Chapter 5

Money Without Names

Abstract

Federal law names the donors to a super PAC and does not name the donors to a 501(c)(4). A 501(c)(4) may engage in campaign activity if it is primarily engaged in social welfare, no rule defines "primarily," and since 2018 the organization does not report its donors to the IRS. This chapter re-derives the money from FEC and IRS bulk files. Independent expenditures reported to the FEC rose from $973 million in 2012 to $4,029 million in 2024, and the share reported by non-committee filers fell from 11.9 percent to 1.7 percent. Itemized gifts from organizations matching an IRS 501(c)(4) record to super PACs rose from $12 million in 2012 to $969 million in 2024. The same pairing of a 501(c)(4) and a super PAC appears on both sides, as do donor-advised and pass-through intermediaries. FEC enforcement matters against groups on both sides ended in deadlocks or dismissals. The IRS review of exemption applications named Tea Party, Patriots and 9/12 and also named Progressive, Occupy, ACORN Successors and Emerge. The Senate failed to reach cloture on the DISCLOSE Act five times. Every Republican voting voted nay each time, and every Democrat and independent voting voted yea except two. The chapter also sets out the Supreme Court's privacy cases, NAACP v. Alabama and Bonta. The original donors behind the 501(c)(4) transfers are not in the public record.

5.1 What the Court and the statute require

Finding POL-5.1Primary record

In Citizens United (2010) the Supreme Court held, 5 to 4, that independent expenditures by corporations do not give rise to corruption or its appearance, and held, 8 to 1, that the disclaimer and disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act are constitutional. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC (D.C. Circuit, en banc, 26 March 2010) the court held that contributions to groups making only independent expenditures cannot be limited and upheld the registration and reporting requirements for those groups.

Both rulings kept reporting for groups that make independent expenditures. The statute sets reporting by filer type, and the sections that follow sort the money by filer type.

Evidence: Exhibit 894, Exhibit 895, Exhibit 896, Exhibit 897, Exhibit 893

§5.1.1

In Citizens United v. FEC (21 January 2010) the Court held that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." It upheld the disclaimer and disclosure requirements 8 to 1, with Justice Thomas dissenting in part, and wrote that "disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way." The passages are cited by Part of the opinion.

§5.1.2

In SpeechNow.org v. FEC (26 March 2010) the en banc D.C. Circuit wrote: "In light of the Court’s holding as a matter of law that independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption." The same opinion upheld registration and reporting for such groups and states: "But the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech, no matter whether the contributions were made towards administrative expenses or independent expenditures." Groups formed under this holding are called super PACs.

§5.1.3

The statute sets reporting thresholds by filer. A person who is not a committee reports independent expenditures over $250. A person who spends more than $10,000 in a year on electioneering communications reports within 24 hours of each disclosure date. For electioneering communications, donors of $1,000 or more are disclosed only if the money came from a segregated account, or from the person's own funds under subparagraph F (52 U.S.C. 30104(c), (f)). The electioneering-communication windows are 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary.

Exhibit 894 · Court opinion

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310

The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

5-4 that corporations may make independent expenditures; 8-1 (Thomas dissenting in part) upholding BCRA disclaimer and disclosure requirements. Cornell syllabus lists the joins.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 21 January 2010
Quoted from: Part IV-B (reporter page not verified)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 895 · Court opinion

Citizens United v. FEC, independent expenditures and corruption

independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Holding premise later used in SpeechNow.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 21 January 2010
Quoted from: Part III (reporter page not verified)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 896 · Court opinion

SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. en banc)

But the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech, no matter whether the contributions were made towards administrative expenses or independent expenditures.

Contribution limits cannot apply to groups making only independent expenditures; registration and reporting requirements upheld. This created the super PAC.

Source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date: 26 March 2010
Quoted from: slip op. 20
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2010/03/08-5223-1236837.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 897 · Court opinion

SpeechNow.org v. FEC, contribution-limit holding

In light of the Court’s holding as a matter of law that independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.

Same opinion, separate passage.

Source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date: 26 March 2010
Quoted from: slip op. 14
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2010/03/08-5223-1236837.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 893 · Statute

52 U.S.C. § 30104 (reporting requirements), subsections (c) and (f)

Every person who makes a disbursement for the direct costs of producing and airing electioneering communications in an aggregate amount in excess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 hours of each disclosure date, file with the Commission a statement containing the information described in paragraph (2).

Independent-expenditure statements by non-committees (over $250) and electioneering-communication statements (over $10,000; 60 days before a general, 30 before a primary; donors of $1,000 or more disclosed only if paid from a segregated account, or from the person's own funds for subparagraph F).

Source: United States Congress
Date: as in force 2026
Quoted from: 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f)(1)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30104
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Finding POL-5.2Primary record

A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may intervene in political campaigns if campaign activity is not its primary activity. No statute or regulation quantifies "primarily."

The regulation, the IRS page and the examiner guide all describe the same rule: campaign intervention is permitted within a 501(c)(4) if it is not the primary activity. The Taxpayer Advocate recommended a safe harbor, Treasury proposed a definition in 2013, and an appropriations rider barred guidance in fiscal year 2016.

Evidence: Exhibit 879, Exhibit 880, Exhibit 881, Exhibit 882, Exhibit 887, Exhibit 888

§5.1.4

The regulation states: "The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." The IRS page states that a 501(c)(4) "may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity." The IRS examiner guide says such an organization "may intervene in political campaigns without jeopardizing its exempt status if it’s primarily engaged in other activities which further the promotion of social welfare." The pages cite Rev. Rul. 81-95.

§5.1.5

The National Taxpayer Advocate wrote in December 2014: "There is no statutory or regulatory quantification of the term “primarily” for this purpose, nor is there a statutory or regulatory “safe harbor” for determining whether an IRC § 501(c)(4) organization’s political campaign activities are within permissible limits." The Advocate recommended that Congress enact an optional numerical safe harbor.

§5.1.6

Treasury proposed a rule on 29 November 2013 (REG-134417-13) to define candidate-related political activity for these organizations. The definition included public communications that name a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, the same windows as the electioneering-communication definition. Section 127 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113, 18 December 2015) provides that none of the funds in that or any other Act may be used by Treasury or the IRS "to issue, revise, or finalize any regulation, revenue ruling, or other guidance not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to the standard which is used to determine whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare." The section covers fiscal year 2016.

Exhibit 879 · Regulation

26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1, Civic organizations and local associations of employees

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

Defines a social welfare organization as one 'primarily engaged' in promoting the common good and excludes campaign intervention from the definition of social welfare. Read in the Cornell LII copy.

Source: U.S. Treasury Department (T.D. 6500, 1960; amended 1990)
Date: 26 November 1960
Quoted from: 26 CFR 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.501(c)(4)-1
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 880 · Agency guidance page

Social welfare organizations (IRS page)

However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

IRS statement that a 501(c)(4) may engage in some political activity if it is not the primary activity.

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Date: accessed 10 November 2026
Quoted from: Paragraph beginning 'The promotion of social welfare does not include'
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 881 · Agency audit guide

Audit Technique Guide: IRC Section 501(c)(4), Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

an IRC 501(c)(4) organization may intervene in political campaigns without jeopardizing its exempt status if it’s primarily engaged in other activities which further the promotion of social welfare.

IRS examiner guide: a 501(c)(4) may intervene in campaigns if primarily engaged in other social welfare activity; cites Rev. Rul. 81-95.

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Date: undated PDF (accessed 10 November 2026)
Quoted from: p. 4 (PDF page 4)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/atg_501c4_orgs.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 882 · Agency report

National Taxpayer Advocate 2014 Annual Report to Congress, Vol. 1, Legislative Recommendation 5: Section 501(c)(4) political campaign activity

There is no statutory or regulatory quantification of the term “primarily” for this purpose, nor is there a statutory or regulatory “safe harbor” for determining whether an IRC § 501(c)(4) organization’s political campaign activities are within permissible limits.

Recommends Congress enact an optional numerical safe harbor for 501(c)(4) campaign activity; states that no statute or regulation quantifies 'primarily'.

Source: Taxpayer Advocate Service (IRS)
Date: December 2014
Quoted from: Vol. 1, p. 325
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2014-ARC_VOL-1_S2_LR-5-508.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 887 · Proposed rule

Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities (REG-134417-13), 78 FR 71535

These timeframes are the same as those appearing in the Federal Election Campaign Act definition of electioneering communications.

Proposed to define candidate-related political activity for 501(c)(4)s, including public communications naming a candidate within 60 days of a general or 30 days of a primary election, the same windows as the electioneering-communication definition.

Source: Treasury Department / IRS
Date: 29 November 2013
Quoted from: 78 FR 71539, Explanation of Provisions (PDF p. 5)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-11-29/pdf/2013-28492.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 888 · Statute

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. 114-113, sec. 127 (Financial Services and General Government)

none of the funds made available in this or any other Act may be used by the Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service, to issue, revise, or finalize any regulation, revenue ruling, or other guidance not limited to a particular taxpayer relating to the standard which is used to determine whether an organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4)

Bars Treasury and the IRS, for fiscal year 2016, from issuing guidance on the 501(c)(4) social welfare standard, names the 2013 proposed regulations, and freezes the standard in effect on 1 January 2010.

Source: United States Congress
Date: 18 December 2015
Quoted from: Sec. 127(1)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ113/html/PLAW-114publ113.htm
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Finding POL-5.3Primary record

Federal law does not require a 501(c)(4) to disclose its contributors' names to the public. Since Rev. Proc. 2018-38 (July 2018) and T.D. 9898 (28 May 2020), the organization also does not report contributor names and addresses to the IRS on Schedule B, and the IRS public data files show every Schedule B donor field as RESTRICTED.

The statute exempts organizations other than private foundations and section 527 organizations from public disclosure of contributor names. The IRS and Treasury then ended the Schedule B reporting that gave the IRS those names on every return.

Evidence: Exhibit 883, Exhibit 884, Exhibit 885, Exhibit 886

§5.1.7

The public-inspection statute, 26 U.S.C. 6104(d)(3)(A), provides that for an organization that "is not a private foundation (within the meaning of section 509(a)) or a political organization exempt from taxation under section 527, paragraph (1) shall not require the disclosure of the name or address of any contributor to the organization." The exemption does not extend to private foundations, so public inspection covers the contributor names on a private foundation's return.

§5.1.8

Rev. Proc. 2018-38 (July 2018) states: "These organizations are no longer required to report the names and addresses of their contributors on the Schedule B of their Forms 990 or 990-EZ." It applies to years ending on or after 31 December 2018. The organizations must keep the information and give it to the IRS on request. A federal district court in Montana set the procedure aside on 30 July 2019 in Bullock v. IRS on notice-and-comment grounds only. Treasury and the IRS then adopted the same relief by regulation in T.D. 9898, effective 28 May 2020.

§5.1.9

In the IRS public data file for Marble Freedom Trust's return for the year ended April 2021 (object 202240749349301569), every donor field of Schedule B (contributor number, business name, address, total contributions) holds the value RESTRICTED. The same value appears in the IRS public data files for Americans for Prosperity (tax year 2016 and tax years 2020 to 2024) and for DonorsTrust.

Exhibit 883 · Statute

26 U.S.C. § 6104 (publicity of information required from certain exempt organizations)

In the case of an organization which is not a private foundation (within the meaning of section 509(a)) or a political organization exempt from taxation under section 527, paragraph (1) shall not require the disclosure of the name or address of any contributor to the organization.

Public-inspection rule that exempts non-private-foundation organizations other than section 527 organizations from disclosing contributor names or addresses.

Source: United States Congress
Date: as in force 2026
Quoted from: 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(3)(A)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6104
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 884 · Revenue procedure

Rev. Proc. 2018-38 (Schedule B contributor reporting)

These organizations are no longer required to report the names and addresses of their contributors on the Schedule B of their Forms 990 or 990-EZ.

Ends the requirement that non-501(c)(3) exempt organizations report contributor names and addresses on Schedule B; they must keep the information and give it to the IRS on request. Effective for years ending on or after 31 December 2018.

Source: Internal Revenue Service
Date: July 2018 (2018-31 I.R.B. 280)
Quoted from: Section 1 (Purpose)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-18-38.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 885 · Final regulation

T.D. 9898, Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations (85 FR 31959)

On July 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Montana set aside Rev. Proc. 2018–38 on procedural grounds because, in the court’s view, the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act applied and Rev. Proc. 2018–38 had not been subject to such notice and comment.

Final regulations effective 28 May 2020. The preamble recounts that Bullock v. IRS, 401 F.Supp.3d 1144 (D. Mont. 30 Jul 2019) set aside Rev. Proc. 2018-38 on notice-and-comment grounds only, then the agencies re-adopted the relief by rule.

Source: Treasury Department / IRS
Date: 28 May 2020
Quoted from: 85 FR 31961, Background (PDF p. 3)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-28/pdf/2020-11465.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 886 · Dataset record

Marble Freedom Trust Form 990 (FYE April 2021), public XML: Schedule B fields

RESTRICTED

In the IRS public XML (object 202240749349301569) every donor field of IRS990ScheduleB is released as the value RESTRICTED. The same appears in AFP (TY2016, TY2020-2024), DonorsTrust and other 990 XML files read.

Source: Internal Revenue Service (TEOS e-file XML)
Date: filed 2022
Quoted from: IRS990ScheduleB: ContributorNum, BusinessNameLine1, AddressLine1, TotalContributionsAmt
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/990/xml/2022/2022_TEOS_XML_01A.zip
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.2 Independent expenditures by channel

Finding POL-5.4Primary record

Independent expenditures reported to the FEC (support and oppose, derived from FEC bulk files) were $973 million in 2012, $683 million in 2014, $1,397 million in 2016, $1,041 million in 2018, $2,733 million in 2020, $1,750 million in 2022 and $4,029 million in 2024. Non-committee filers, the category in which an organization reports spending in its own name, reported $116 million (11.9 percent of the total) in 2012 and $67 million (1.7 percent) in 2024.

Super PACs and hybrid PACs reported 92 percent of independent expenditures in 2024, and non-committee filers reported 1.7 percent. In 2012 the shares were 53 and 11.9 percent.

Evidence: Exhibit 918

§5.2.1

Method. The figures come from the FEC bulk files independent_expenditure_YYYY.csv for each two-year cycle and the matching committee master files, downloaded and run on 10 November 2026. Each row is a reported independent expenditure, support or oppose. Duplicates were removed by spender ID and transaction ID, keeping the filing with the highest file number. Rows whose spender ID is absent from the cycle's committee master, and rows of $100 million or more, were excluded as hoax filings. Committee types are the FEC's: O and V and W are super PACs and hybrid PACs, I is a non-committee filer, and Y is a party committee. Residual double counting is about 1 to 3 percent of dollars.

Independent expenditures reported to the FEC by filer type, $ millions (derived)
Cycle	Total	Super and hybrid PACs	Non-committee filers	Party committees	Other	Non-committee share
2012	973	516	116	253	88	11.9%
2014	683	300	99	228	56	14.5%
2016	1,397	921	146	254	76	10.5%
2018	1,041	637	112	232	60	10.7%
2020	2,733	2,187	84	369	93	3.1%
2022	1,750	1,387	28	269	66	1.6%
2024	4,029	3,711	67	192	59	1.7%

§5.2.2

The excluded rows are listed in the table below, with the hash of each source file the run used. The non-committee category includes unions and individuals as well as nonprofits, so the figure is broader than nonprofit spending alone.

Rows excluded as hoax filings, and sha256 of each source file
Cycle	Excluded rows	Excluded dollars	sha256 of the FEC source file
2012	1	$65,500	`7b749d12de5b1cc5a19a98b87929338f3e0038610a14903d889b507a3a9dfaf0`
2014	1	$8,061	`467023e3ef207a06361ec327fedb30eae07e132695a97e09af36ae52e7c7d34e`
2016	3	$132,713	`a5e6b51e0873562928a441e95880f340b367f4320920d843cd64f774d93a3976`
2018	0	$0	`abae4dec8bbaa260b92b9460907fe9ea7d327849fe9a59bcfcf134b55e834c4d`
2020	3	$1,735,041,910	`8b43843be009bc76a5583992abbbc91b747ad3045761f35417467c00bb5f18fb`
2022	4	$31,354,620,063	`5f26bb900aa70b65bc49aa9eb97bf2b78726711e9469bf865f33e7ebadb9cd5e`
2024	9	$43,899,491,245	`182e0ae060e54975170da24976dcffc1b736aaf5b8ed99dbe5731815d2103044`

§5.2.3

The saved summary of the run is research/politics/money-without-names.fec-run.json (sha256 2841ae3b6feed3453281622a96712ff4e2236e9c0fdd55870d818a0ba9986d46). The filings excluded in 2020, 2022 and 2024 include those of committees named Committee of 300, Spirit of Reforming America and Republican Emo Girl.

§5.2.4

The same run classifies each reported expenditure as benefiting a Republican, a Democrat or neither, by the party of the candidate involved. The classification is the run's own, and the table gives both parties for both channels.

Independent expenditures by benefiting party and filer type, $ millions (derived)
Cycle	Super and hybrid PACs, benefiting Republicans	Super and hybrid PACs, benefiting Democrats	Non-committee filers, benefiting Republicans	Non-committee filers, benefiting Democrats
2012	224	257	65	19
2014	98	180	27	25
2016	328	482	57	40
2018	180	423	24	69
2020	694	1,425	19	54
2022	474	840	4	22
2024	1,293	1,801	18	42

§5.2.5

Non-committee spending benefited Republicans more than Democrats in 2012, 2014 and 2016 and Democrats more than Republicans in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024. Spending that the run could not assign to either party is omitted from the table, and it ranges from $3 million to $50 million a cycle for non-committee filers. The Brennan Center reports $43 million of direct spending by nonprofits in 2024 and a peak of $309 million in 2012. Its measure differs from the non-committee category above.

Exhibit 918 · Dataset

Dataset: FEC independent expenditures 2012-2024 by committee type and benefiting party

Source: independent_expenditure_YYYY.csv and cmYY.zip (committee master) from fec.gov bulk downloads. Dedupe by spe_id+tran_id keeping highest file_num; exclude spe_ids not in the committee master and rows of $100M or more (hoax filings: Committee of 300, Spirit of Reforming America, others). Possible residual double counting about 1-3 percent. Saved copy and sha256 in research/politics/money-without-names.fec-run.json.

Source: Lacuna derivation from FEC bulk files
Date: run 10 November 2026
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=bulk-data
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Saved summary: research/politics/money-without-names.fec-run.json (sha256 2841ae3b6feed3453281622a96712ff4e2236e9c0fdd55870d818a0ba9986d46). The url is the FEC bulk-data landing page, not a document.

5.3 Organizations that give to super PACs

Finding POL-5.5Primary record

Itemized contributions to super PACs and hybrid PACs from organizations whose names approximately match an IRS 501(c)(4) record (derived from FEC bulk files and the IRS exempt-organization master file) were $12 million in 2012, $13 million in 2014, $13 million in 2016, $91 million in 2018, $453 million in 2020, $126 million in 2022 and $969 million in 2024.

Super PAC filings name the organization that gave and do not name its donors. Of $2,189 million that organizations gave to super PACs in 2024, $969 million came from donors matching an IRS 501(c)(4) record.

Evidence: Exhibit 919

§5.3.1

Method. The run used the FEC individual-contribution bulk files for each cycle (indivYY.zip), keeping rows whose contributor type is organization, or single gifts of $1 million or more. It kept recipients that are super PACs and hybrid PACs (committee types O, V and W). It normalized donor names and matched them by name to the IRS exempt-organization master file (eo1 to eo4). Name matching is approximate. Names that match both a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) record are listed separately as ambiguous. The saved summary is the org_to_superpac section of research/politics/money-without-names.fec-run.json, run 10 November 2026.

Organizations' itemized contributions to super PACs and hybrid PACs, by IRS class of donor, $ millions (derived)
Cycle	All organizations	501(c)(4)	501(c)(3) or (c)(4), ambiguous	501(c)(5) unions	501(c)(6)	No IRS match
2012	171	12	4	8	3	143
2014	161	13	1	14	2	131
2016	353	13	9	21	3	306
2018	353	91	14	30	5	211
2020	975	453	25	69	20	406
2022	316	126	7	26	14	143
2024	2,189	969	79	93	62	965

§5.3.2

The no-match column holds corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, party committees and other donors with no IRS record. Many of these are named corporations and unions, which the FEC discloses. A limited liability company's owners do not appear in the filing. The column is not a dark-money figure.

Exhibit 919 · Dataset

Dataset: FEC contributions by organizations to super PACs 2012-2024, matched to IRS EO BMF

Source: indivYY.zip filtered to entity_tp ORG or single gifts of $1M+; recipients committee types O, V, W; donor names normalized and matched to IRS EO BMF (eo1-eo4.csv). Match is by name only and is approximate; paired-c4 totals use exact organization names.

Source: Lacuna derivation from FEC bulk files and IRS EO BMF
Date: run 10 November 2026
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=bulk-data
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Saved summary: research/politics/money-without-names.fec-run.json (sha256 2841ae3b6feed3453281622a96712ff4e2236e9c0fdd55870d818a0ba9986d46). The url is the FEC bulk-data landing page, not a document.

Finding POL-5.6Primary record

Super PACs aligned with each party received itemized transfers from a paired 501(c)(4). In 2024 One Nation gave $36 million to Senate Leadership Fund and American Action Network gave $43 million to Congressional Leadership Fund; Majority Forward gave $82 million to Senate Majority PAC, House Majority Forward gave $47 million to House Majority PAC, and Future Forward USA Action gave $266 million to Future Forward PAC, 48 percent of that super PAC's receipts.

The transfers are itemized in each super PAC's receipts. The 501(c)(4)'s own donors do not appear in them.

Evidence: Exhibit 919, Exhibit 920

§5.3.3

The table repeats one query for each pair: itemized receipts of the super PAC from the exact name of the paired 501(c)(4), by cycle, with the pair's share of the super PAC's receipts from the FEC summary file. The right-side pairs are the first two rows and the left-side pairs are the last four. The right and left labels are the research's classification.

Itemized transfers from a 501(c)(4) to its paired super PAC, $ millions, with share of the super PAC's receipts (derived)
Pair	2016	2018	2020	2022	2024
Right: One Nation to Senate Leadership Fund	9.2 (7.9%)	12.6 (9.6%)	22.5 (4.7%)	5.5 (1.9%)	35.6 (11.9%)
Right: American Action Network to Congressional Leadership Fund	0.8 (1.5%)	29.9 (18.9%)	30.0 (18.1%)	18.7 (7.2%)	43.0 (17.7%)
Left: Majority Forward to Senate Majority PAC	0.6 (0.7%)	1.3 (0.8%)	51.3 (13.8%)	11.3 (3.4%)	81.8 (21.0%)
Left: House Majority Forward to House Majority PAC	0	0	8.0 (5.0%)	3.5 (1.9%)	47.1 (18.1%)
Left: Future Forward USA Action to Future Forward PAC	n/a	0.1	61.2 (40.4%)	2.5 (8.3%)	266.4 (47.6%)
Left: Priorities USA to Priorities USA Action	0	1.5 (3.4%)	26.8 (19.2%)	3.2 (11.2%)	1.9 (17.2%)

§5.3.4

Crossroads GPS, a right-side 501(c)(4), has no itemized transfer to American Crossroads in the 2012 to 2024 files. It spent directly, and a federal court records that it reported more than $17 million of independent expenditures in 2012 (section 5.6). The Form 990 for Future Forward USA Action's fiscal year 2024 lists a $251.5 million Schedule I grant to Future Forward PAC, against $266.4 million itemized by the FEC for the cycle.

§5.3.5

The records show two filings: a 501(c)(4) grant on its own Form 990 and an itemized receipt on the super PAC's FEC report. Neither filing links a particular dollar of the 501(c)(4)'s receipts to a particular dollar it passed on. The 501(c)(4) Forms 990 in section 5.4 give the totals each organization received, spent on politics and granted.

§5.3.6

Individuals give to the same super PACs under their own names. The table lists the largest named totals of gifts of $1 million or more that the same query found. For 2022 the query returned $6 million from Bloomberg, and the table omits him for that cycle.

Named individuals' itemized gifts of $1 million or more to super PACs, $ millions (derived, FEC filings)
Cycle	Donors, with total
2020	Bloomberg $146; M. and S. Adelson $177
2022	Soros $125 (Democracy PAC II); Yass $28
2024	Musk $211; Mellon $197; Adelson $127; Moskovitz $50 (Future Forward PAC)

5.4 What the Forms 990 report

Finding POL-5.7Primary record

In 69 Form 990 filings by twelve 501(c)(4) organizations, six on each side, reported Schedule C political expenditures never exceeded 47.5 percent of total expenses. The highest ratios are Majority Forward (47.5 percent, period ending May 2019), The Concord Fund (46.9 percent, period ending June 2025) and Future Forward USA Action (45.1 percent, period ending December 2024).

The ratio compares each organization's self-reported political spending with its total spending. The 501(c)(4) standard sets no threshold, and no sampled organization reported more than half.

Evidence: Exhibit 920

§5.4.1

Method. The run extracted 171 returns from the IRS public e-file XML for 26 organizations, tax years 2015 to 2024, by object ID from the index files. The fields are total revenue, contributions, total expenses, Schedule C political campaign expenditures and Schedule I grants. For the ratio test the run kept one return per organization per tax period (the highest object ID) and every return with positive Schedule C political expenditures. That gives 69 returns from twelve 501(c)(4) organizations, six right-aligned and six left-aligned. Fifty-five are on the Form 990 and 14 are in the older layout the run labels 990O. The ratio is Schedule C political expenditures divided by total expenses, self-reported by each organization. The table saved with the run is research/politics/money-without-names.990-run.csv (sha256 9b2af6c8d504773e53d7ce4f3d6e576ccf8d90eacb5a89932c003c197067912c). The sample is the named groups and the party-leadership pairs. It is not a census of 501(c)(4)s.

Highest ratio of Schedule C political expenditures to total expenses, by organization (derived)
Organization	Alignment	Returns with Schedule C	Highest ratio	Tax period ending
American Action Network	Right	5	41.7%	June 2022
Americans for Prosperity	Right	8	30.0%	December 2018
The Concord Fund	Right	5	46.9%	June 2025
Heritage Action for America	Right	5	33.6%	December 2020
One Nation	Right	5	39.5%	December 2020
Securing American Greatness	Right	1	35.3%	December 2024
America Votes	Left	6	40.6%	June 2021
Future Forward USA Action	Left	5	45.1%	December 2024
House Majority Forward	Left	5	44.1%	December 2023
Majority Forward	Left	8	47.5%	May 2019
Priorities USA	Left	8	42.0%	December 2020
Sixteen Thirty Fund	Left	8	40.7%	December 2020

§5.4.2

Crossroads GPS has no Schedule C political expenditures in its returns for tax years 2020 to 2024, which show $1.1 million in contributions over two Form 990 returns. The organization had wound down by then. The IRS XML begins with tax year 2015, so the run holds no return for Crossroads GPS or Americans for Prosperity before that year. A census of all 501(c)(4) Schedule C filings would test whether any organization exceeds 50 percent.

§5.4.3

The organizations describe the Schedule C activity in their own words. One Nation: "POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS." The Concord Fund: "The Organization contributed funds to political organizations." Future Forward USA Action: "MADE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES." Sixteen Thirty Fund: "SUPPORTED POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY ORGANIZATIONS CONSISTENT WITH SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND'S PROGRAMMATIC PRIORITIES." The wording is as extracted from each organization's latest filing.

Exhibit 920 · Dataset

Dataset: IRS Form 990 e-file XML, 26 organizations, tax years 2015-2024

171 returns extracted by object ID from IRS public zips (index_YYYY.csv); fields: total revenue, contributions, total expenses, Schedule C political expenditures (PoliticalExpendituresAmt), Schedule I grants. Table saved in research/politics/money-without-names.990-run.csv (sha256 9b2af6c8d504773e53d7ce4f3d6e576ccf8d90eacb5a89932c003c197067912c).

Source: Lacuna derivation from IRS TEOS XML
Date: run 10 November 2026
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/990/xml/2025/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: One return per organization per tax period, highest object id kept. The url is the IRS public XML directory.

Finding POL-5.8Primary record

Organizations on both sides pass money to political groups through intermediaries that name no donors in public filings. Over tax periods ending 2020 to 2025, Schedule I grants by the right-side Marble Freedom Trust were $1,024 million and by DonorsTrust $1,241 million, and the left-side Tides Foundation $2,281 million, New Venture Fund $1,881 million, Sixteen Thirty Fund $924 million and Hopewell Fund $425 million; Marble Freedom Trust reported $1,603,791,362 in contributions for the year ended April 2021 and named no donor.

The table applies one query to every organization in the sample. Contributions are gifts received, and Schedule I grants are payments to other organizations.

Evidence: Exhibit 920, Exhibit 921

§5.4.4

The table sums contributions, Schedule C political expenditures and Schedule I grants over the Form 990 returns in the file with tax periods ending January 2020 or later, one return per organization per period. Windows differ by organization because fiscal years differ and some returns are absent from the file (Majority Forward for fiscal year 2020, Future Forward USA Action for tax year 2020, and part of the Rule of Law Trust series). The alignment column is the project's classification, based on the recipients and political committees each organization funds. It is not the organization's own statement. The Bradley Foundation and the Wyss Foundation file Form 990-PF, and their grant totals are not in the table.

Contributions, political expenditures and grants on Form 990, tax periods ending 2020 to 2025, $ millions (derived)
Organization	Alignment	Returns	Contributions	Schedule C political expenditures	Schedule I grants
Americans for Prosperity	Right	5	676	76	2
One Nation	Right	5	531	216	18
American Action Network	Right	5	297	114	155
Securing American Greatness (2024 only)	Right	1	275	68	30
The Concord Fund	Right	5	222	47	164
Marble Freedom Trust	Right	5	1,652	none reported	1,024
DonorsTrust	Right	5	2,197	none reported	1,241
Rule of Law Trust	Right	5	157	none reported	91
Heritage Action for America	Right	5	74	13	5
Sixteen Thirty Fund	Left	5	1,220	338	924
Future Forward USA Action	Left	4	745	319	502
Majority Forward	Left	5	548	276	485
America Votes	Left	6	701	221	534
House Majority Forward	Left	5	186	67	102
Priorities USA	Left	5	144	43	28
Open Society Policy Center and Open Society Action Fund	Left	5	989	none reported	760
Berger Action Fund	Left	6	583	none reported	311
Tides Foundation	Left	5	3,113	none reported	2,281
New Venture Fund	Left	5	3,906	none reported	1,881
Hopewell Fund	Left	5	801	none reported	425

§5.4.5

Marble Freedom Trust's return for the year ended April 2021 reports $1,603,791,362 in contributions and $228.6 million in grants: $153.0 million to Rule of Law Trust, $41.1 million to DonorsTrust, $18.0 million to Schwab Charitable and $16.5 million to The Concord Fund. Part VII lists Leonard Leo as Trustee and Chairman. Over the five fiscal years in the pull Marble granted $605 million to Schwab Charitable, a donor-advised fund, and $195 million to The Concord Fund. The recipient-level amounts for the later years come from the Schedule I extraction in the run, and the saved CSV holds only the totals above.

§5.4.6

On the left, Open Society Policy Center gave $50.4 million to Sixteen Thirty Fund across tax years 2020 to 2022 ($16.955 million, $23.78 million and $9.65 million), and Open Society Action Fund gave a further $13.6 million in tax year 2023. Open Society gave $30.2 million to Future Forward USA Action in tax years 2022 and 2023. Sixteen Thirty Fund's largest Schedule I recipient in the window was America Votes at $179.6 million.

§5.4.7

On the right, The Concord Fund gave One Nation $16 million over fiscal years 2021 to 2025 (Schedule I). Schwab Charitable, a donor-advised fund, does not itemize its onward grants by donor.

Exhibit 921 · Form 990

Marble Freedom Trust Form 990, fiscal year ended April 2021

To maintain and expand human freedom consistent with the values and ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Total contributions $1,603,791,362; grants $228.6M (Rule of Law Trust $153.0M, DonorsTrust $41.1M, Schwab Charitable $18.0M, Concord Fund $16.5M). Part VII: Leonard Leo, Trustee and Chairman. Mission statement quoted in filing.

Source: Marble Freedom Trust / IRS TEOS
Date: filed 2022
Quoted from: Form 990 Part I, MissionDesc; zip member 2022Redo_cycle01_41/202240749349301569_public.xml (read by HTTP range request)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/990/xml/2022/2022_TEOS_XML_01A.zip
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.5 Donors named in the press

Finding POL-5.9Reported

ProPublica and The Lever reported, following The New York Times, that Barre Seid was the source of the $1.6 billion that Marble Freedom Trust received. The Associated Press reported that groups funded by Hansjorg Wyss gave Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund $245 million since 2016, including $208 million to Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Press reporting is the only source for the donors behind the largest gifts to one right-side and one left-side intermediary. The Form 990 data name no donor.

Evidence: Exhibit 923, Exhibit 924

§5.5.1

ProPublica and The Lever (22 August 2022) reported, after The New York Times, that Barre Seid gave Marble Freedom Trust its $1.6 billion. In a statement to the Times, Leonard Leo said it was "high time for the conservative movement to be among the ranks of George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, Arabella Advisors and other left-wing philanthropists, going toe-to-toe in the fight to defend our constitution and its ideals." The cited records allege no violation by Marble Freedom Trust.

§5.5.2

The Associated Press (3 April 2023) reported that Berger Action Fund gave $72 million in 2021 and $339 million since 2016, and that Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund received $245 million from groups funded by Wyss since 2016, $208 million of it to Sixteen Thirty Fund. Sixteen Thirty Fund's president, Amy Kurtz, said in a statement: "Nearly all of the donations we receive are intended for specific projects or purposes; many donations cannot be used for electoral activities; and every contribution is used in compliance with all guidelines, regulations, and laws." AP reports that Berger Action Fund and the Wyss Foundation said they have policies against using their funds for candidates or voter registration. AP also reports that Wyss is a foreign national who cannot give to candidates or political committees. The FEC's handling of the complaint against Wyss's groups is in section 5.6.

§5.5.3

The 990 for Berger Action Fund, year ended March 2022, shows $72.7 million of grants. The $208 million and $245 million figures rest on the AP report, because the Schedule I attachments that would verify them are not in the IRS XML. Each of these reports concerns a donor's identity and amount. None establishes what any recipient did with a gift.

Exhibit 923 · Journalism

How a Secretive Billionaire Handed His Fortune to the Architect of the Right-Wing Takeover of the Courts

In a statement to the Times, Leo said it was “high time for the conservative movement to be among the ranks of George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, Arabella Advisors and other left-wing philanthropists, going toe-to-toe in the fight to defend our constitution and its ideals.”

Reports that Barre Seid gave $1.6 billion to Marble Freedom Trust, first reported by The New York Times; reports Leo's statement to the Times. Donor identity is not in the 990. Primary replacement: none public; the 990 states only the amount.

Source: ProPublica and The Lever
Date: 22 August 2022
Quoted from: paragraph beginning 'Seid has left his legacy'
Grade: Reported
Document: https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: The Marble Freedom Trust Form 990 states the amount and names no donor, so the donor identity is known only through journalism. No public primary document replaces it.

Exhibit 924 · Journalism

Group steers Swiss billionaire's money to liberal causes (Brian Slodysko)

“Nearly all of the donations we receive are intended for specific projects or purposes; many donations cannot be used for electoral activities; and every contribution is used in compliance with all guidelines, regulations, and laws,” Amy Kurtz, the president of Sixteen Thirty Fund, said in a statement.

Reports Berger Action Fund gave $72 million in 2021 and $339 million since 2016, and that Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund received $245 million from Wyss's groups since 2016 ($208 million to Sixteen Thirty). Primary replacement: Berger Action Fund Form 990 Schedule I attachments (not in IRS XML).

Source: Associated Press
Date: 3 April 2023
Quoted from: paragraph beginning 'The New Venture Fund is set up'
Grade: Reported
Document: https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2023/04/03/group-steers-swiss-billionaires-money-to-liberal-causes/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.6 Disclosure rules in court and at the FEC

Finding POL-5.10Primary record

The D.C. Circuit held on 21 August 2020 that 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi), which limited disclosure of donors to independent expenditures to donations earmarked for a specific expenditure, conflicts with the statute. In Van Hollen v. FEC the district court held 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), a purpose-based limit on electioneering-communication donor disclosure, contrary to the statute in 2012 and 2014, and the D.C. Circuit reversed on 18 September 2012 and 21 January 2016 and upheld the regulation.

Two FEC regulations tied donor disclosure to a donor's stated purpose. The D.C. Circuit held one contrary to the statute and upheld the other.

Evidence: Exhibit 900, Exhibit 901, Exhibit 898, Exhibit 899, Exhibit 893

§5.6.1

In 1980 Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to require independent-expenditure filers to disclose donors who gave "for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure." The FEC's rule 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi) limited that disclosure to donations earmarked for a particular independent expenditure. In CREW v. FEC, with Crossroads GPS as intervenor, Chief Judge Howell declared the rule invalid on 3 August 2018 and stayed the vacatur 45 days. The opinion records that Crossroads GPS, which did not dispute it, reported more than $17 million in 2012 independent expenditures without naming donors. The D.C. Circuit affirmed on 21 August 2020 and wrote that "The Rule conflicts with the FECA’s unambiguous terms twice over."

§5.6.2

The FEC adopted 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9) in 2007, after FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. It limits electioneering-communication donor disclosure to donors who gave for that purpose. In Van Hollen v. FEC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson held on 30 March 2012 that "Congress spoke plainly, that Congress did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement through agency rulemaking." The D.C. Circuit reversed on 18 September 2012. The district court ruled against the regulation again in 2014, and the D.C. Circuit reversed on 21 January 2016, upholding the regulation "as a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act." The FEC's summary is the source for the 2012 and 2016 appellate decisions.

Exhibit 900 · Court opinion

CREW v. FEC (Crossroads GPS intervenor), No. 16-259 (BAH), Memorandum Opinion, 316 F.Supp.3d 349

subsection (vi) of 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1) is declared invalid and therefore vacated, with the vacatur stayed for 45 days

Declared 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi) invalid (vacatur stayed 45 days) and the FEC's dismissal contrary to law. Records, undisputed by Crossroads GPS, that it reported over $17 million in 2012 independent expenditures without naming donors.

Source: U.S. District Court for D.C. (Chief Judge Howell)
Date: 3 August 2018
Quoted from: p. 3 (PDF page 3)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/crew16259_dc_opinion2.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 901 · Court opinion

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, No. 18-5261, 971 F.3d 340

The Rule conflicts with the FECA’s unambiguous terms twice over.

Affirmed. The rule required disclosure only of donations earmarked to a particular independent expenditure.

Source: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date: 21 August 2020
Quoted from: slip op. 19
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/cgps_185261_ac_opinion.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 898 · Court opinion

Van Hollen v. FEC, Civil Action 11-0766 (ABJ), Memorandum Opinion

In sum, the Court finds that Congress spoke plainly, that Congress did not delegate authority to the FEC to narrow the disclosure requirement through agency rulemaking, and that a change in the reach of the statute brought about by a Supreme Court ruling did not render plain language, which is broad enough to cover the new circumstances, to be ambiguous.

Held 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9), limiting electioneering-communication donor disclosure to donors who gave for the purpose of furthering such communications, contrary to the unambiguous statute.

Source: U.S. District Court for D.C. (Judge Amy Berman Jackson)
Date: 30 March 2012
Quoted from: Conclusion, p. 31
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/van_hollen_dc_memo_opinion.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 899 · Agency summary of court decision

FEC Record: Van Hollen v. FEC (Appeals court 2016)

In reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's 2014 decision, the appellate court upheld the Commission regulation as a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

FEC summary: on 21 January 2016 the D.C. Circuit reversed the 2014 district court decision and upheld 11 CFR 104.20(c)(9). The circuit had also reversed on 18 September 2012.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: 1 February 2016
Quoted from: paragraph 1
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/updates/van-hollen-v-fec-appeals-court
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Finding POL-5.11Primary record

The FEC ended enforcement matters against groups on both sides without finding violations. It split 3 to 3 in MUR 6396 and MUR 6696 (Crossroads GPS) and MUR 6589 (American Action Network); in MUR 7904 (Wyss, Berger Action Fund, Wyss Foundation, New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund) it voted 6 to 0 to dismiss the political-committee allegations and split 3 to 3 and 2 to 4 on the foreign-national and name-of-another allegations.

The table lists each matter with its respondent, complainant and vote. The table covers three matters with right-aligned respondents and one with left-aligned respondents.

Evidence: Exhibit 902, Exhibit 903, Exhibit 904, Exhibit 905, Exhibit 906

FEC matters on 501(c)(4) and related respondents
Matter	Respondent and alignment	Complainant	Certified or decided	Vote and outcome
MUR 6396	Crossroads GPS (right)	Public Citizen and others	3 December 2013	3 to 3; no reason-to-believe finding on 2 U.S.C. 432, 433 and 434
MUR 6696	Crossroads GPS (right)	CREW	17 December 2015 and 28 August 2018	3 to 3 on reason to believe and on 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi); file closed 6 to 0
MUR 6589	American Action Network (right)	CREW	Statement of reasons 19 October 2016	3 to 3 on whether AAN was a political committee; file closed 6 to 0. A district court held the dismissal contrary to law on 20 March 2018 and remanded
MUR 7904	Wyss, Berger Action Fund, Wyss Foundation, New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund (left)	Americans for Public Trust	28 July 2022	6 to 0 to dismiss the political-committee allegations; 3 to 3 on no reason to believe and 2 to 4 on dismissal for the foreign-national and name-of-another allegations

§5.6.3

In each matter the Commission's record shows the vote and the outcome. The cited records give no findings on the merits for any respondent. The FEC summary of the American Action Network decision recites the Buckley "major purpose" limit on political-committee status. The table lists four matters and is not a census of FEC matters under review.

Exhibit 902 · Enforcement record

MUR 6396, Crossroads GPS

The Commission failed by a vote of 3-3 to: a. Find reason to believe that Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies violated 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, and 434.

Complainants Public Citizen and others. FEC failed 3-3 to find reason to believe Crossroads GPS violated 2 U.S.C. 432, 433, 434.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: certification 3 December 2013
Quoted from: MUR #6396 page, Summary > Disposition
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6396/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 903 · Enforcement record

MUR 6696, Crossroads GPS (complainant CREW)

The Commission failed by a vote of 3-3 to: a. Find no reason to believe that Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi).

3-3 deadlocks on reason to believe and on 11 CFR 109.10(e)(1)(vi); file closed 6-0.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: certifications 17 December 2015 and 28 August 2018
Quoted from: MUR #6696 page, Summary > Disposition
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6696/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 904 · Enforcement record

MUR 6589, American Action Network (complainant CREW)

The Commission failed by a vote of 3-3 to: a. Find reason to believe that American Action Network violated 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, and 434.

FEC failed 3-3 on reason to believe that AAN was a political committee; file closed 6-0.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: statement of reasons 19 October 2016
Quoted from: MUR #6589 page, Summary > Disposition
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6589/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 905 · Agency summary of court decision

FEC Record: CREW v. FEC (16-2255 / 18-5136), American Action Network

On March 20, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the Commission's dismissal of an administrative complaint Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed against American Action Network (AAN) was contrary to law.

District court held the FEC's dismissal of the AAN complaint contrary to law and remanded. Summary recites the Buckley 'major purpose' limit.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: 20 March 2018 decision
Quoted from: FEC court-case page, Summary, first paragraph
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/crew-v-fec/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 906 · Enforcement record

MUR 7904, Hansjorg Wyss et al. (complainant Americans for Public Trust)

The Commission failed by a vote of 2-4 to dismiss as a matter of prosecutorial discretion the allegations that Hansjörg Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, Inc., the New Venture Fund, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund made foreign national contributions and contributions in the name of another.

Respondents: Wyss, Berger Action Fund, Wyss Foundation, New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund. FEC voted 6-0 to dismiss political-committee-registration allegations; failed 3-3 on no reason to believe and 2-4 on dismissal for the foreign-national and name-of-another allegations.

Source: Federal Election Commission
Date: certification 28 July 2022
Quoted from: MUR #7904 page, Summary > Disposition
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7904/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.7 The IRS applicant review

Finding POL-5.12Primary record

TIGTA found that from early 2010 the IRS selected exemption applications by names and policy positions, and that every application with "Tea Party," "Patriots" or "9/12" in its name was processed as a potential political case. The criteria TIGTA reviewed also included "Progressive," Occupy, ACORN Successors and Emerge, and 6 of 20 applications with "progress" or "progressive" in the name (30 percent) were processed as potential political cases.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reviewed the lists the IRS used to route applications for exemption. Its reports name both the Tea Party list and the Progressive list.

Evidence: Exhibit 889, Exhibit 890, Exhibit 891, Exhibit 892

§5.7.1

TIGTA's report of 14 May 2013 states: "The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention." Of 296 potential political cases at 17 December 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 withdrawn and none denied, and 160 were open for 206 to 1,138 days. Some information requests asked for lists of past and future donors.

§5.7.2

TIGTA wrote to Representative Sander Levin on 26 June 2013 that "Progressives" had been on the Historical tab of the IRS's watch list without referral instructions. It reported: "In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were processed as potential political cases." That is 6 of 20 applications, against 100 percent for names containing Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12. TIGTA stated it found no evidence that "Progressives" had been used to select cases in 2010 to 2012. The IRS told TIGTA that the entry, in use from 2005 to 2010, reflected a suspected new political party and 501(c)(3) applicants engaging in partisan activity (2017 report, pages 77 and 78).

Names and criteria in the TIGTA reviews
Name or criterion	Report	What TIGTA reports
"Tea Party," "Patriots," "9/12" in the applicant's name	Letter of 26 June 2013	100 percent processed as potential political cases
"progress" or "progressive" in the applicant's name	Letter of 26 June 2013	30 percent (6 of 20) processed as potential political cases
Progressive (criterion)	Report of 28 September 2017	Among the 17 criteria audited; 61 case files reviewed
ACORN Successors (criterion)	Report of 28 September 2017	Among the 17 criteria audited; 14 case files reviewed
Occupy, Emerge (criteria)	Report of 28 September 2017	Among the 17 criteria audited
Rally Patriots, We the People (criteria)	Report of 28 September 2017	Among the 17 criteria audited
Healthcare Legislation (criterion)	Report of 28 September 2017	Among the 17 criteria audited; 16 case files reviewed

§5.7.3

The 2017 report audited 17 of 259 criteria used from 2004 to 2013 and reviewed 146 case files. It quotes a Senate report, S. Rept. 114-119: "While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing." The report also quotes a July 2012 IRS assessment of 84 501(c)(3) and 199 501(c)(4) cases by name: "approximately ¾ appear to be conservative leaning."

§5.7.4

The 2017 report made no recommendations because the procedures were no longer in effect.

Exhibit 889 · Inspector general audit

Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review (2013-10-053)

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.

Found the IRS selected applications by names and policy positions (Tea Party, Patriots, 9/12). Of 296 potential political cases at 17 December 2012, 108 approved, 28 withdrawn, none denied, 160 open 206 to 1,138 days; some information requests asked for lists of past and future donors.

Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Date: 14 May 2013
Quoted from: Highlights page (What TIGTA Found); Results of Review p. 5
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://web.archive.org/web/2013/http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 890 · Inspector general letter

TIGTA letter to Rep. Sander Levin on the 'Progressives' BOLO entry

In total, 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words “progress” or “progressive” in their names were processed as potential political cases.

TIGTA: 'Progressives' sat on the Historical BOLO tab without referral instructions; 6 of 20 applications with 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names (30 percent) were processed as potential political cases, against 100 percent for Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 names.

Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Date: 26 June 2013
Quoted from: p. 2
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://democrats-waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-waysandmeans.house.gov/files/TIGTA%20Final%20Response%20to%20Rep.%20Levin%206.26.13.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 891 · Inspector general audit

Review of Selected Criteria Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review (2017-10-054)

While most of the potentially political applications that the IRS set aside for heightened scrutiny were Tea Party and conservative groups, the IRS also flagged some left-leaning tax-exempt applicants for processing.

Audited 17 criteria from 259 used 2004-2013, including Progressive, Occupy, ACORN Successors and Emerge beside Rally Patriots, We the People and Healthcare Legislation. 146 case files reviewed (Progressive 61, ACORN Successors 14, Healthcare Legislation 16). Quotes the IRS July 2012 assessment of case names.

Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Date: 28 September 2017
Quoted from: p. 2 (quoting S. Rept. 114-119); case table Figure 4, p. 10; Progressive criterion text pp. 77-78
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2022-02/201710054fr.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 892 · Inspector general audit

TIGTA 2017-10-054, quotation of IRS July 2012 assessment of political leanings

approximately ¾ appear to be conservative leaning

Same report, separate passage. IRS assessment of 84 (c)(3) and 199 (c)(4) cases by name.

Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
Date: 28 September 2017
Quoted from: p. 3
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2022-02/201710054fr.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.8 The DISCLOSE votes

Finding POL-5.13Primary record

The Senate failed to reach cloture on the DISCLOSE Act on 27 July 2010 (57 to 41), 23 September 2010 (59 to 39), 16 July 2012 (51 to 44), 17 July 2012 (53 to 45) and 22 September 2022 (49 to 49). In each vote every Republican voting voted nay, and every Democrat and independent voting voted yea except one Democrat in July 2010 and one in July 2012.

The table gives each roll call as the Senate recorded it, by party. Cloture requires 60 votes.

Evidence: Exhibit 907, Exhibit 908, Exhibit 909, Exhibit 910, Exhibit 911, Exhibit 912, Exhibit 913

Senate cloture votes on the DISCLOSE Act, by party
Date and roll call	Bill and question	Result	Republicans yea / nay	Democrats and independents yea / nay	Not voting
27 July 2010, roll call 220	S. 3628, cloture on the motion to proceed	57 to 41	0 / 40	57 / 1	1 Republican
23 September 2010, roll call 240	S. 3628, cloture on reconsideration	59 to 39	0 / 39	59 / 0	2 Republicans
16 July 2012, roll call 179	S. 3369, cloture on the motion to proceed	51 to 44	0 / 43	51 / 1	4 Republicans, 1 Democrat
17 July 2012, roll call 180	S. 3369, cloture on reconsideration	53 to 45	0 / 45	53 / 0	2 Republicans
22 September 2022, roll call 346	S. 4822, cloture on the motion to proceed	49 to 49	0 / 49	49 / 0	1 Republican, 1 Democrat

§5.8.1

The party counts were tabulated from the member records in the Senate's roll-call XML. Roll-call lists for 2015 to 2020 and 2023 to 2025, searched by title, returned no further DISCLOSE Act cloture vote. A cloture vote of 20 October 2021 on S. 2747 and House votes are not in the table.

§5.8.2

The stated reasons on 16 July 2012 are in the Congressional Record. Senator McConnell said: "After Citizens United, Democrats realized they could not shut up their critics so they decided to go after the microphone instead by trying to scare off the funders." Senator Schumer said: "I hope my colleagues will join us in this modest measure, which doesn't even limit how much people can give but simply says they have to disclose; they have to tell they are giving." McConnell's remarks also raised the exemption of unions and the priority of the bill.

Exhibit 907 · Roll call vote

Senate roll call 220, S. 3628 (DISCLOSE Act), cloture on motion to proceed

Cloture Motion Rejected (57-41, 3/5 majority required)

Rejected 57-41. Democrats 56 yea 1 nay; independents 1 yea; Republicans 40 nay (1 not voting). Party counts tabulated from the vote XML member records.

Source: U.S. Senate (Secretary of the Senate roll call data)
Date: 27 July 2010
Quoted from: roll call XML, element vote_result_text
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1112/vote_111_2_00220.xml
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 908 · Roll call vote

Senate roll call 240, S. 3628, cloture on reconsideration

Cloture Motion Rejected (59-39, 3/5 majority required)

Rejected 59-39. All Democrats and independents voting yea; 39 Republicans nay (2 not voting). Party counts tabulated from the vote XML member records.

Source: U.S. Senate (Secretary of the Senate roll call data)
Date: 23 September 2010
Quoted from: roll call XML, element vote_result_text
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1112/vote_111_2_00240.xml
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 909 · Roll call vote

Senate roll call 179, S. 3369 (DISCLOSE Act of 2012), cloture on motion to proceed

Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-44, 3/5 majority required)

Rejected 51-44. Democrats 49 yea 1 nay (1 not voting); independents 2 yea; Republicans 43 nay (4 not voting). Party counts tabulated from the vote XML member records.

Source: U.S. Senate (Secretary of the Senate roll call data)
Date: 16 July 2012
Quoted from: roll call XML, element vote_result_text
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1122/vote_112_2_00179.xml
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 910 · Roll call vote

Senate roll call 180, S. 3369, cloture on reconsideration

Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-45, 3/5 majority required)

Rejected 53-45. All Democrats and independents voting yea; 45 Republicans nay (2 not voting). Party counts tabulated from the vote XML member records.

Source: U.S. Senate (Secretary of the Senate roll call data)
Date: 17 July 2012
Quoted from: roll call XML, element vote_result_text
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1122/vote_112_2_00180.xml
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 911 · Roll call vote

Senate roll call 346, S. 4822 (DISCLOSE Act of 2022), cloture on motion to proceed

Cloture Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required)

Rejected 49-49 (60 required). Democrats 47 yea (1 not voting); independents 2 yea; Republicans 49 nay (1 not voting). Party counts tabulated from the vote XML member records.

Source: U.S. Senate (Secretary of the Senate roll call data)
Date: 22 September 2022
Quoted from: roll call XML, element vote_result_text
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00346.xml
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 912 · Floor statement

Congressional Record, 16 July 2012, S4985-S4988 (Sen. McConnell on the DISCLOSE Act)

After Citizens United, Democrats realized they could not shut up their critics so they decided to go after the microphone instead by trying to scare off the funders.

Minority leader's stated reasons for opposing S. 3369: privacy and harassment of donors, union exemption, and prioritization.

Source: U.S. Senate
Date: 16 July 2012
Quoted from: S4987
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2012-07-16/html/CREC-2012-07-16-pt1-PgS4985-8.htm
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 913 · Floor statement

Congressional Record, 16 July 2012, S5003 et seq. (Sen. Schumer on the DISCLOSE Act)

I hope my colleagues will join us in this modest measure, which doesn't even limit how much people can give but simply says they have to disclose; they have to tell they are giving.

Majority sponsor's stated reasons for S. 3369.

Source: U.S. Senate
Date: 16 July 2012
Quoted from: S5003-S5044 (speech preceding Merkley remarks)
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2012-07-16/html/CREC-2012-07-16-pt1-PgS5003-3.htm
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.9 The privacy case

Finding POL-5.14Primary record

In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the Supreme Court unanimously held compelled production of the NAACP's membership lists unconstitutional on an uncontroverted showing of reprisals against members. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021) the Court held, 6 to 3 on the judgment, that California's collection of charities' Schedule B donor lists was not narrowly tailored; Bonta concerned state collection from 501(c)(3) charities and did not concern federal campaign disclosure.

The privacy argument rests on two Supreme Court decisions about compelled disclosure to a state, decided on different facts.

Evidence: Exhibit 914, Exhibit 915, Exhibit 916, Exhibit 917

§5.9.1

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (30 June 1958) was a unanimous opinion by Justice Harlan. It states: "Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." The Court rested on the record: "Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility." The pin cite for both passages is 357 U.S. at 462.

§5.9.2

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (1 July 2021) concerned California's collection of charities' Schedule B donor lists. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, 6 to 3 on the judgment, that the demand was facially invalid because it was not narrowly tailored. The opinion states: "California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year." Exacting scrutiny requires narrow tailoring and does not require the least restrictive means. The Court also recognized that disclosure to the state can chill association even without public release. The case involved 501(c)(3) charities and state collection. It did not concern federal campaign disclosure by a 501(c)(4) or a super PAC.

§5.9.3

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, dissented: "Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all." SpeechNow, quoted in section 5.1, states the public's interest in knowing who funds speech about a candidate and says disclosure helps expose foreign-national contributions. Citizens United left as-applied challenges open where there is a "reasonable probability" of threats, harassment or reprisals, a standard it took from Buckley.

§5.9.4

On 16 July 2012 Senator McConnell said advocacy groups "all of which already disclose their donors to the IRS" would face harassment. The IRS no longer receives those names on Schedule B from 501(c)(4) organizations (Rev. Proc. 2018-38, T.D. 9898). The organizations must keep donor records and produce them to the IRS on request.

Exhibit 914 · Court opinion

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449

Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.

Unanimous Court (Harlan) held that compelled production of NAACP membership lists violated members' freedom of association on an uncontroverted showing of past reprisals.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 30 June 1958
Quoted from: 357 U.S. at 462
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/357/449
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 915 · Court opinion

NAACP v. Alabama, showing of reprisal

Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.

Same opinion, evidentiary basis.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 30 June 1958
Quoted from: 357 U.S. at 462
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/357/449
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 916 · Court opinion

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. ___ (No. 19-251)

California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year

Chief Justice Roberts for the Court (6-3 on the judgment): California's demand for charities' Schedule Bs is facially invalid because not narrowly tailored; exacting scrutiny requires narrow tailoring but not the least restrictive means. Involved 501(c)(3) charities and state collection, not federal campaign disclosure.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 1 July 2021
Quoted from: slip op. 14
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

Exhibit 917 · Court opinion

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Sotomayor dissent

Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all.

Dissent of Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan.

Source: U.S. Supreme Court
Date: 1 July 2021
Quoted from: Sotomayor, J., dissenting, first paragraph
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit

5.10 Another count

Finding POL-5.15Reported

The Brennan Center reports $1.9 billion of dark money in 2024 federal races, $1 billion in 2020 and at least $4.3 billion since 2010. It reports that $1.3 billion of the 2024 total went to super PACs and that about $1.2 billion benefited Democrats and about $664 million benefited Republicans.

The Brennan Center's tally is a reported figure from an advocacy organization. The tally's television, online and shell-company components are Brennan's own.

Evidence: Exhibit 922

§5.10.1

Brennan's report (Anna Massoglia, 7 May 2025) draws on FEC data, Wesleyan Media Project television data and platform ad archives. It defines the term: "The term dark money as used in this analysis refers to election spending and contributions by nonprofits and shell companies that are not legally required to — and do not — disclose the identities of their donors." The measure includes shell companies.

Three measures for 2024
Measure	Source and grade	2024
Dark money in federal races (nonprofits and shell companies)	Brennan Center, reported	$1.9 billion
Of which went to super PACs	Brennan Center, reported	$1.3 billion
Itemized gifts to super PACs from donors matching an IRS 501(c)(4) record	This chapter, derived from FEC and IRS files	$969 million
Independent expenditures by non-committee filers	This chapter, derived from FEC files	$67 million

§5.10.2

Brennan reports that about $1.2 billion of the 2024 total benefited Democrats and about $664 million benefited Republicans, and that the total was $1 billion in 2020 and at least $4.3 billion since 2010. The Brennan figures and the derived figures use different definitions, and the table does not subtract one from the other.

Exhibit 922 · Advocacy research report

Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races (Anna Massoglia)

The term dark money as used in this analysis refers to election spending and contributions by nonprofits and shell companies that are not legally required to — and do not — disclose the identities of their donors.

Publishes method: FEC data, Wesleyan Media Project TV data and platform ad archives; $1.9 billion in 2024, $1 billion in 2020, at least $4.3 billion since 2010; $1.3 billion to super PACs; Democratic-benefiting about $1.2 billion, Republican about $664 million.

Source: Brennan Center for Justice
Date: 7 May 2025
Quoted from: section Types of Dark Money Spending
Grade: Reported
Document: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Advocacy-organization tally with a published method (FEC data, Wesleyan Media Project television data, platform ad archives, shell-company classification). The television, online and shell-company components were not re-derived. The primary replacement is the underlying FEC, Wesleyan Media Project and platform-archive records.

5.11 RAI Services and the committees

Finding POL-5.17Primary record

MAGA Inc.'s report for 1 to 30 April 2026 lists a $5,000,000 receipt from RAI Services Company dated 30 April 2026. Its itemized April receipts total $9,585,145.60, of which $585,145.60 is bank interest. The RAI Services receipt is 52.2 percent of the total.

Evidence: Exhibit 1293

Mechanism: Lobbying and purchased policy

§5.11.1

The report was filed on 20 May 2026. The filing lists the receipt on Schedule A line 17 with the description "NON-CONTRIBUTION" and does not describe it as a contribution.

Finding POL-5.18Primary record

MAGA Inc.'s filings list $1,000,000 receipts from RAI Services Company on 5 February, 30 June and 29 December 2025, $1,000,000 from Altria Client Services on 9 May 2025 and $1,000,000 from JUUL Labs on 4 November 2025.

Evidence: Exhibit 1293

Mechanism: Lobbying and purchased policy

§5.11.2

All five are on line 17 with the same description or a close variant. The receipts from RAI Services total $3,000,000 in 2025 and $5,000,000 in 2026.

Exhibit 1293 · Company filing

MAGA Inc. (C00892471) Form 3X reports 2025 to April 2026: receipts from RAI Services Company, Altria Client Services and JUUL Labs

FEC-1978142 (May monthly, coverage 2026-04-01 to 2026-04-30, filed 2026-05-20) lists RAI SERVICES COMPANY, 401 N MAIN ST, WINSTON-SALEM NC, $5,000,000 dated 2026-04-30, Schedule A line 17, described "NON-CONTRIBUTION". All itemized April receipts total $9,585,145.60 including $585,145.60 bank interest. Earlier reports list RAI Services $1,000,000 on 2025-02-05, 2025-06-30 and 2025-12-29, Altria Client Services $1,000,000 on 2025-05-09 and JUUL Labs $1,000,000 on 2025-11-04.

Source: Federal Election Commission (electronic filings, docquery.fec.gov)
Date: 2025-07-31 to 2026-05-20
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00892471/1978142/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Raw .fec files and sha256 in research/politics-2026-ballard/fec/ and research/politics-2026-ballard/fec-extracts.json. Filing ids FEC-1909741, 1930418 (amended 1930534), 1943509, 1978142; FEC-1978142 sha256 cad4bb8980bce617e80f0a200ece69e8c77498cb266bef7829a1d253db5e232f.

Finding POL-5.19Primary record

MAHA PAC's reports list $500,000 from Botanic Tonics LLC dated 4 March 2026 and $500,000 dated 9 April 2026. Its reports through the pre-general report of 14 October 2026 list no later receipt from that name.

Evidence: Exhibit 1294

Mechanism: Lobbying and purchased policy

Exhibit 1294 · Company filing

MAHA PAC (C00821439) Form 3X reports, March and April 2026: receipts from Botanic Tonics LLC

FEC-1970348 and FEC-1978004 (amended by FEC-2004234 and FEC-2005797) list Botanic Tonics LLC $500,000 dated 2026-03-04 and $500,000 dated 2026-04-09 (aggregate $1,000,000), Schedule A line 17. No other receipt from that name appears in the committee's reports through the 2026-10-14 pre-general report.

Source: Federal Election Commission (electronic filings, docquery.fec.gov)
Date: 2026-04-20 to 2026-06
Grade: Primary record
Document: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00821439/1978004/
Accessed: 2026-11-10
Cited by: Findings citing this exhibit
Note: Raw .fec files and sha256 in research/politics-2026-ballard/fec/ and research/politics-2026-ballard/fec-extracts.json.

Finding POL-5.20Primary record

On 3 August 2026 Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent letters to Reynolds American, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and to Botanic Tonics. The letters cite press reports for a chronology of the payments, a lunch and FDA's guidance, ask what was requested at the lunch and in calls, and set a deadline of 31 August 2026.

Evidence: Exhibit 1295, Exhibit 1296, Exhibit 1297, Exhibit 1298

Mechanism: Lobbying and purchased policy

§5.11.3

The letters characterize the sequence as an exchange. The characterization is the Senator's. As of 10 November 2026 the Committee's site shows no response from the three recipients. The table sets the dates in the letters beside the documents that fix each one.

The sequence in the Wyden letters, and what documents each date
Date (2026)	Event	What documents it
30 April	MAGA Inc. report lists a $5,000,000 receipt from RAI Services Company	FEC filing (Exhibit 1293)
2 May	A lunch between Reynolds American's general counsel and two Ballard Partners lobbyists	Press reports cited in the letter. No filing or official record read (Exhibit 1295)
5 May	FDA authorizes four Glas pods, its first non-tobacco, non-menthol e-cigarette authorizations	FDA release (Exhibit 1301)
8 May	FDA announces enforcement guidance on unauthorized e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches	FDA guidance, with FDA's 8 May page cited in the letter (Exhibit 142)
12 May	Guidance published in the Federal Register, 91 FR 25892	Federal Register (Exhibit 1299)
15 May	FDA's list of commissioners shows an acting commissioner from this date	FDA page (Exhibit 1303)

§5.11.4

The documents fix the order of the filings and of FDA's actions. They do not record what was said at the lunch, and no document read connects the payment to the guidance. Ballard's lobbying reports for the same client list the White House Office from the second quarter of 2026 (Finding 1.20), and Medicine Finding 6.7 covers the guidance itself.

5.12 What the record cannot show

Finding POL-5.16Open question

The public record does not show the original donors behind 501(c)(4) transfers to super PACs. The IRS public data file shows every Schedule B donor field as RESTRICTED, and the IRS no longer collects contributor names from 501(c)(4) organizations.

No cited document names the original donors. The filings name the organizations that gave and the organizations that received.

Evidence: Exhibit 886, Exhibit 884

§5.12.1

The FEC names every donor to a super PAC. It names a 501(c)(4) that gave to one. The 501(c)(4)'s Form 990 reports total contributions and grants. Its Schedule B, the document that lists donors, is withheld from the public by statute and no longer filed with the IRS by Rev. Proc. 2018-38 and T.D. 9898. The transfers between the 501(c)(4)s and the super PACs can be added up. Tracing a donor's gift through them requires Schedule B, and paragraph 5.3.5 states why the filings do not support dollar-for-dollar links.

§5.12.2

Gaps in the record, by cause.

The FEC bulk files do not carry electioneering-communication disbursements by cycle.
The IRS XML begins with tax year 2015. Forms 990 of Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity for 2010 to 2014 are in the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search PDFs.
Berger Action Fund Schedule I attachments are PDF images that the XML omits, so the Wyss figures rest on AP.
The match of donor names to the IRS master file is by name and approximate. The FEC independent-expenditure file may double count 1 to 3 percent of dollars, and committee types come from each cycle's committee master.
The ratio test covers the named groups and is not a census of 501(c)(4) Schedule C filings.
The FEC data show a 501(c)(6) trade association giving $44.8 million to super PACs in 2024, which the 501(c)(4) comparison does not cover.
Section 5.11 reads tobacco and vaping receipts at two committees. It includes no comparison with tobacco or vaping money to Democratic committees, no record of the lunch or the calls, and nothing on what line 17 and the description "NON-CONTRIBUTION" mean beyond what the filings state.

5.13 Which parties the record covers

§5.13.1

The politics subject applies the same test to each party. The table lists each mechanism in this chapter and the documents for each side.

Party coverage of the mechanisms in this chapter
Mechanism	Right-aligned documents	Left-aligned documents
501(c)(4) paired with a super PAC	One Nation and Senate Leadership Fund; American Action Network and Congressional Leadership Fund	Majority Forward and Senate Majority PAC; House Majority Forward and House Majority PAC; Future Forward USA Action and Future Forward PAC; Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action
Pass-through intermediaries	Marble Freedom Trust, The Concord Fund, Rule of Law Trust, DonorsTrust, Schwab Charitable	Berger Action Fund, Open Society Policy Center and Action Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund, Tides Foundation, Hopewell Fund
Donor identity from the press	Barre Seid (ProPublica, The Lever)	Hansjörg Wyss (Associated Press)
FEC enforcement	MUR 6396, 6696, 6589	MUR 7904
IRS applicant review	Tea Party, Patriots, 9/12; Rally Patriots; We the People	Progressive; Occupy; ACORN Successors; Emerge
Challenges to FEC disclosure regulations	Crossroads GPS (intervenor in CREW v. FEC)	No left-aligned respondent in the two dockets
Named individual super PAC donors	Adelson, Mellon, Musk, Yass	Bloomberg, Soros, Moskovitz
DISCLOSE votes	Tallies by party in section 5.8	Tallies by party in section 5.8

§5.13.2

The enforcement record covers three right-aligned matters and one left-aligned matter, and the table is not a census of FEC matters. The pairing and intermediary tables use one query for both sides. The classification of each organization is the project's, and the recipient tables let a reader check it.

Key findings

Citizens United and SpeechNow removed limits on independent groups and kept reporting for them (5.1).
A 501(c)(4) may engage in campaigns if not primarily, and no rule defines primarily (5.2).
A 501(c)(4) names no donors publicly and since 2018 does not report them to the IRS (5.3).
Independent expenditures rose from $973 million to $4,029 million, 2012 to 2024, and the non-committee share fell to 1.7 percent (5.4).
Itemized gifts from 501(c)(4)-matched organizations to super PACs rose from $12 million to $969 million (5.5).
Each party's leadership super PACs received transfers from paired 501(c)(4)s (5.6).
No sampled 501(c)(4) on either side reported political expenditures above 47.5 percent of expenses (5.7).
Intermediaries on both sides moved billions in grants without naming donors (5.8).
Press reports name Barre Seid and groups funded by Hansjörg Wyss (5.9).
Courts held one FEC purpose-based disclosure rule contrary to statute and upheld another (5.10).
FEC enforcement matters against both sides ended in deadlocks or dismissals (5.11).
The IRS lists TIGTA reviewed named Tea Party, Patriots and 9/12 and also Progressive, Occupy, ACORN Successors and Emerge (5.12).
The Senate failed to reach cloture on the DISCLOSE Act five times, and Republicans voted nay each time (5.13).
NAACP v. Alabama and Bonta are the Supreme Court's privacy decisions, and Bonta concerned state collection from charities (5.14).
The Brennan Center reports $1.9 billion of dark money in 2024, as an advocacy tally with a published method (5.15).
The original donors behind 501(c)(4) transfers are not in the public record (5.16).

Version 0.1. Last updated 9 November 2026. Report an error.