Dark Money or Just Rage Bait

It’s Dark Money, the name itself tells you that it’s not good, and from there, you might never investigate what it really means. Dark money is a slippery term that has ramifications for our politics. In the Wired article A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers, by Taylor Lorenz (^[1]), the organization Chorus is accused of accepting Dark Money, being secretive, and controlling what influencers create. In June of 2025, Chorus offered a selection of progressive influencers the opportunity to participate in an incubator program that could provide financial support, training, and networking to help them grow their platforms and gain insider access to lawmakers. The article's wording throughout frames the actions of anyone accepting the offer to participate in the incubator program as accepting the nefarious Dark Money. The truth is more complicated than the easy, black-and-white version the article attempts to portray. MAGA stream media has a loud and resounding voice in US politics. Can the left really leave the financial support on the table? The facts shed light on the possibility of bias at play. Taking a dive into the facts and assumptions presented will help us understand Dark Money, a bad-faith article, and the fight against an administration that holds no punches to get what it wants.

Dark money refers to money spent on electoral and political advocacy groups that don’t have to disclose their donors. (^[2]) There are two groups: nonprofits and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). The groups that are legal nonprofit entities, including 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor organizations, and 501(c)(6) trade associations, are allowed to spend money on electoral advocacy, but it can’t be their sole purpose. The FEC sets the maximum limit that a 501(c)(4) can spend on election outcomes at about 49.9% of total money spent that year. OpenSecrets, a well-respected nonprofit, tracks this funding and lumps ALL these entities as Dark Money and not legally required to disclose donors when these organizations can donate to PACs/Super PACs. The fear is that a corporation or a billionaire might use their wealth to support a politician now and get a favor later. Or finance a large initiative that benefits them, which is on the ballot in an upcoming election. Or provide information that isn’t false but is framed in the way they want citizens to vote. Or use these nonprofits to hide the amount they really spent. Although, these donations are not tax-deductible but can still be influential. The most concerning would be foreign agents seeking to cause chaos or unrest in the US, funding issues that might otherwise not gain traction. Dark Money is seen as a way for nefarious donors to interfere in US elections, since disclosing donors is not required.

 It’s often alluded to that these groups outspend other groups during elections, and we should be suspicious of them. In the 2024 election spending, when combining both congressional and presidential races, it was a total of $14.8 Billion. Looking at the chart on OpenSecerets.org shows the amount of Dark Money 501 (c)’s spent was 170.2 million for the election cycle. Even that is an unclear number as it includes all of these nonprofit groups, even those that provided full disclosure of their donors, which was 24.27% of the 170.2 million spent. (^[3]). When discussing these groups, this context is hardly ever provided. Yet, compared to overall election spending, it is a very small percentage. Unlike nonprofits, OpenSecrets doesn’t track the overall spending from LLC’s so we can only guess based of comparing the 501c’s spending to that of the overall cost of the 2024 election which would suggest LLCs or shell companies outspend these nonprofits/Dark Money groups by a significant amount.

The Wired article title says Chorus was secretly funding a group of Democratic influencers. This “secret” label was deceptive when, in late 2024, Brian Tyler Cohen announced he had created Chorus. The purpose of which was to create an ecosystem similar to the one the Republicans have on social media. There was even a New York Times article about it (^[4] ). In April of 2025, Lorenz published an earlier article about Chorus that included statements from Cohen and Allie O’Brien about a trip to Washington, D.C. for influencers. The article's tone is similar to that of the Wired article, negatively portraying the nonprofit as inept and failing to fulfill its purpose. The use of the statements provided can easily be seen as bad faith by Chorus. (^[5]) This could explain why, months later, when Lorenz reached out to Chorus for the next article and the associated influencers, they decided not to respond, because they might have feared the response would not be presented fairly. A reporter must understand that if they choose to present information in a biased light like one might do on social media, it will reduce others' desire to work with them or provide context to a story.

​

Additionally, a major critique was that the contract required secrecy from the influencers who participated. We the readers weren’t given access to any of the supposed contracts that had been leaked. When viewed as restraining content creators, the quotes from the contract seem odious. Taking a step back and recognizing what legal obligations a 501(c)(4) has, the requests are logical and pragmatic. Even if the legalese used was confusing to someone not experienced in contracts involving nonprofits, 501(c)(4) organizations have an obligation to report on any money used to fund an elected official or other political action. While Chorus is providing financial compensation, as part of the scholarship program, influencers need to be aware of what political activities they engage in to ensure they can report accurately to the FEC. That’s not villainous, that's following the law. After the Wired article came out, Allie O’Brien posted a TikTok going over a segment of the contract and basically explained that the Chorus group wasn’t in control of content.

​

The Wired article then presents the newly formed nonprofit Chorus as funded by Dark Money. In the article, it was clearly stated that the Chorus was funded by the Sixteen-Thirty Fund. Chorus founder Brian Tyler Cohen has publicly stated that the group Sixteen-Thirty Fund was their fiscal sponsor. (^[6]) That could sound like a financial relationship in which the nonprofit group provides funds to Chorus, but it could be only an administrative one. Fiscal sponsorship is when a 501 (c)’s organization creates a relationship with another nonprofit, usually newly formed, before they apply or are granted an IRS nonprofit status. The benefits of such a relationship to an organization, depending on the contract terms, can range from the fiscal sponsor accepting donations to covering all administrative work, such as HR, legal, and accounting. Starting a nonprofit is like starting a small business, with all the work that entails. By having a fiscal sponsor, someone can test the nonprofit idea before fully committing to the endeavor. (^[7]) The fiscal sponsor usually charges a percentage of the donations the new nonprofit is receiving as compensation. This would explain why a fund like Sixteen-Thirty would agree to sponsor a new nonprofit.

These 501(c)(4) nonprofits that accept donations don’t have to disclose donors' identities in FEC public filings. Why would an individual want to remain anonymous? Shouldn’t they want to let the world know the type of causes they support? It’s not that simple. Sometimes the donor wants to remain anonymous because they don’t want the fanfare that comes with disclosure. The other reasons are a bit more concerning. In a recent report, the Guardian quoted the CEO of the WHO Foundation (a 501(c)(4)) as saying that some donors don’t want the trouble of being solicited for donations or otherwise targeted. (^[8]) In September 2025, a week after Wired’s article, Hasan Piker live-streamed the public FEC filings of Progressive Victory while watching a video by another creator, Bad Empanada. The information included names and addresses for the influencers associated with Progressive Victory. (^[9]) Each name was of a streamer/influencer who was clearly alarmed and concerned by this event. The reason a public person would want to maintain privacy about their exact location is that there are real risks to the public knowing where to find content creators in the real world. Risks like swatting, stalking, violence, and other forms of harassment can create fear. In one notable incident, a federal judge's son was murdered when a guy posing as a pizza delivery driver shot him and his father, killing the son. Now, other judges have started being sent pizzas under the dead son’s name, seen as a way to intimidate these judges. (^[10]) It’s important to balance the need of disclosure with the need for safety.

​

There are pop-up 501 (c)’s that are created with bad intentions, it should be noted that those orgs are easy to spot and should be seen as suspicious if they are not designed to last longer than an election cycle. Recently, it was reported that a 501(c)(4), Democracy Unmuted, offered $1500 to influencers to make content that included certain phrases that could be seen as politically neutral, but clearly targeted a specific Democratic candidate. The influencer, Amandainformed, leaked the pay-for-content request, stating it was clear that the organization intended to target the candidate Kat Abughazaleh.  When reporters dug into the request for content, the nonprofit was new and hard to trace. (^[11])These are the bad Dark Money groups, created solely to hide who would fund such a marketing campaign. When discovered, they should be highlighted and pointed to as bad actors. However, it’s not the same as established organizations that fight for our values and rights.

​

Corporations' unlimited spending is a bigger concern in politics than a nonprofit seeking to give progressive influencers knowledge to improve their content and other opportunities. Framing it as a shadowy, nefarious organization connected to the DNC that controls the participants is bad faith and misleading to readers. Using a nonprofit model as a 501(c)(4) allows Chorus to build a creator ecosystem that puts progressive issues and messages in front of social media users. There’s definitely a learning curve to running such a program, but spending time decrying such activities is basically rage-bait journalism. Until election reforms are made a reality, using the 501(c)(4) nonprofit model to fight back is pragmatic and logical. The success of California's Prop 50 shows that fighting fire with fire is successful. Principally, being against gerrymandering is good; ignoring what Republicans were doing to create a larger Republican majority in the House would have been disastrous. We should wholeheartedly approve of using every legal means that is available. It’s discombobulating that people who want to see the left be more cohesive would harass creators trying to participate in such a program. This is a time for collaboration and fighting fire with fire.