case page. When the FEC fails to act after such a ruling, 30109(a)(8) lets the complainant sue the group directly.

4. False reporting

A report that names the wrong donor is a false report as well as a straw donor violation. In the same Manhattan case, prosecutors showed that in May 2018 two men gave $325,000 to an independent expenditure committee and reported it as coming from a purported liquefied natural gas business, when one of them had actually paid. After a complaint to the FEC, they submitted sworn affidavits with false statements about the business and the money, the U.S. Attorney's office said. In Idaho, the Secretary of State's office said in 2024 that it had seen fake names entered in the state's campaign finance system, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

5. Coordination violations

Independent spending is unlimited only because it is independent. When it is coordinated, it is a contribution subject to limits and source bans, and a nondisclosing group's coordinated ad is an illegal gift with a hidden source. The DOJ brought what it called the "first U.S. prosecution based on the coordination of campaign contributions between political committees" in 2015. A campaign manager for a 2012 congressional candidate had helped create and run a PAC and directed it to buy ads opposing a rival, causing $325,000 in coordinated contributions. He used an alias to deflect questions and lied to the FBI. He was sentenced to 24 months, the Justice Department announced on June 12, 2015. Idaho treats spending made in consultation with a candidate as an in-kind contribution the candidate must report (lesson 5).

6. Corporate conduits in federal races

Corporations may not contribute to federal candidates, parties or traditional PACs (52 U.S.C. 30118). They may give unlimited amounts to Super PACs in their own names. The violations come when a company, or an LLC, is used to hide the person behind it, or to move money that the real donor could not give. The FEC's LLC rule, 11 CFR 110.1(g), attributes a single-member LLC's gift (one that has not elected corporate tax treatment) to its one member, treats other LLCs as partnerships or corporations based on their tax election, and requires the LLC to tell the recipient at the time of the gift how to attribute it and to affirm that it may lawfully give. The PacMar case above is the model: a contractor barred from giving, a fresh LLC with an unrelated-sounding name, and a Super PAC that reported the LLC.

7. Tax law violations

The IRS enforces a separate set of lines.

• A 501(c)(4) whose primary activity is politics. The regulation says social welfare "does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns" (26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii)), and a group must be "primarily engaged" in social welfare. The IRS has never set a percentage. Its denial letters are public but redacted. In one, released June 13, 2014 (Appeals determination 201424028), the IRS denied exemption to a group that bought radio, TV and print ads, about 85 percent of which ran before a primary or general election, and produced four one-page white papers; its "primary activities are the participation in a political campaign," the IRS said, as summarized by Holland & Knight. The same summary describes a group that spent about 60 percent of its first-year revenue on a flier urging a candidate's defeat, and 2011 denials of three groups that trained women of one party to run for office, found to serve a party's private interests.
• A 501(c)(3) that intervenes in a campaign. Four days before the 1992 presidential election, a New York church ran full-page newspaper ads urging Christians not to vote for one candidate, and solicited tax-deductible gifts to pay for them. The IRS revoked its exemption on January 19, 1995, the first revocation of a bona fide church's exemption over politics according to the court. The D.C. Circuit upheld the revocation on May 12, 2000 in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, noting that the church could form a separately incorporated 501(c)(4), which could form a PAC, as long as tax-deductible gifts did not pay for the PAC's politics. (Lesson 8 covers the 4955 excise taxes.)
• Political spending without the 527(f) tax. A 501(c) group that spends on candidate work, directly or through another organization, owes tax on the lesser of its net investment income or the amount spent (26 U.S.C. 527(f)), and must describe the activity and list payments to 527 groups on Schedule C.

8. Idaho violations

Idaho's chapter has its own list, with its own enforcement record.

• Failure to register. Under 67-6602(14), a person is a political committee if it is specifically designated to support or oppose a candidate or measure, or if it receives contributions and makes expenditures over $1,000 in a calendar year for that purpose. Idaho has no separate major purpose test written into the statute. In 2024 the Secretary of State fined a southern Idaho group $1,000 and ordered it to stop distributing voter guides it had paid for without registering, and wrote to Retire Career Politicians, a Washington, D.C. group that had spent $76,000 opposing the Idaho House speaker, asking it to register, the Capital Sun reported. The office reported more than 60 complaints that cycle.
• Nonbusiness entity disclosure. A nonprofit that is not a political committee and spends more than $1,000 in a calendar year on Idaho candidates or measures must file within 30 days, listing its principal officer or directors and each person who paid it more than $500 in either of the two prior calendar years, or who paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current year (67-6606). Idaho tested this in 2012, when Education Voters of Idaho, a self-described 501(c)(4), ran TV ads on three education measures and argued its tax status exempted its donors. The Secretary of State sued; a judge ordered disclosure; the report showed more than $641,000 from 25 donors, ten of them from outside Idaho giving $320,000, with a largest single gift of $250,000, the Spokesman-Review reported.
• Hiding the true source. 67-6614, part of the original 1974 initiative, bars contributions or expenditures made "in a fictitious name, anonymously," or through an agent, relative or other person so as to conceal the true source. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-5 warns that a nonprofit may not avoid reporting by "routing Idaho-directed funds through another person or committee." Attorney General Opinion 26-1 says donors cannot dodge disclosure by routing money through a church.
• Foreign money. 67-6610D, with felony penalties above $1,000.
• Penalties. Under 67-6625, a civil fine of up to $250 for an individual and $2,500 for any other person, proved by a preponderance of the evidence; a misdemeanor, with up to six months in jail, for knowing and willful violations of listed sections; prosecution by the Attorney General or the county prosecutor; and a two-year limit for civil and misdemeanor cases. Late filing fees are separate (lesson 11).

When it is legal but contested: the ethics

The hard cases are the ones the law allows. Here are the tactics people argue about most, with the strongest arguments on each side.

Anonymity versus accountability

The case for anonymity starts with history. NAACP v. Alabama was about people who lost jobs and faced threats for joining an organization. Doe v. Reed began with announced plans to post petition signers' names and addresses online in searchable form. The plaintiffs in Bonta pointed to a state database that had exposed nearly 2,000 confidential donor lists by accident. Donors to unpopular causes of every kind, on every side of a fight over a school levy or a gun rule or a zoning change, can face boycotts, workplace retaliation and online harassment. Privacy defenders argue that disclosure falls hardest on small donors and controversial causes, while the wealthiest donors can afford to absorb the attention or structure around it. And they note that speech is judged by its content: voters can evaluate a mailer's claims without knowing who paid.

The case for disclosure starts with the voter. Buckley said knowing a candidate's supporters helps voters predict how the candidate will act and detect "post-election special favors." Citizens United said disclosure provides "the electorate with information" about who is paying for election spending, and the Court has repeatedly called it the less restrictive alternative to limits. Disclosure supporters argue that anonymity is the tool of the powerful as much as the vulnerable: a company that wants a zoning decision can fund an innocuous-sounding group without its name appearing. And they point to the as-applied exemption, which already protects groups that can show a reasonable probability of threats or reprisals, as the narrower answer to the harassment problem.

Courts have kept both principles alive. The rule that has emerged: disclosure tied to election spending is generally constitutional, blanket demands for donor lists unrelated to elections are not, and anyone with evidence of real danger can seek an exemption.

Names chosen to persuade

A committee called "Citizens for Clean Water" may be funded by a water utility, a farm group, an environmental group or a real estate developer. The name is protected speech. Idaho's attribution rule, 67-6614A, requires that the person responsible for a paid communication expressly advocating for or against a candidate or measure be clearly indicated on it; it does not require the name to be informative. The ethical objection is that a patriotic or civic-sounding name borrows trust the funders have not earned. The defense is that every group names itself for what it stands for, and a business association calling itself a business association would be ignored by readers who distrust business, which is its own kind of prejudgment. Arizona and Alaska answered this by requiring top donors on the ad itself (below). Idaho has not.

Timing just outside the windows

Idaho's electioneering communication rule reaches messages that unambiguously refer to a candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general (67-6602(6)). The federal rule uses the same windows for broadcast ads. An ad that names a legislator and attacks a vote, run 35 days before a primary and without "vote against," falls outside both. Nonprofits also time gifts and spending around reporting periods: money given after a pre-election report's closing date may not appear until after the election. All of that is lawful. The objection is that voters learn the source when the information can no longer help them. The defense is that bright-line windows exist precisely so speakers can know in advance what triggers a report, which is what Buckley demanded to avoid vagueness, and that any line can be "evaded" by stepping one day past it.

Nominal issue ads

"Call Representative X and tell her to stop raising your water rates" can be a genuine appeal about a pending vote, or a campaign attack wearing a costume. The Supreme Court's test in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) protects an ad unless it is "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate" (lesson 5). Outside the windows, a well-written issue ad by a (c)(4) triggers no donor disclosure anywhere. The ethical question is whether the speaker's real aim is the vote or the election. The legal answer deliberately avoids asking it, because a test based on a speaker's motives would chill genuine issue speech.

LLCs formed days before a gift

A Super PAC or an Idaho PAC receives $250,000 from an LLC that did not exist three weeks earlier. That may be a lawful way for a real investor to give through an investment vehicle, reported under the vehicle's name. It may be a straw donor. From the report alone you cannot tell. The FEC's rule requires the LLC to tell the recipient how to attribute the gift; the recipient's report may show only the LLC. Legitimate reasons exist: a donor may want separation from a family business, or to keep a business name off a cause. The objection is that the timing and the lack of any other activity are the signature of a conduit, and voters are left to guess.

Tactic	Legal?	Strongest argument for	Strongest argument against
Donor-private (c)(4) funds ads	Yes, if politics is not its primary activity and no required report is skipped	Protects donors to unpopular causes from retaliation (NAACP, Bonta)	Voters cannot weigh the speaker; anyone can use it, including those seeking favors
Persuasive committee name	Yes	Groups name themselves for their goals; content can be judged on its merits	Borrows public trust; can mislead about who benefits
Spending just before a window	Yes	Bright lines give fair notice; avoids vague tests	Keeps sources hidden when the information matters most
Issue ad naming an official	Yes, under the WRTL test	Protects lobbying and public debate on pending votes	Can be a campaign ad in all but wording
LLC formed before a gift	Yes, if it gives its own money and attributes correctly; no, if it is a conduit	Business owners may give through vehicles they control	Indistinguishable from a straw donor on the face of the report

Idaho specifics

What Idaho requires

Idaho's approach to hidden money rests on four provisions, summarized here and covered in depth in lessons 5 and 8.

Provision	Trigger	Who gets named	Deadline
Political committee (67-6602(14), 67-6607)	Designated for a candidate or measure, or over $1,000 in contributions and expenditures	Contributors over $50	Regular reports; 48-hour notices for $1,000 or more
Nonbusiness entity (67-6606)	Over $1,000 of its own funds in a calendar year on Idaho candidates or measures	Officers or directors, and payers over $500 in either prior year or current year	Within 30 days of passing $1,000
Electioneering communication (67-6628)	Over $100 on a communication naming a candidate in the 30 or 60 day window	Contributors of $50 or more to the filer	Per 67-6611(2); 48 hours for $1,000 or more
Independent expenditure (67-6611)	Over $100 for or against one candidate or measure	Vendors over $50; not donors	Pre- and post-election; 48 hours in the final days
True source (67-6614)	Any contribution or expenditure	The real source, always	N/A

Two points about 67-6606 that surprise people. The $500 list covers people who paid dues or gave for the group's ordinary mission, not only political donors. And the Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-5 (September 11, 2026, replacing the October 16, 2025 guidance) says the $1,000 includes contributions to Idaho candidates or PACs, printing, paid broadcast, text and social media messages, and donated food and space, reached in one payment or many. It recommends forming a PAC instead, so that only donors who gave for politics are reported. A contribution to an FEC-registered committee alone does not trigger Idaho reporting unless it is earmarked for Idaho use, and the guidance warns against "routing Idaho-directed funds through another person or committee."

What changed from 2024 to 2026

• 2024. Senate Bill 1251, signed April 4, 2024 (Session Law chapter 278), removed entities registered with the FEC from the definition of "political committee," per the legislature's summary. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-4 explains how federal committees report when they give in Idaho races. The legislature's history notes show 67-6602 amended in 2024 and again in 2025. Idaho Code 18-2318 was rewritten the same year to a 250-foot polling-place buffer (lesson 5).
• 2025. The Secretary of State issued nonprofit guidance on October 16, 2025.
• 2026. House Bill 930, revising political treasurers' duties, was signed April 10, 2026 (chapter 337) and took effect July 1, 2026. House Bill 719, which would prohibit certain out-of-state persons from making contributions or independent expenditures, shows no action on the legislature's page after it was referred to committee on February 18. After NRSC v. FEC, Guidance 2026-3 suspended enforcement of party coordinated-spending limits for the 2026 general. On August 27, 2026, Attorney General Opinion 26-1 held that the state cannot enforce 67-6606's donor list against a church that spends more than $1,000 on the 2026 abortion initiative as an exercise of religion, under Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, though the church must still name itself as the source, and a church that takes money given for the measure becomes a political committee. The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-5 and 2026-6 followed on September 11.

Section 67-6606 itself was last amended in 2019, its history note shows. The thresholds, $1,000 to trigger and $500 to list, have not changed in this period.

Idaho's 2026 cases

Records the Capital Sun obtained showed the Secretary of State's office investigated more than 40 complaints before the May 19, 2026 primary, reported May 29. Most were resolved without penalties, seven went to county clerks, five stayed open, and no fines were reported. The ones that bear on hidden money:

• Three LLCs owned by one person each gave $1,000 to the same two legislative campaigns. Under 67-6610A(6)(c), entities "owned or controlled by the same majority shareholder or shareholders or persons" count as one. The campaigns returned the excess.
• Three complaints alleged that Idaho Values First ran TV ads and mailers opposing incumbents without registering or reporting electioneering spending. The investigations were open, with no finding, as of May 29.
• Unsigned texts opposing a legislator had no disclaimer, and the office could not determine who sent them. Disclosure reaches only those who can be found.

How Idaho compares

Arizona passed the Voters' Right to Know Act, Proposition 211, in November 2022 with 72 percent of the vote. It requires any person spending $50,000 or more in an election cycle on statewide campaign media, or $25,000 or more on other campaigns, to file within five days a report naming every donor of "original monies" who gave more than $5,000, directly or indirectly, every intermediary who passed along more than $5,000, and recipients of $10,000 or more (A.R.S. 16-973). A donor who transfers more than $5,000 to a covered person must pass along a record of its own contributors over $2,500. Donors must get notice and a chance to opt out before their money is used for campaign media. People whose identities are protected by law or who face a serious risk of physical harm are exempt.

The law has drawn three main challenges:

• Separation of powers. Legislative leaders argued Prop 211 hands lawmaking power to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. On September 29, 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court held 5 to 2 that they had standing and sent the merits back to the trial court, per the court's news release. The law stayed in effect.
• State constitution. In Center for Arizona Policy v. Arizona Secretary of State, decided June 29, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a broad challenge under the state constitution and held that groups seeking an exemption must show they are likely to face serious harm from being identified, according to the Campaign Legal Center, which defended the law. The plaintiffs may still try to prove such harm as applied to them, KJZZ reported.
• First Amendment. In Americans for Prosperity v. Meyer, decided September 30, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims, 2 to 1. Applying exacting scrutiny as Bonta described it, the majority found the informational interest in original sources substantially related to the law, the burdens modest, and the provisions narrowly tailored, rejecting arguments based on overbreadth, the lack of a major purpose requirement and low thresholds. The as-applied claim failed for lack of specific allegations of threats. The dissent argued that the First Amendment's original understanding protects anonymous political donating and that the law reaches indirect donors who never knew how their money would be used.

Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 2 on November 3, 2020. It requires donors to certify the true source of their contributions and any intermediaries, requires anyone who gives more than $2,000 in a year to a group likely to make independent expenditures to report within 24 hours, and requires election ads to name the speaker's principal officer and three largest contributors of the prior 12 months, plus a statement when most of an independent group's money came from outside Alaska. On March 15, 2024, in Smith v. Helzer, the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction, 2 to 1, holding the donor reporting and on-ad disclaimer rules substantially related and narrowly tailored to the informational interest. The dissent would have blocked the individual-donor reporting rule as duplicative.

Montana requires certain nonprofits that run targeted ads within 60 days of an election and spend past a $250 threshold to register as political committees. The Ninth Circuit upheld that requirement 3 to 0 in August 2019 in a challenge by the National Association for Gun Rights, JURIST reported, summarizing the ruling as holding that Montanans have a right to transparency for elections.

Feature	Idaho	Arizona (Prop 211)	Alaska (Measure 2)	Federal
Nonprofit spending trigger	Over $1,000 (67-6606)	$50,000 or more statewide or $25,000 or more other, per cycle	Independent expenditure reporting; donors over $2,000 self-report	Over $250 independent expenditures; over $10,000 electioneering
Who is named	All payers over $500 (two prior years or current)	Original sources over $5,000, traced through intermediaries	True sources and intermediaries; donors over $2,000	Donors over $200 (IE) or $1,000 (EC), with purpose limits
Traces through layers	No; the list shows direct payers	Yes	Yes, by certification	No, except earmarking
Donors on the ad	No; sponsor identified (67-6614A)	No in the provisions reviewed here	Top three contributors	No; sponsor and "stand by your ad"
Opt-out for donors	Separate PAC route (Guidance 2026-5)	Notice and opt-out required	Not in the provisions reviewed here	Segregated account route for electioneering
Court status	Enforced by a 2012 court order; no appellate ruling found	Upheld by Arizona Supreme Court (2026) and Ninth Circuit (2026)	Injunction denied (9th Cir. 2024)	Upheld in McConnell and Citizens United

How to track it, step by step

No single database shows a full chain. Each one sees one or two layers. The method is to start at the voter, identify the last entity, find which system covers it, and repeat until the trail ends or a human being appears. Lesson 10 walks through each tool's search screens; here the focus is on what each tool reveals about hidden money.

Idaho Sunshine

The Sunshine portal holds registrations and reports for Idaho candidates, PACs, party committees, independent spenders, electioneering sponsors and nonbusiness entities. Search the exact sponsor name from the ad, then shorter versions. Open the committee's contributions and download them. Sort by amount. For each entity donor (an LLC, a corporation, a nonprofit, another PAC), write down its name, address, date and amount. The address often matters more than the name: three "different" LLCs at one address, or a donor address that matches a registered agent's office, tells you to look harder. For 2020 to 2023 records, use the legacy site linked from the Secretary of State's campaign finance page.

FEC data

Federal committees file with the FEC, and their data is searchable at fec.gov/data.

• Schedule A lists itemized receipts. For a Super PAC, filter by contributor type to see entity donors, then click through to see whether an entity donor is itself a registered committee.
• Schedule E lists independent expenditures by committees, with payee, amount, date and the candidate supported or opposed. Search by candidate to see every outside spender in a race.
• Form 5 is filed by people and groups that are not committees, such as 501(c)(4)s, when they make independent expenditures over $250. Schedule 5-A lists contributors over $200 and flags those who gave to further independent expenditures, under the 2018 guidance.
• Form 9 reports electioneering communications over $10,000, with donors of $1,000 or more as 11 CFR 104.20 requires.
• 24- and 48-hour reports show late independent spending before the regular reports.

IRS records

• Forms 8871 and 8872. The IRS Political Organization Filing and Disclosure search covers 527 groups that do not report to the FEC or a state. Form 8871 shows officers and purpose; Form 8872 lists contributors of $200 or more in a year and expenditures of $500 or more, with occupation and employer for individuals (26 U.S.C. 527(j)). Groups expecting under $25,000 a year, state and local candidate and party committees, and qualified state or local political organizations are exempt.
• Form 990, Schedule I. A nonprofit that gives more than $5,000 in grants lists each recipient that got more than $5,000, with name, address, EIN, the recipient's tax status, the amount and the purpose (Schedule I instructions). This is where one nonprofit's grant to another, or to an LLC, often shows up. It is frequently the only public link between two layers.
• Form 990, Schedule C. Part I-A reports political campaign spending and volunteer hours. Part I-C, for (c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, (c)(6)s and 527s, reports exempt function spending and lists each 527 organization paid, with name, address, EIN and amount (Schedule C instructions).
• Timing. Form 990 is due on the 15th day of the fifth month after the year ends (May 15 for calendar-year groups), with an automatic six-month extension on Form 8868 (IRS). A grant made in October 2026 may not appear in public until November 2027.
• Where to read them. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer offers searchable returns, PDFs going back as far as 2001, a full-text search of filings and an API. Full-text search for a committee's or LLC's name finds every return that lists it as a grantee.

State business filings

An LLC's donor line ends in a state business registry. In Idaho, the Secretary of State's business search shows formation date, registered agent, principal office and the governor listed on the certificate of organization; Idaho Code 30-25-201 requires "the name and mailing address of at least one (1) governor." That governor can be another company. A registered agent that serves thousands of companies tells you only who receives the mail.

Other states disclose less. Delaware's certificate of formation needs only the company's name and its registered office and agent (6 Del. C. 18-201). Wyoming's articles need the name and the registered agent and office (W.S. 17-29-201). Neither requires members or managers. The federal backstop is gone for U.S. companies: FinCEN's March 26, 2025 interim rule, made final effective August 14, 2026, exempts U.S. companies from beneficial ownership reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (FinCEN), and that database was never open to the public in any case. Check annual reports, which sometimes list officers, and any assumed business name filings. Check the organizer's name too; it is often a law firm or formation service, which tells you who set it up.

Ad libraries and broadcast files

• Meta Ad Library. Meta requires advertisers running ads about social issues, elections or politics to be authorized and to carry a verified "Paid for by" disclaimer (Meta policy, as of October 2026). Search the sponsor name and the candidate's name. The disclaimer name may differ from the Sunshine committee name, which is itself a lead.
• Google. U.S. election advertisers must complete verification, and Google generates or requires a "Paid for by" disclosure (Google policy, as of October 2026). Google's policy page lists Idaho local elections among those where it restricts ads about candidates or measures, so many local Idaho races will have no Google ads at all.
• FCC political files. Broadcasters keep an online political file under 47 CFR 73.1943, searchable at publicfiles.fcc.gov. For candidate ads it records the candidate, committee and treasurer. For issue ads on a political matter of national importance it records the purchaser, a contact person and "a list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or of the board of directors." A (c)(4)'s board list may be the only names you get for it.

OpenSecrets, FollowTheMoney and news archives

The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracked federal money, and the National Institute on Money in Politics, which ran FollowTheMoney for state races, merged in 2021 under the OpenSecrets name, Maryland Matters reported. Their compiled data links donors across states and years, and their outside-spending tables group nondisclosing spenders. Use it to find leads and connections; cite the underlying FEC, IRS or Sunshine filing for any fact you publish. News archives (the Idaho Capital Sun, Idaho Education News, regional papers, and national outlets that track large nonprofits) often hold the one interview where a group's officer said who funds it.

Building a money map

A money map is a simple table and diagram: one row per entity, one arrow per transfer. For each entity record its legal type, where it files, its formation date, its officers or governor, and the source for each fact. For each arrow record amount, date, the report it appears on, and whether the receiving side and the giving side both report it. Gaps between what one side reports and what the other reports are where hidden money lives.

Reform proposals and the arguments over them

Every proposal below has serious supporters and serious opponents. The descriptions here state what each would do and the best case on each side.

The DISCLOSE Act

Versions have been introduced in Congress since 2010. The House passed one, H.R. 5175, 219 to 206 on June 24, 2010 (roll call 391); Senate cloture votes failed in 2010 and 2012, according to the legislative history compiled on Wikipedia. None has become law. The 2023 Senate version, S. 512, introduced February 16, 2023, would:

• make "covered organizations" (non-charity corporations, LLCs, non-(c)(3) nonprofits, unions and 527s) that spend more than $10,000 in an election cycle on campaign-related disbursements file within 24 hours and list donors of $10,000 or more;
• reach ads that refer to a candidate and support or oppose the candidate, whether or not they expressly advocate;
• trace "covered transfers" between organizations, including any transfer made when the giver knew or had reason to know the recipient would spend $50,000 or more on campaigns over two years;
• require LLCs and corporations to list beneficial owners;
• let donors keep their gifts off reports by restricting them in writing from campaign use, with the money held in a segregated account;
• require video and digital ads to list their top five funders, and audio ads their top two.

Supporters argue it closes the purpose loopholes that CREW and Van Hollen exposed, follows money through layers the way Arizona does, and keeps an opt-out for donors who do not want their money used in campaigns. Opponents argue it would sweep in donors to nonprofits who never intended to fund political ads, would chill membership in advocacy groups of every kind after Bonta, would burden small groups with tracing duties, and has been offered in forms that applied unevenly to different kinds of organizations.

State laws

Arizona's original-source model, Alaska's true-source and on-ad donor model and Montana's nonprofit registration rule have all survived court review so far. Supporters see them as proof that tracing laws can be written to meet Bonta's narrow tailoring. Opponents point to the dissents in AFP v. Meyer and Smith v. Helzer, to the burden on donors who give to a group without knowing its political plans, and to the as-applied claims still pending in Arizona. For Idaho, the live questions would be whether to trace through intermediaries, as Arizona does, instead of naming only direct payers, as 67-6606 does; whether to put top donors on ads; and whether to raise the $500 threshold for listing so that ordinary members are not named. Changing any of that would take legislation or an initiative.

IRS rules

Three proposals recur.

• Define (c)(4) political activity. The IRS proposed on November 29, 2013 to define "candidate-related political activity" broadly, including ads naming candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 of a general, voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives and voter guides (78 FR 71535), and asked whether "primarily" should be given a number. The proposal was not finalized. Appropriations acts have since barred the IRS from using funds to "issue, revise, or finalize" guidance on the social welfare standard, including the fiscal 2018 act, Akin Gump noted. Supporters say a clear rule would stop groups whose real business is elections from claiming social welfare status. Opponents say the 2013 draft would have counted nonpartisan voter registration and forums as politics and arrived amid a dispute over the IRS's handling of applications from advocacy groups, which made a neutral rule hard to trust.
• Restore donor names on Schedule B. Reversing T.D. 9898 would give the IRS names without an audit. Supporters say it helps enforce foreign-money and private-benefit rules. Opponents say the IRS said itself it did not need the names, that confidential lists can leak, and that the information would still not be public.
• Bar the 527(f) workaround. Proposals to cap or ban candidate spending by (c)(4)s entirely would push that money into committees that disclose. Opponents argue it would silence groups whose main work is policy but who sometimes speak about candidates, a burden MCFL recognized.

Beneficial ownership

Requiring LLCs to disclose their real owners to a state, or to campaign finance regulators, would end the shell-company layer. Supporters cite cases like MUR 6920 and MUR 7690. Opponents note that business owners have their own privacy and safety interests, that federal regulators decided in 2025 and 2026 to exempt U.S. companies from FinCEN reporting, and that straw donor laws already make the abusive version a crime.

Questions and answers

Is "dark money" a legal term in Idaho or federal law?

No. Neither Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 66 nor federal election or tax law uses it. The law speaks of contributions, independent expenditures, electioneering communications, political committees and nonbusiness entities (67-6602). When you write about it, name the legal category and the specific disclosure gap.

Can a 501(c)(4) give to an Idaho PAC without naming its donors?

It can give, and the PAC will list the (c)(4) as the donor. But once the (c)(4)'s Idaho political spending, including that gift, passes $1,000 in a calendar year, it must file a 67-6606 statement within 30 days listing anyone who paid it more than $500 in either of the prior two years or the current one, per Guidance 2026-5. The way to keep general members off the list is a separate PAC funded by donors who give for politics.

Can an LLC give to an Idaho candidate?

Yes, within the 67-6610A limits: $1,000 per election for legislative, judicial and local candidates, $5,000 for statewide. LLCs under common ownership or control share one limit, which is why the excess from three LLCs with one owner was returned in 2026. If the LLC is giving someone else's money to hide the source, 67-6614 is violated.

What is the difference between a conduit and a straw donor?

A conduit forwards someone else's money and reports the original donor as 11 CFR 110.6 requires. A straw donor gives someone else's money as its own. The first is lawful; the second violates 52 U.S.C. 30122 in federal races and Idaho Code 67-6614 in Idaho races.

Why do some Super PAC reports list companies I can't find anywhere?

Because a newly formed LLC in a state like Delaware or Wyoming may have no public owner information, and the federal beneficial ownership database no longer covers U.S. companies. The FEC's LLC rule requires the LLC to tell the Super PAC how to attribute the gift, and a single-member LLC's gift is attributed to its member, but the Super PAC's report may still show only the LLC name. Check the state registry, then search FEC and IRS records for the same address.

If a group is fined, does the public learn who funded it?

Not necessarily. An FEC conciliation agreement or an Idaho fine may require the group to register and file, which discloses donors from then on, as happened when Education Voters of Idaho filed in 2012. A fine for a missing disclaimer or a late report does not reveal anything new about funders.

Does the FEC still enforce the post-CREW donor rule?

The FEC's 2018 guidance tells filers to list contributors over $200 and flag those who gave to further independent expenditures, and the vacated regulation now reads "[Reserved]." Enforcement depends on four commissioners agreeing to act; in MUR 7516 the commission deadlocked and dismissed.

Can I see a 501(c)(4)'s donors on its Form 990?

No. Since T.D. 9898 it reports amounts only, and even before that the names were withheld from public copies. You can see grants it made on Schedule I, political spending on Schedule C, and its officers and directors, and you can find grants made to it on other groups' Schedule I.

Does a foreign-owned U.S. company break the law by giving in Idaho?

It may be. Foreign nationals may not give "directly or indirectly" in connection with any election under 52 U.S.C. 30121, which covers state and local elections, and by 67-6610D, which reaches entities organized under foreign law or with a principal place of business abroad. In MUR 7122 and MUR 7613 the FEC penalized companies over contributions it found came from foreign nationals. Where the line falls for a particular U.S. company with foreign owners is a question for the FEC or the Secretary of State's elections division.

Where do I report suspected hidden money?

For Idaho races, the Secretary of State's elections division. For federal races, the FEC, by sworn and notarized complaint. For a nonprofit's tax status, the IRS referral form. Lesson 11 covers each process, and lesson 13 has the full Q&A on who may give to whom.

Is a church's political spending dark money in Idaho now?

Partly. Under AG Opinion 26-1, a church spending general funds on the 2026 abortion initiative as an exercise of religion may name itself as the source without listing donors. A church that collects money specifically for a measure becomes a political committee and reports its contributors. A 501(c)(3) church still may not intervene in candidate races under federal tax law (lesson 8).

Hard questions

Isn't disclosure just a way to harass donors?

It can be used that way, and the courts have said so. NAACP v. Alabama protected members from economic reprisal and physical threats, and Bonta struck down a donor-list demand that served no real election purpose. But the same courts have upheld election disclosure repeatedly, from Buckley to Citizens United's 8 to 1 holding to the Ninth Circuit's 2026 Arizona ruling, and every one of them kept an exemption for groups that can show a reasonable probability of threats or reprisals. The fair answer is that disclosure carries a real cost for some donors, the law has a remedy for those who can show it, and the general rule rests on voters' interest in knowing who is speaking.

Why should a Super PAC take unlimited money when I can give a candidate only $1,000?

Because the Supreme Court has held that contribution limits are justified only by preventing corruption or its appearance, and the D.C. Circuit in SpeechNow held that money given to a group that only spends independently "cannot corrupt" in that sense. Many people find that conclusion unpersuasive, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to change it. Within the current law, the counterweight is disclosure: the Super PAC must name its donors, and the fight over dark money is largely about whether those donors are people or shells.

If voters judge ads on their content, why does the funder matter?

The Supreme Court answered that the source is part of the content. Citizens United said disclosure provides "the electorate with information," and Buckley said knowing a candidate's backers helps predict how the candidate will act. A claim about water rates reads differently from the utility than from a ratepayers' group. The other side argues that this invites voters to dismiss arguments by their source, which is a reasoning error, and that anonymous pamphlets have a long history in American politics. Both are true. The law has chosen to give voters the information and let them decide how to weigh it.

Doesn't Idaho's 67-6606 punish ordinary members of a nonprofit for a board's decision to spend on a measure?

It can expose them, and the Secretary of State effectively agrees: Guidance 2026-5 recommends forming a PAC precisely so that only political donors are listed. A nonprofit that spends from its general fund chooses to put its members' names in play, under a statute on the books since 1994. Whether the $500 threshold is too low, or whether Idaho should adopt Arizona's opt-out notice instead, is a fair policy question for the legislature.

Isn't the FEC's deadlock record proof that federal dark money rules are not enforced?

It shows that enforcement depends on four commissioners agreeing, and in contested matters they often do not. The record is mixed: MUR 7516 ended in dismissal and the American Action Network complaints deadlocked twice, while MURs 6920, 7122, 7613 and 7690 ended in six-figure penalties, and the DOJ has sent straw donors and coordinators to prison. Congress added the private right of action in 30109(a)(8) for cases where the FEC fails to act after a court finds its dismissal contrary to law.

Why not just ban corporate and nonprofit election spending?

Because Citizens United held that the First Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations, including nonprofits and unions, and only a new decision or a constitutional amendment could change that. The Court's own answer to concerns about that spending was disclosure, which is why the reform debate centers on donor reporting, tracing and on-ad disclaimers.

Doesn't tracing money through layers, as Arizona does, punish donors who never knew their gift would fund ads?

That was the core of the dissent in AFP v. Meyer. Arizona's answer is the notice and opt-out requirement: a donor must be told and given a chance to refuse before the money is used for campaign media, and the Arizona Supreme Court read that requirement to cover indirect donors too. The majority found the burden modest given that safeguard. Whether the opt-out works in practice for donors several layers removed is a question the as-applied cases may answer.

Pictures, Numbers and Infographics

The diagram follows one dollar from an original donor to a voter's mailbox through the layers used in the worked example, and marks which public disclosure system can see each layer. A filled circle means the layer appears by name on that system's public records. A half circle means it appears only in some cases. An empty circle means that system does not show it.

Dark money in federal races

Figure	Amount	Source
Dark money in 2024 federal races (record)	About $1.9 billion	Brennan Center, May 7, 2025
Of that, contributions to Super PACs from nondisclosing groups	About $1.3 billion, roughly two-thirds	Brennan Center
Online ads by nondisclosing groups	About $315 million	Brennan Center, from platform data
TV ads by nondisclosing groups	About $242 million	Brennan Center, from Wesleyan Media Project data
Direct spending reported to the FEC by nondisclosing groups	About $43 million	Brennan Center
Prior record (2020 cycle)	About $1 billion	Brennan Center
2024 split by side	About $1.2 billion backing Democrats; about $664 million backing Republicans	Brennan Center
Total since Citizens United (federal)	At least $4.3 billion	Brennan Center

Note the gap between the $43 million that nondisclosing groups reported directly to the FEC and the $1.9 billion total. Most hidden money reaches voters under another entity's name, on a Super PAC's report or in ads that never trigger an FEC filing.

Enforcement outcomes in the cases above

Matter	Pattern	Outcome	Source
MUR 6920 (2017)	Money through an LLC and a nonprofit to a Super PAC	$350,000 (American Conservative Union) plus $350,000 (LLC, PAC and treasurer)	FEC MUR record
MUR 7690 (2025)	Federal contractor's $150,000 through a shell LLC to a Super PAC	$325,000 civil penalty; former executive sentenced to 33 months (2025)	FEC MUR record; Civil Beat
MUR 7122 (2019)	Foreign-controlled U.S. company, $1.3 million to a Super PAC	$550,000 (company and individuals) plus $390,000 (Super PAC)	FEC conciliation letter
MUR 7613 (2022)	Foreign national contributions through U.S. companies	$975,000	FEC penalty chart
MURs 5511, 5753, 5754 (2006)	527 groups that never registered as committees	$299,500; $180,000; $150,000	FEC MUR records and chart
MUR 5365 (2007)	Nonprofit that never registered as a committee	Consent judgment; $350,000 on the FEC chart	FEC MUR record and chart
DOJ, Eastern District of Virginia (2015)	$325,000 in coordinated PAC ads	24 months in prison	DOJ press release
DOJ, Southern District of New York (2022)	$325,000 straw gift, false FEC affidavits, foreign money	20 months in prison	U.S. Attorney press release
MUR 7516 (2022)	(c)(4) independent spending, donors not identified	Deadlock, then dismissal	FEC statement of reasons
Idaho, 2012	(c)(4) on education measures, donors withheld	Court ordered disclosure; $641,000 from 25 donors shown	Spokesman-Review
Idaho, 2024	Unregistered voter-guide group	$1,000 fine; distribution halted until compliant	Idaho Capital Sun
Idaho, 2026 primary	More than 40 complaints, including LLC aggregation	Excess returned; no fines reported; five open	Idaho Capital Sun

Disclosure thresholds side by side

Rule	Spending trigger	Donor threshold	Citation
Idaho nonbusiness entity	Over $1,000 a year	Over $500	Idaho Code 67-6606
Idaho electioneering communication	Over $100	$50 or more	Idaho Code 67-6628
Idaho political committee	Over $1,000, or designated	Over $50	Idaho Code 67-6602(14)
Idaho penalties	Civil fine up to $250 (individual) or $2,500 (other); misdemeanor for knowing and willful		Idaho Code 67-6625
Federal independent expenditure (non-committee)	Over $250 a year	Over $200	52 U.S.C. 30104(c); FEC 2018 guidance
Federal electioneering communication	Over $10,000 a year	$1,000 or more (purpose limit for corporations and unions)	11 CFR 104.20
IRS Form 8872 (527 groups)	Accepts contributions or makes expenditures	$200 or more	26 U.S.C. 527(j)
IRS Schedule I grants	Over $5,000 in grants	Recipients over $5,000 listed	Schedule I instructions
Arizona Prop 211	$50,000 or more statewide or $25,000 or more other, per cycle	Original sources over $5,000	A.R.S. 16-973
Alaska Measure 2	Independent expenditure groups	Donors over $2,000 self-report within 24 hours; top three on ads	Smith v. Helzer (9th Cir. 2024)
Federal criminal (30122)	Knowing and willful over $10,000: up to 2 years; $25,000 or more: up to 5 years		52 U.S.C. 30109(d)