Dark money is good for democracy. David Harsanyi writes:
When Donald Trump named Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, for example, CNN warned its readers that the man had once headed a “conservative group funded by dark money.” The nonprofit Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, The Washington Post explained, had both “obscure roots” and very rich “undisclosed funders.”
While there might be plenty of good reasons to oppose Whitaker, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust sounds exactly like one of hundreds of groups that litter Washington. There is nothing unique about the existence of an organization funded by private donors who, as far as we know, filed all its proper paperwork with IRS and broke no laws.
Or put it this way: The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust is funded by “dark money” in the same way that “Demand Justice,” a group headed by former Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aides—which dropped millions of dollars smearing Brett Kavanaugh during the Supreme Court confirmation fight—is funded by “dark money”; or in the same way that “The State Engagement Fund,” a group associated with billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, is also funded by dark money. Whitaker was paid in the same “dark money” currency that John Podesta, or dozens of other Clinton or Obama advocates and appointees, had have been paid. […]
t seems probable, too, that many of these wealthy Americans would avoid contributing to political causes if they had to deal with ugly public attacks on their businesses and families. That is the point, I imagine, of the hysterics over “dark money.” Progressive groups have become quite adept at destroying the lives of those who back causes they dislike. The mob coming after Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s job comes to mind, but he’s not alone. The threat of such attacks is intimidating enough. […]
Now, it’s true that the massive amounts of money spent on campaigns and partisan advocacy reflects the unfortunate reality of a far-too powerful and pervasive government. So the last thing we need to do is expand its power to regulate more speech. The fact that groups of Americans are compelled to report to the IRS before engaging in political activity is bad enough. And those who argue that anonymous speech is an attack on “democracy” only aim to inhibit and control the political speech they don’t like.
[David Harsanyi, “In Defense of ‘Dark Money’,” The Federalist, December 7]
