In 2015, Birmingham voters were set to vote on expanding the city’s public transit system. A shadowy group, later connected to major corporate interests and developers, spent over $1 million in dark money ads to oppose the measure. That amount was 10 times more than what the pro-transit side could afford.
The money came from shell organizations and nonprofits that didn’t disclose their donors — classic dark money tactics.
The opposition campaign used fear-based ads, warning suburban voters that transit would bring “undesirable” people into their neighborhoods (a racially charged dog whistle).
The anti-transit side won by a narrow margin — and the expansion failed.
What is Dark Money
It’s a quiet town. You know your neighbors. You’ve voted for your local school board rep for years, and you trust the mayor. Life isn’t perfect, but at least things feel fair.
Then, one election cycle, something shifts.
Out of nowhere, slick campaign ads flood your mailbox. Billboards go up overnight. Your favorite podcast now has a mysterious ad break warning you about a “dangerous” school board candidate.
You wonder, Who’s behind all this? But no one knows. The money behind the campaign isn’t coming from your town—or even your state.
That’s dark money in action.
“Dark money” is political spending by nonprofit organizations that aren’t required to disclose their donors. These groups can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections—on attack ads, mailers, social media blitzes, and more—without anyone ever knowing where the money came from.
It’s like a shadow operation: money flows in, messages go out, but the source stays hidden.
So, why black money in local elections? Because, local elections are like low fences—easier to jump over. They’re cheaper. A few hundred thousand dollars (or even less) can flip a school board, city council, or judge’s seat. In some small towns, $10,000 can shift the entire narrative.
Less media scrutiny. Local newsrooms are shrinking, and national media rarely pay attention to city-level politics. That means fewer reporters to uncover shady spending or fake narratives.
Low voter turnout. Local elections often have very few voters—so even small influences can have a big impact.
High stakes for special interests. Think developers, private prison companies, charter school chains, or fossil fuel lobbyists. They know that local decisions—zoning laws, education policies, policing contracts—can affect their profits. So they invest where it’s easiest to win.
How Dark Money Enters Local Elections
Dark money—political spending by undisclosed donors—has become a familiar term in national politics, but its quiet infiltration into local elections is where its impact can be most deeply felt.
Unlike federal races, where watchdog groups and journalists often shine a light on campaign financing, local elections operate in relative obscurity. This makes them ripe for influence from anonymous donors looking to shape policy without public scrutiny.
The mechanics of dark money are both simple and strategic. Wealthy individuals, corporations, or interest groups funnel money through nonprofit organizations—often 501(c)(4)s or LLCs—that are not required to reveal their donors. These groups then spend that money on local races, primarily through negative advertising, targeted mailers, and digital campaigns. Since the donors remain hidden, voters are left unaware of who is trying to influence their choices or why.
In a local election, even a modest financial injection can make a dramatic difference. In 2021, for example, a school board race in Southlake, Texas, saw more than $500,000 in campaign spending—an astronomical sum for a community of just 30,000 people.
Much of this spending came from dark money groups opposed to diversity and inclusion programs in schools. The financial flood overwhelmed grassroots candidates and shifted the race’s tone from civil discourse to cultural warfare.
Data shows that local election turnout is often under 20%, and sometimes below 10%. This low engagement makes it easier for well-funded groups to sway outcomes. With fewer eyes watching, dark money campaigns can paint distorted pictures of candidates or policies, reshaping public opinion before most voters are even aware there’s an election happening.
Moreover, the consequences are not abstract. Local governments decide on zoning laws, police budgets, school curricula, and public health policies. These decisions, although less visible than national legislation, have direct and immediate effects on people’s daily lives. When dark money steers these decisions, the democratic process becomes opaque, and accountability disappears.
As national focus rightly remains on dark money’s role in presidential and congressional races, the local battlefield remains underprotected. Yet it is at the local level where dark money often finds its easiest victories—and does the most lasting damage.
Case Studies: Dark Money in Action
While dark money often operates behind closed doors, its effects can sometimes be traced through local election outcomes that shift dramatically under the weight of undisclosed spending. These case studies offer a glimpse into how untraceable funds are reshaping communities, one quiet race at a time.
In 2015, in Birmingham, Alabama, voters were asked to decide on the expansion of a regional public transit system. What seemed like a straightforward infrastructure decision quickly turned into a charged campaign. Mysterious groups spent over $1 million—ten times more than the pro-transit coalition—on ads warning that public transport would bring crime and urban decay to the suburbs.
The opposition campaign used fear-based messaging, with no clear financial backers named. The measure failed. Later reporting linked the funding to local developers and business interests who stood to benefit from keeping poorer residents from accessing suburban areas. The true funders were never officially disclosed, but the fingerprints of dark money were unmistakable.
In Wisconsin, 2018 saw another troubling example. A little-known race for State Supreme Court drew national attention when a conservative dark money group spent over $1 million on ads against Judge Rebecca Dallet, who was running as a moderate progressive. Though judicial races are supposed to remain impartial, the ad blitz painted Dallet as soft on crime.
Despite the attack, she won—but the race revealed just how much dark money was being channeled into judicial elections that typically go unnoticed. By the end of that election cycle, outside groups had spent over $3.2 million on Wisconsin court races alone—most of it from donors whose names never surfaced.
Another striking case unfolded in 2021 in Bentonville, Arkansas. A school board race—normally a sleepy local event—was suddenly flooded with glossy mailers and targeted Facebook ads attacking candidates who supported inclusive education programs.
The spending, later traced to a national network of conservative dark money groups, overwhelmed the local discourse. In the end, three candidates backed by the hidden-money campaign won their seats. Policies around equity and diversity in the district were rolled back within months.
These examples show how dark money doesn’t need to shout to be heard. In small elections, even a modest financial push—if strategically placed—can shape public opinion, defeat community candidates, and alter the direction of local policy. The public rarely knows who is speaking. They only see the message, not the motive. And that’s exactly how dark money wins.
Who’s Behind the Dark Money?
The mystery of dark money lies not just in the money itself, but in the people and organizations behind it—those who shape elections without ever putting their names on a ballot or a billboard. While the very nature of dark money makes it difficult to trace, investigations and whistleblower leaks have occasionally pulled back the curtain, revealing a cast of wealthy donors, corporate interests, and ideological networks working behind the scenes.
A striking example came in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, which opened the floodgates for unlimited political spending by outside groups. This ruling gave rise to a network of nonprofits and shell organizations that could legally spend money on campaigns without disclosing their donors.
One of the most powerful players to emerge was DonorsTrust, a conservative-leaning donor-advised fund often referred to as the “dark money ATM” of the right. In 2020 alone, DonorsTrust funneled over $400 million to dozens of politically active nonprofits, many of which engaged in issue-based campaigning in local and state elections.
But this isn’t a partisan issue. On the left, organizations like Arabella Advisors have overseen a web of nonprofits—such as the Sixteen Thirty Fund—that also operate without donor transparency. In 2018, the Sixteen Thirty Fund spent over $141 million on influencing elections and ballot initiatives across the country.
That year, it helped sway multiple state legislative races and even weighed in on local tax measures, often without voters ever knowing who had paid for the ads they were seeing.
At the local level, even smaller donors can have an outsized impact. In 2019, a San Francisco ballot initiative to tax wealthy businesses for homelessness services drew millions in outside spending. Tech giants like Stripe and Lyft quietly backed opposition groups through intermediaries, spending over $10 million to defeat the measure. Though their names didn’t appear on any campaign material, investigative reporting later traced the money to them through campaign finance disclosures linked to affiliated PACs.
Dark money also flows through religious groups, charter school networks, and fossil fuel interests. A 2021 New York Times investigation revealed how Koch-backed groups spent heavily to influence local school board races in Tennessee and Colorado, opposing climate change education and mask mandates in schools.
These groups used names like “Concerned Parents of Colorado” to appear grassroots, though the funding came from national ideological networks with millions at their disposal.
Ultimately, the people behind dark money campaigns don’t have to break the law. The system, as it stands, allows them to spend freely and invisibly. They can shape school boards, city councils, state courts, and tax policy—all without ever leaving a trace on the campaign finance record. And as long as disclosure rules remain weak, the question of “Who’s behind the dark money?” will remain both the most urgent and the most difficult to answer.