In a recent article covering the 2026 midterms, The New York Times sounded an all-too-familiar alarm, warning readers of a tidal wave of “dark money” supposedly washing over the election. The narrative is meant to incite outrage, painting a picture of shadowy figures “upending” and “manipulating” politicians, our political process and indeed democracy itself through secretive nonprofit organizations.
But for those who truly understand the legal and historical foundation of philanthropy, this narrative isn’t just misleading, it’s a dangerous attack on the First Amendment and the Founders’ very vision of democracy.
The article makes no separation between nonpartisan issue education and direct electioneering or campaign speech. There is a practical and legal difference between nonpartisan issue education and partisan campaign speech. We need to stop with the blanket assertion that any money spent to discuss important societal concerns is “dark money” and call it what it actually is: private giving.
The term “dark money” is a political boogeyman, invented by critics on all sides of the ideological spectrum to delegitimize causes they disagree with. In reality, “dark money” does not exist. A better way to think about it may be that “dark money” is money raised by groups one dislikes, spent on messaging one disagrees with. When critics and news outlets like The New York Times combine campaign finance, nonprofit education groups and political philanthropy, whether on purpose or inadvertently, they are attacking the First Amendment constitutional right of Americans to support causes and ideas privately.
Private giving is a bedrock principle of our democracy. Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama, the judicial system has recognized that the right to associate privately is inextricably linked to the right to free speech. During the Civil Rights Movement, forced donor disclosure of its membership lists would have subjected NAACP supporters to violent retaliation.
Today, while the context has changed, the principle remains the same. In an era of intense polarization and “cancel culture,” forcing charities to publish the names and addresses of their donors exposes individuals to harassment, intimidation and retaliation. When donors fear they will be targeted for their deeply held beliefs, they stop giving. This chilling effect hurts the communities and causes charitable organizations serve. Especially when seemingly, everything is political.
This is why Philanthropy Roundtable joined with a broadly diverse group of amici, including The National Children’s Cancer Society, the American Civil Liberties Union and Gun Owners of America, in reasserting the right to privately associate is vital to American democracy. That right, and the 1958 decision, was reaffirmed again in 2021 by the Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) v. Bonta.
Donor privacy critics often deliberately conflate issue speech and election or campaign speech. The article suggests that because nonprofits are spending money to talk about the economy, healthcare or education during an election year, they are engaging in shadow campaigns. This fundamentally misunderstands the legal framework of 501(c)(3) charitable organizations.
Campaign speech is strictly about electoral outcomes. It is the act of trying to elect or defeat a specific candidate. Under IRS rules, 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from engaging in campaign political speech. They cannot endorse candidates, they cannot tell people who to vote for, they cannot donate to political campaigns or PACs and they cannot coordinate with candidate campaign staff.
Issue speech, on the other hand, is about ideas. It is the act of educating the public, promoting policy solutions and advancing societal change. And crucially, 501(c)(3) organizations are legally permitted and even encouraged to engage in issue education.
Just because an issue is being debated by politicians on the campaign trail does not mean a charity must suddenly stop talking about it.
What 501(c)(3) Organizations Can Legally Do
- Publish research and educational materials on public policy issues, including early childhood literacy, drug addiction or smoking
- Run public awareness campaigns on disease prevention, child safety and financial literacy
- Host educational programs on mental health, conservation and workforce development
- Offer expert commentary through news and digital media on issues such as education, public health and poverty
- Educate the public on how proposed legislation will impact their community
- Host neutral, nonpartisan candidate forums where all candidates are invited to share their views
- Publish unbiased voter guides that outline where candidates stand on a wide variety of issues, without commentary or grades
- Conduct nonpartisan voter registration and Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) drives aimed at increasing civic participation
- Keep their donors’ identities private, ensuring Americans can support these educational efforts without fear of public retribution
When donor privacy critics demand “transparency” for “political speech” or issue education, what they are actually demanding is a target list. Forced disclosure laws do not safeguard elections; they hand partisan groups a roadmap for harassment to use against those who fund opposing viewpoints. Donors must not let the “dark money” myth intimidate them into silence. The right to privately speak and associate is a core constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. Advocating for better policies, educating the public and funding ideas are hallmarks of a free society.
