Shadow campaigns in the United States

[2] Dark money leaves voters uninformed about important political information and it can obscure potential conflicts of interest for judges and legislators alike.

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court of the United States determined that these outside groups could spend money independently on issue ads that do not contain any expressed advocacy for a candidate or party.

The Court ruled that the group (Massachusetts Citizens for Life) had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by dispersing political propaganda using funds from its general treasury.

But, the Court reasoned that, if social welfare groups have a predominantly political purpose and take the entirety of their donations from citizens, then the revenue generated reflects public opinion; so long as groups do not engage in any business-like activity, preventing them from spending money for political purposes this would be a first amendment violation.

[9] As a result of FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a new type of company, the Qualified Non-Profit Corporation (QNC), was born.

The Citizens United ruling essentially equated money spent with speech, treating these groups like individuals.

Additionally, the rules of independent expenditures still apply, so they must fully disclose what they spend their money on as well as who their donors are.

The United States government had no intentions of limiting donations to citizen movements, just campaigns subject to corruption.

These independent expenditure-only committees, raise money from corporations, unions, and individuals with free rein to express advocacy as they choose.

[14] Super-PACs typically operate legally, however, there are instances where they can manipulate the system and act as a dark money organization.