UNBIASED - Unbiased University: What to Know About the HIDDEN Power Players in Washington: Lobbyists, PACs, Super PACS, and Dark Money

Episode Date: April 6, 2026

UNBIASED University is in session! While Jordan is on maternity leave, she’s breaking down the most critical aspects of the United States government — the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the three branches of the federal government, presidential elections, the evolution of political parties, and more. In this episode of UNBIASED University, we pull back the curtain on the hidden power players in Washington and examine how influence actually works behind the scenes. Who are lobbyists, what do they legally do, and how do Political Action Committees, Super PACs, and so-called dark money groups operate within the campaign finance system? We break down the difference between direct lobbying and independent expenditures, how campaign finance laws have evolved over time, and what Supreme Court decisions have shaped the modern political funding landscape. We also explain the rules around disclosure, coordination, and contribution limits so you can better understand what is legal, what is controversial, and why these systems generate so much debate. Whether you view these groups as essential participants in a representative democracy or as outsized influencers in American politics, this episode provides a clear, nonpartisan explanation of how money and advocacy intersect with power in Washington. What to Know About Lobbying (2:58) The World of Campaign Finance (~20:03) PACS, Super PACS, and "Dark Money" Groups (~32:27) Notable Supreme Court Cases That Have Shaped the World of Campaign Finance (~42:41) How to Track the Money (~46:50) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Tellus Online Security. Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got Tellus Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season.

Plan started just $12 a month. Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics and to the Unbiased University series. In today's episode, we are pulling back the curtain on a part of Washington that most Americans hear about all the time, but we rarely see it. So we're talking about the hidden power players who shape the policies that ultimately govern our lives.

So when most people think about political power, they think of presidents and lawmakers and Supreme Court justices, right? But in reality, a lot of the most significant influence in Washington actually comes from individuals and organizations that are sitting behind the scenes. Lobbyists who help write legislation, political action committees or PACs that spend millions of dollars on advertising, donor networks that fund campaigns and policy initiatives, advocacy groups, think tanks, trade associations, consultants, regulatory insiders, all of these people and organizations play roles in shaping what laws get

passed, what regulations are written, and which political ideas ultimately, you know, gain traction and become something. So today, we're going to walk step by step through how influence actually works in Washington. We'll break down lobbying, campaign finance laws, PACs, super PACs, so-called dark money. We'll talk about political advertising. And of course, we have to talk about some of the major Supreme Court decisions that have reshaped the modern campaign finance landscape. By the end of this episode, you will understand not only who these hidden power players are, but also how everyday citizens can follow the money and better understand these forces that are shaping public policy in the United States.

Now for my unbiased university spiel that, for those of you tuning in for the first time, haven't heard yet, but those of you who have been here all along have heard, I want you to think of this series as a condensed law school education. I want you to imagine every time you are tuning into one of these episodes, you are sitting down in a law school class with me as your professor. And in each class, we talk about a new topic, we talk about laws, we talk about Supreme Court opinions, all these things that are covered in law school to help you really understand the depths of these topics. By the end of Unbiased University, you will have obtained your imaginary degree, which means that you will be fully prepared for the show when I come back from maternity leave

and I get back to reporting on current events because all of these concepts we're talking about in each of these episodes that deal with current events have to do with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, presidential elections, all of these things. So my hope with all of this is that everyone understands all of these concepts on a much deeper level after this series, and that way, when we do get back to current events, we understand what's going on in the background of all of these current events. And with that, let's talk about the hidden power players in Washington. So we'll first start with lobbying and lobbyists. At its core, lobbying just means attempting to influence government decision making, right?

This can take shape in many ways. It can include influencing legislation. It can include influencing regulatory rules, agency decisions, even how existing laws are implemented and enforced. Lobbying is a very big thing in the United States, but it's also very much legal in the United States. So remember how we talked about the right to petition earlier in the Unbiased University series. Well, lobbying is a formalized version of petitioning. So typically when we think of petitioning, we think of everyday citizens, you know, sending a petition. or calling the representatives to ask for change. But paid advocacy, lobbying also falls within the broader constitutional protection of petitioning

the government. Now, to be clear, the Supreme Court has never explicitly held that lobbying in its modern form, meaning the massive scale and structure of today's lobbying industry is constitutionally protected. But this is to say that the First Amendment does protect the underlying activity of advocating to government officials, which is why lobbying. is legal so long as it follows disclosure and ethics rules. And as we dive deeper into this, keep in mind that lobbying nowadays is one of the most powerful forces shaping policy in Washington. So who exactly are lobbyists? Lobbyists are people hired by organizations to speak to the government

on their behalf. Now, this could be corporations, trade groups, labor unions, nonprofits, advocacy organizations, sometimes even state or local governments. And their job is pretty simple. It's basically represent the interests of whoever hired them by communicating directly with lawmakers, congressional staff, and federal agencies and try to get something out of that communication that benefits you, right? And a lot of lobbyists are actually former members of Congress themselves or former senior staffers or lawyers or policy experts. And those that were previously in Congress, this is something called the revolving door, which we'll talk about more later. But lobbyists are typically people who already understand how Washington works.

And just as importantly, they already know the people working inside the government. So access is a very big part of what makes lobbying so powerful. But something critical to understand is lawmakers and their staff usually rely on outside experts when they're writing legislation. Okay. So especially when it comes to complicated areas of the law, like health care, energy, banking, telecommunications, et cetera, lawmakers are not experts in these things by any means. They are in politics and that is it, okay? They don't know all of the things there is to know about banking and energy and telecommunications. So lobbyists will frequently be the ones that provide the research and the policy proposals and the suggested bill text and industry data that can influence

how a law is written well before the public even hears about the law. And we'll talk about what this looks like in the real world in just a second. But another thing to note is that lobbying doesn't just happen in closed-door meetings. Lobbyists can testify at congressional hearings. They can help organize groups that support or oppose a bill. They can fund policy research. They can work with federal agencies after a law passes even, you know, while the more detailed regulations and enforcement mechanisms are being written and try to influence those. But in a lot of cases, the biggest influence happens during the early drafting and rulemaking stages when public attention is still pretty limited. So let's go through some real world examples. When Congress was writing the Affordable Care Act back in

2010, a bunch of groups were significantly involved in lobbying lawmakers, okay, doctors, organizations, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, just to name a few. And each of those groups, they were trying to shape the law in ways that worked best for their industries. So some of the final provisions like how insurance markets were structured and how certain health care rules were written, those things were influenced by those negotiations that were happening behind the scenes while the bill was being drafted. Gun policy is another example of how lobbying shapes legislation. The NRA is one of the most prominent lobbying organizations in Washington. They meet with lawmakers. They testify at hearings. They push for specific

language in the law. And their lobbying efforts have played a major role in shaping multiple provisions in several pieces of federal gun legislation, including liability protections for gun manufacturers, which was passed as part of the protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act in 2005. They've also negotiated over principles related to background checks and other firearm regulations. So a lot of the major laws are not written solely by lawmakers. In fact, most of them are not. They're drafted through negotiations involving industries, advocacy groups, policy organizations, which are all working to shape the final language of a law in a way that benefits them the most. Now, because lobbying involves trying to influence government officials, many lobbyists have to

register with the federal government and file regular disclosure reports showing who hired them, what issues they're working on, roughly how much money is being spent, you know, disclosure and ethics rules, essentially. However, not every type of advocacy activity counts as reportable lobbying, which means that the full picture of influence isn't always completely visible and in the public eye. Okay. And this is called shadow lobbying. So an example of this would be when an organization pays for research or a policy study that supports the outcome that they want. So for example, a trade group or a nonprofit might fund an economic study showing why a certain law would help lower costs or whatever.

And then they share that study with lawmakers and the congressional staff while a bill is being written. But if the organization isn't officially meeting the legal definition of lobbying when they do this, when they fund this research study, when they give it to the congressional staffers, the lawmakers, that spending might not show up in lobbying disclosure. reports. So even though the research is still influencing the policy conversation, the public might not always see the full picture of how much money is being spent to shape these discussions. And just to elaborate a little bit further, under federal law, lobbying generally means, and we're talking about a legal

definition here, being paid to contact government officials to influence legislation, regulations, or government decisions, and spending a certain amount of time or money doing so. To count as reportable lobbying under the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act, the person has to be paid to influence policy. They have to make direct lobbying contacts with covered officials, lawmakers, congressional staff, certain executive branch officials, and they have to spend enough time or money on those activities to meet reporting thresholds. So because the definition is pretty technical, there are some influencing activities that can fall outside of what legally counts as reportable lobbying, even if the activity is still achieving the same goal as lobbying,

which is to influence. So for instance, a group might run ads on TV or on social media telling voters to call their lawmakers and oppose a bill. Because the organization is communicating with the public and not directly contacting lawmakers in a way that meets the legal definition of a lobbying contact, those ad campaigns might not always be reported as lobbying spending under federal disclosure rules. Similarly, let's be. say an organization funds a research report or an economic study designed to support a particular policy position and then distributes those materials publicly or makes them available to lawmakers without engaging in formal lobbying meetings that meet the reporting thresholds. Since the activity

could be categorized as research or public education or issue advocacy, rather than qualifying lobbying contacts, the spending connected to producing those materials might not appear in lobbying disclosure filings. So again, even though the research is still influencing the policy conversation, the public might not always see what's going on behind the scenes or how much money is being spent to shape policy. Now, the important thing to understand is that just about every major interest group in the country, from environmental organizations to business coalitions to civil rights groups,

uses lobbying to push for policies that they want. The controversy usually is not that lobby. being exists. It's that groups with more financial resources have more access and more time with lawmakers and therefore more ability to shape policy conversations early on. And that is something to keep in mind as we move through the rest of this episode. Influence in Washington, it usually doesn't start when Congress is voting on a bill. It starts much earlier than that when the ideas are first being written, when it's being negotiated, when it's being finalized. And again, these bigger organizations, these bigger corporations, the people, the organizations and corporations with more money,

or sometimes the people with more money, have more access and therefore tend to have more of a say. The final thing that I'll mention about lobbying is that there are pros and cons to lobbying, as with most things. In some cases, lobbyists really can provide lawmakers with this specialized knowledge that Congress simply doesn't have the time or internal expertise to come up with on its own. When Congress writes these highly technical laws that involve health care systems, financial regulation, emerging technologies, whatever it might be, you have industry experts, advocacy organizations, and policy specialists that are providing the data, providing the research, and providing this, you know, real world insight that can help

lawmakers understand how a proposed law would actually work once it's implemented. At the same time, though, lobbying can obviously be dangerous because, the more money an organization has, the more access they have to lawmakers, the more meetings they get, the more opportunities they have to shape these policy discussions early in the drafting process and have more influence. For example, the pharmaceutical industry, one of the biggest lobbying centers in Washington, trade organizations like pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America and major drug manufacturers, they spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on lobbying policy research and advocacy. So because the pharmaceutical industry has the financial

means and has such great access, the pharmaceutical industry will typically reap the most benefits. And the same logic applies to the energy sector, the firearm industry, national business coalitions, all of the big players. Another lesser known part of lobbying is something called the revolving door. So this is when people move back and forth between working in the government and working as lobbyists in the private sector. So someone might spend years working as a congressional staffer or at a federal agency. They build expertise in professional relationships within the government. Then they leave the government and they take a job lobbying on issues related to the same

policy areas that they once worked on. This is the revolving door. Supporters argue that this can be helpful because former officials understand how the government works and can help organizations. navigate complicated rules and processes, but critics argue that it creates conflicts of interest, especially if policymakers know that high-paying lobbying jobs might be available after they leave public service. And actually, because of these concerns, there are ethics rules and what are called cooling off periods that require certain former officials to wait a set amount of time before they're

allowed to lobby their former colleagues or agencies. But the exact rules depend on the position they held and, you know, not everyone follows them. A good example of the revolving door involves former Congressman Billy Towson. He served in the House for many years. He helped draft major health care legislation while he was there, but he left Congress in 2005 and he later became the head of pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America, one of the pharmaceutical industry's biggest lobbying organizations. And in that role, he basically became the chief representative for major drug companies in Washington. He would meet with lawmakers and regulators to discuss things like prescription drug rules, Medicare policy, how pharmaceutical pricing regulation should be

structured. So while he was in Congress, he helped work on health care laws that directly affected the pharmaceutical industry. Then after he left, he took a leadership role representing the same industry and, you know, advocating on the same policy areas he had previously overseen as lawmakers or as a lawmaker and then had a ton of influence in Washington. And again, critics argue this kind of transition creates incentives, whether intentional or not, for policymakers to maintain these strong relationships with industries that they may later work for or to shape policy decisions in ways that align with future private sector interests. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that former lawmakers simply bring valuable experience

and institutional knowledge that helps organizations better understand how the government actually functions. So lobbying is one of the main ways organizations try to influence policy. but there's another major influence in Washington, and that is the money that flows through political campaigns and election-related spending. So we're going to take our first break here. When we come back, we will talk about campaign finance. I feel like life is just a constant balancing act between work, relationships, finances, everything. And then on top of that, you have to think about your health care. It can be so overwhelming. And finding a good doctor, let's be real, should not be on the list of hard

things to manage. But that's exactly why Zoc Doc is a thing, because Zoc Doc is making it incredibly easy to find a book an appointment with a provider you trust. Zocococ is a free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. So whether you're looking for dermatology, dentistry, primary care, eye care, or one of the other 200-plus specialties offered on Zocdoc, you can easily search by specialty or symptom to find the right doctor for you. Then once you find the right one, you can actually see their appointment openings right there on Zoc Doc. You just pick the time slot that works best for your schedule and that's it. You're done. And if you're someone that prefers a video visit rather than

driving to a doctor's office and waiting for what feels like hours, you can also do that on Zoc Doc. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find an instantly book a doctor you love today. That's Zocdoc doc.com. slash unbiased. Zocdoc.com slash unbiased. Thanks Zocdoc for sponsoring this message. I feel like good hair days don't get enough credit. Good hair days can completely change your mood and make you feel so much more confident and relaxed.

And Nutraful is great because it works from the inside out to support hair growth over time. One of the things I really appreciate about Nutriful is that it offers multiple different formulas for men and women. So you can get the supplement that's right for you based on your lifestyle, whether you're just looking for a daily supplement that supports overall hair growth, or maybe you're postpartum, or maybe you're going through menopause. Nutraful has a supplement that can help. Nutriful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists.

Nutriful's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed, NSF certified for sport, and clinically tested. So let your hair become one less thing taking up space in your head and see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, Nutraful is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you visit Nutraful.com and enter promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. Welcome back. Before the break, we covered lobbying and lobbyists, one of the main hidden power players in Washington, but now we have to talk about campaign finance, which is basically the system that governs how political campaigns raise and spend money. So first and foremost, running for office in the United States is expensive.

Okay, candidates need money for staff, travel, advertising, events, salaries, polling, voter outreach, digital operations, a long list of other campaign operations. And they spend a lot. lot of money doing it. So just to illustrate for you, during the 2024 election cycle, the Trump and Harris campaigns each spent roughly one and a half billion dollars, meaning three billion dollars was spent in just one general election. Okay. Because it's so expensive, federal law allows candidates, political parties, and outside groups to raise money. But it also sets certain rules about who can donate, how much they can donate, and how that money can be spent. So we'll start with one of the most important concepts in campaign finance,

which is hard money versus soft money. These are the two main types of spending to influence elections. Hard money is pretty straightforward. It's money that people donate directly to a candidate's campaign or to a political party committee. Because that money goes straight to the campaign, it's heavily regulated in the sense that there are strict limits on how much individuals can give. and those donations do have to be publicly reported so voters can see who is financially supporting a candidate. So let's say an individual donor contributes $3,300 directly to a candidate's campaign or a political party committee. Because it's a direct contribution, it's subject to federal contribution limits and it has to be publicly disclosed in FEC filings. And by the way, donations made directly to party committees like the RNC or DNC also fall into.

this hard money category and are regulated the same way. So whether it's going directly to the campaign or it's going to a political party committee, the RNC or DNC, whatever it might be, they're regulated the same way. Now, soft money sometimes refers to independent spending. It refers to money spent outside the campaign. So this is when outside organizations like super PACs, advocacy groups, certain political organizations, spend money on ads or messaging that support or oppose candidates without actually giving money directly to the campaign itself. So all outside groups that are not political parties are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money from people, from corporations, from unions, with the exception of traditional packs. So a traditional pack is different than a super pack. So imagine a donor

gives $5 million to a super PAC that supports a particular candidate. The super PAC can't give that $5 million directly to the candidate's campaign, because heavily regulated, there are limits, but it can spend the money independently on ads, social media campaigns, et cetera, that say, you know, vote for candidate X, whatever. Because the spending is legally considered independent from the campaign, contribution limits are unlimited, but the spending itself does have to be reported. So that is soft money or independent spending. Money spent outside the campaign, usually by outside organizations running their own messaging, supporting one candidate or another. And again, that still has to be reported,

but there is no limit. In the earlier days, soft money, more so referred to money raised by political parties for general party activities. But then over time, the campaign finance system, you know, and today a big portion of political influence, happens through this independent outside spending. And there are a few reasons that it developed this way. So first, as we discussed, candidates can only accept limited donations. So if a donor wants to spend much more supporting a candidate or policy position, they have to give to outside groups like super PACs, which can then spend an unlimited or a policy. amount of money on advertising and messaging so long as they don't formally coordinate with a campaign.

And we'll talk more about that part of it when we get two packs. But another reason that independent spending became this big thing is because these outside groups can be more aggressive with their messaging. So campaigns tend to be a little more reserved with their messaging and, you know, kind of sometimes avoid certain types of political rhetoric that could backfire. But outside groups can run more aggressive or controversial ads that a campaign might not want to run directly. This way, you know, the candidate still benefits from the messaging, but the candidate's not necessarily responsible for it. There's also something called agenda setting power that is tied to independent spending. So when outside groups spend a lot of money on ads about a specific issue,

it shows candidates that the issue matters politically, which can then shape campaign platforms. It can shape debate topics. Eventually, you know, legislate. priorities if that candidate gets elected. So for example, on issues like taxes, environmental policy, gun rights, labor issues, health care, outside organizations can invest a ton of money into advertising that pressures candidates to adopt certain positions or maybe rewards those candidates who already support them. And in doing that, these groups can start shaping the policy conversation even before the candidate is elected and before any laws are written. Now, the reason this system works the way it does today is because of the development of

campaign finance laws through major federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions. We'll get to the Supreme Court decisions later. What I want to talk about is two federal laws specifically. So one of the most important laws was the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was enacted in 1971 and really serves as the foundational law that regulates campaign finance in the United States. Initially, it created the overall framework for federal campaign fundraising and created the basic disclosure framework, which required political parties, federal candidates, and PACs to report campaign donations and spending. But the original version of the law did not go as far as to,

you know, establishing a central body that would be responsible for actually enforcing the law. wasn't until a few years after post Watergate in 1974 that the law was amended and really built the modern system. It created the FEC or the Federal Election Commission, which became the central agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws. It created stronger enforcement mechanisms through the FEC and it imposed contribution limits on individuals, PACs, and political parties. Since then, the law has been amended multiple times. Portions of it have even been struck down are modified by the Supreme Court, which again, we'll talk about more towards the end of the episode. But the other law that we have to talk about is a law that Congress passed in 2002 called the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. And this was actually one of the amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 that we just talked about. It focused in large part on two issues, soft money and certain types of political advertising called issue advocacy. So on the soft money side, this law prohibited national political party committees from receiving or using unlimited soft money contributions in federal elections and prohibited federal candidates and office holders from raising or using soft money for federal election activities. Now on the issue advocacy side of things, issue advocacy refers to political advertising that focuses on supporting or opposing specific policies or issues rather than a specific candidate. This is different than

express advocacy, which explicitly supports or opposes a particular election outcome. Originally, issue ads were meant to talk about policies without telling people how to vote. But over time, a lot of issue ads started mentioning candidates while still kind of avoiding explicit language like vote for so-and-so or vote against so-and-so. And because of this, the McCain-Feingold Act created these new rules for this category, of issue advertising, now known as electioneering communications, which meant broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate close to an election. And under this law, corporations and labor unions were prohibited from using their general treasury funds to pay for these kinds of ads, but they could

still fund political messaging through separate hacks. Notably, portions of this ban were later struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010, which, you know, led to the rapid development. of super PACs, but again, we'll get there when we get to the Supreme Court decisions. The other thing that this 2002 law did was raise contribution limits for individuals in certain political committees to federal candidates. So what I want to do is talk about what these rules actually look like in real life, like what these limits look like, what people can contribute. So federal law sets specific dollar amounts on how much people can donate directly to candidates and party committees. The cap is lower for donations.

that go directly to candidates than it is for donations that go to party committees. So right now, for example, an individual can donate up to $3,300 per election to a federal candidate's campaign, which means someone could give $3,300 for the primary and another $3,300 for the general election, totaling $6,600 per cycle per candidate. For donations to party committees like the RNC or DNC, an individual can donate up to $41,300 per year. Then on top of that, donors can also give separate amounts to certain special party accounts like building funds, recount funds, legal funds, et cetera. And that can then potentially bring the total annual donation to a national party committee

by any one individual into the six-figure range, but each special account has its own cap as well. on the disclosure side of things, when someone donates directly to a candidate's campaign, that campaign has to report the donor's name, address, occupation, employer, if the amount is above certain thresholds, the amount donated, and the date of the contribution, all of that has to be reported in filings that are submitted to the FEC. When someone donates to a party committee, like the DNC or RNC, the party committee has to report the same type of donor information in their own FEC filings. The reporting requirements are very similar because both candidate committees and party committees operate under federal disclosure

rules. The main difference between the two is where the disclosure happens. So donations to candidates show up in the candidates campaign filings, whereas donation to the party committees show in the party committee's filings. But both are publicly searchable in the FEC database because both have to be filed with the FEC. So those are some of the rules as they pertain to individual donations. Corporations and labor unions, on the other hand, generally can't donate directly to a federal candidates campaign using regular company or union funds. If a business or union wants to support candidates directly, they have, they usually have

to set up a separate PAC, political action committee. That PAC then raises money from employees. or employees or members and then donates that money to campaigns within the legal contribution limits, which currently allow a traditional pact to give up to $5,000 per election to a federal candidates campaign or up to $10,000 total across the primary and general election combined. Now, keep in mind, outside groups that take part in independent political spending like super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. They just have other rules that they need to follow when it comes to coordinating their spending with a candidates campaign.

But that actually takes us right into the next part of the episode, which is all about PACs and Super PACs and how they function. So the different types of political spending groups you typically hear about are PACs, super PACs, and then what people sometimes call dark money organizations. And we'll start with traditional PACs. Packs are organizations that are created to raise money. and support candidates, political parties, or specific policy issues. And as we just mentioned, traditional PACs can donate directly to candidates, but because of that, they have contribution limits. They can only give a certain amount to each campaign, and their fundraising and spending activity

has to be publicly reported to the Federal Election Commission. Pax can also coordinate their spending and strategy with the candidates they support. This is very different than super PACs. Super PACs cannot donate money directly to candidates, but they can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. There is no cap and they cannot coordinate with a candidate's campaign. Super PACs usually, their spending usually goes towards political advertising and messaging that supports or opposes candidates. Now, the key rule with Super PACs is that their spending has to be independent. So as I just said, they cannot formally coordinate their advertising strategy with the campaign itself. That would be illegal. Once coordination happens between a super PAC and a campaign, it becomes an illegal contribution, assuming the contribution exceeds the limits that apply to direct campaign donations for traditional packs. But as we know, this happened, I mean, illegal donations happen. There have been several high profile complaints and a few enforcement cases involving alleged coordination between campaigns

and super PACs, but because coordination is legally defined very narrowly and it's usually pretty hard to prove, most cases just result in civil penalties or they just go unresolved. But assuming everything is done legally, a super PAC might run millions of dollars in advertising supporting a candidate, but the campaign and super PAC operate separately. And we'll talk about how super PACs came about when we get to the Supreme Court portion of this episode. But we've talked about PACs, super PACs, the differences between the two. Now we have to talk about these organizations that people often refer to as dark money groups. Dark money refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not publicly disclosed.

So certain nonprofit organizations that are allowed to participate in political advocacy like 501s or 501c3s, they are generally under no. legal obligation to disclose their donors because they are not technically political organizations, but they are allowed to participate in political advocacy. They are only required to report their spending if they mention a candidate during a short time period leading up to the election, or they spend their money on express advocacy that explicitly supports a candidate. But other than that, don't have to report their spending. So when these organizations choose to not disclose their funding sources, they are considered dark money.

groups. But here's where it gets a little more complicated. These dark money nonprofits can donate money to super PACs and super PACs are required to disclose who gave them the money. But if the donation comes from a nonprofit that doesn't reveal its donors, the public still cannot see who originally funded that money despite the Super PAC reporting it, right? The public only sees which nonprofit donated the money, but not who originally donated the money to the nonprofit. So even though the SuperPact technically reports where the donation came from, the true original source of the funding is still oftentimes hidden. And that is why some spending in the system is still considered dark money, even when these disclosures exist. In fact, I'll give you some numbers. According to the Brennan Center

for justice, dark money spending hit a record high of roughly $1.9 billion in the 2024 federal election cycle, and more than two-thirds of that dark money flowed into super PACs. The record before that was $1 billion, which was hit in 2020. So this dark money plays a significant role in each of our elections. But let's take our final break here. When we come back, I'll give you some examples of some of the more well-known organizations that are considered to be dark money nonprofits. And then we'll talk about some of the bigger Supreme Court decisions that expanded political spending. Let's talk groceries, specifically your groceries. With Instacart, you want your groceries just the way you like them, right? Well, the Instacart app lets you do just that. They have a new

preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Instacart, get groceries just how you like. When Westjet first took flight in 1996, the vibes were a bit different. People thought denim on denim was peak fashion, inline skates were everywhere, and two out of three women rocked, the Rachel. While those things stayed in the 90s, one thing that hasn't is that fuzzy feeling you get when WestJet welcomes you on board. Here's to WestJetting since 96.

Travel back in time with us and actually travel with us at westjet.com slash 30 years. In communities across Canada, hourly Amazon employees earn an average of over 12, $24.50 an hour. Employees also have the opportunity to grow their skills and their paycheck by enrolling in free skills training programs for in-demand fields like software development and information technology. Learn more at aboutamazon.ca. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about packs, super PACs, and dark money nonprofits. So what I want to do now is give you some examples of these dark money nonprofits. So I'll go through the different types of nonprofits and kind of give you a brief explanation of each.

And then I'll give you examples of each. So first we have 501C3 groups. These are organizations that operate for either religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes. And while these groups generally can't engage in any political campaign activity, they are allowed to engage in certain nonpartisan voter registration activities like, you know, hosting voter registration drives that are open to everyone, providing general information about how to register to vote, educating the public about voter deadlines and polling locations, things like that. Some 501c3 groups that you might know include the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Center for

American Progress, the Heritage Foundation, and Open Secrets. Then we have 501C4 groups, which are typically referred to as social welfare organizations. And these are the most common kinds of dark money nonprofit groups. they are allowed to engage in political activity so long as the political activities don't become the organization's primary purpose. So some 501c4 groups you might know include the NRA, Planned Parenthood, majority forward, and one nation. Then there are also 501C5 groups, which are labor and agriculture groups that can engage in political activities, but like 501C4s, the activities can't become their primary purpose. So groups like the Service Employees International

Union, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and American Federation of State fall into this category. And then finally, there are 501C6 organizations. These are business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, trade associations, and like 501C4s and 501c5s, they can engage in political activity just as long as those activities don't become the organization's primary purpose. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and the National Association of Realtors, fall under this category. So all of those organizations we just went over do not have to disclose the sources of their money, though most election-related dark money spending comes from 501C4,

5 and 6 organizations, not as much from the 501c3 organizations. And remember, the way that it usually works in practice is like this. Donors give their money to these nonprofits that are not required to publicly disclose their donors. Those nonprofits then donate the money to Super PACs, because super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money. There's no cap. And although the super PACs do have to disclose their funding sources, if the money came from one of these nonprofits that doesn't reveal its donors, the public can only see that nonprofit listed as the funding source,

not the original individuals or organizations behind the money. So, for example, if the NRA donates tens of millions of dollars to a super PAC, the disclosure forms that are visible to the public will show the NRA as the donor and how much they donated, but not the original. people who donated to the NRA. So when people talk about dark money and politics, they're usually talking about the structures within the system that allow these big sums of money to kind of move through nonprofits and outside groups in ways that can make the original funding sources hard to track down. And these structures developed over time as campaign finance laws evolved, but just as

importantly as a series of Supreme Court decisions reshaped the constitutional rules governing political spending. So to understand why unlimited independent spending super PACs and a lot of today's dark money funding pathways exist, we have to look at some of the bigger Supreme Court rulings that helped create this campaign finance landscape. And the first case we have to talk about is a 1976 case called Buckley v. Vallejo. After the Watergate scandal, Congress passed some pretty big amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act that set limits on how much individuals could contribute to candidates. It also set limits on how much campaigns and individuals could spend on elections, and it created disclosure requirements for political spending. But a group of candidates,

donors, and political organizations challenged the law. They argued that the limits on political spending violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. So the question for the court was whether limiting campaign contributions and expenditures violated the First Amendment. And the Supreme Court issued a split ruling. It upheld contribution limits, but it struck down expenditure limits. So the court said that limiting how much individuals can donate directly to candidates is constitutional because it helps prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. But placing limits on independent political spending is generally unconstitutional because spending money on political communication is a form of protected speech. So Buckley created a legal framework that still governs

campaign finance today. It established this principle that direct contributions to candidates can be limited, but independent political spending is protected political speech. And that decision ultimately helped lead to this modern system where outside groups can spend unlimited amounts on independent political advertising. So then we got a really big case in 2010, and it was a case called Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. And a nonprofit organization called Citizens United produced a political documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary season. And the organization wanted to promote the documentary on TV. But campaign finance laws at the time, specifically provisions of the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or McCain-Feingold

Act, said that corporations and labor unions couldn't use their own general funds to pay for certain political ads that mentioned candidates too close to an election. In other words, if a company wanted or a union wanted to run a TV ad supporting or criticizing a candidate right before voters went to the polls, this law restricted how they could pay for it. And in a lot of case, it prevented them from running the ad at all using their regular organizational money. So Citizens United challenged the law. They argued that these restrictions violated the First Amendment. And the question for the court was whether the government violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations, unions, and certain nonprofit organizations from spending their own

on independent political advertising that supports or opposes candidates. And the Supreme Court said yes. It said that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and that while direct contributions to candidates can still be limited to prevent corruption, the government cannot limit independent spending that is not coordinated with a candidate's campaign. And the idea behind the legal framework was that independent spending was considered less likely to cause corruption than direct contributions to candidates. So the courts decided that limiting independent spending raised First Amendment concerns.

And the decision in Citizens United built on that earlier decision in Buckley. Whereas Buckley said the government generally can't limit independent expenditures by individuals. Citizens United extended that principle to corporations, unions, and organizations. And as a result, corporations, unions, and outside groups can now spend, unlimited amounts of money on independent political advertising so long as that spending wasn't coordinated directly with a candidate's campaign. And this decision is what really helped pave the way for the rapid growth of super PACs and large-scale spending operations. So after everything we've talked about, lobbying, campaign finance, PACs, outside spending, all of all of this

information, a natural question is, how can we, as ordinary citizens, actually track all of this. The first place to start would be the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, because the FEC has this public online database where, you know, anyone can look up campaign donations, spending reports, PAC activity, independent political expenditures. So if you want to see who donated to a particular candidate or which outside groups spent money supporting or opposing a candidate or how much a campaign is spending overall, all of these things are publicly available and searchable on the FEC website. Another helpful resource involves not nonprofit tools, right, transparency tools. So some nonprofit organizations that participate in political

advocacy are required to file financial disclosures with the IRS. And watchdog groups will often compile these findings into searchable databases that make it easier for the public to understand where political spending is coming from and how these organizations are structured. And you can also learn a lot from investigative reporting organizations and nonprofit journalists groups that specialize in following political money. So these are groups like ProPublica, Open Secrets, the National Institute on Money in Politics. They spend significant time analyzing campaign filings, non-profit disclosures, corporate records, and lobbying reports, too, to kind of piece together how different funding networks operate. And many of their findings are published in these publicly accessible reports that break down

the funding structures into more digestible, understandable explanation. So for instance, ProPublica publishes investigative reports that track campaign donations, lobbying networks, and political spending patterns. Open Secrets has public databases that show campaign contributions, lobbying spending, and outside political spending in federal elections. And then the National Institute on Money and Politics runs this database called Follow the Money, which tracks political spending across state-level elections. So those are just a few ways you can track campaign spending.

But just keep in mind, you won't see that. the original sources that donate to the dark money nonprofits. Dark money is called dark money for a reason. So with everything that we've learned today, I kind of want to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This is a longer episode. And so I think it's important to just kind of recap what we talked about. We talked about the fact that not all political influence is illegal and not, not all influence is is behind the scenes and hidden. In fact, many parts of the system are regulated by laws that require disclosure of donations, lobbying activity, and political spending. So the public can actually see who's participating in the political process. We talked about the fact that lobbying is

legal. Campaign donations are legal within set limits. Independent political spending is legal under the current framework. But at the same time, we also talked about the fact that influence isn't, you know, distributed evenly. Organizations with more money or more established networks often have more opportunity to engage in these policy discussions and campaign activity and regulatory processes. And that uneven access, if you will, is what fuels a lot of the debates around money and politics. But the goal of understanding all of this is to help you recognize how influence actually works. Because once you understand how lobbying operates and how campaign money flows and how outside groups kind of shape messaging and how policy ideas go from research papers to

laws, you're much better equipped to interpret these political ads and the campaign messaging and policy debates with a more informed perspective. So I hope you enjoyed another class at Unbiased University and I will see you next class where we'll talk about the evolution of political parties in the United States.