National advocates for tighter campaign finance laws are expressing cautious optimism that, if elected, Vice President Kamala Harris will make the issue a top priority, even as "dark money" groups spend millions boosting her campaign. But, winning the White House won’t be enough. To get a shot at enacting even modest campaign finance and disclosure changes, Democrats will also need to sweep control of both chambers in November, according to leaders at watchdog groups that track the influence of money in federal elections. “Without control of the White House and majorities in both chambers of Congress, many congressional Democrats see campaign finance reform as a major uphill battle,” Michael Beckel, the senior research director at Issue One, a bipartisan political reform nonprofit, said. Until then, he added, “many political operatives are all too happy to fight fire with fire.” Meanwhile, leaders at other government watchdog groups are taking comfort in remarks from Democratic congressional leaders. In recent weeks, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Minority Whip Katherine M. Clark, D-Mass., have told reporters their party plans to make passing a sweeping election integrity and campaign finance bill dubbed the "Freedom to Vote Act" by its supporters one of its first priorities next Congress. Doing so might require changing the Senate’s filibuster floor procedures, however. “I think we have every indication that getting big secret money out of politics while simultaneously passing pro-voter reforms will continue to be a top priority, should there be a pro-reform trifecta next year,” Aaron Scherb, the senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, said. If enacted, the Freedom to Vote Act — which includes a broad range of election administration and voter registration provisions and is supported by civil rights and government watchdog groups — would mark the biggest step in campaign finance law in two decades. Among other provisions, the bill would establish new rules intended to ensure political action committees and other outside groups don’t coordinate with candidates’ campaigns. It also would strengthen Federal Election Commission enforcement procedures to investigate potential election laws violations and establish a voluntary, small-donor matching program for House elections. Those campaign finance provisions are key, said Daniel Weiner, the director of elections and government at Brennan Center for Justice. “I am very confident that if there is an opportunity to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, it will include strong campaign finance reforms in it,” he added. The package also contains Democrats’ signature campaign disclosure legislation, which they've nicknamed the "DISCLOSE Act." That bill would require organizations that spend money in federal elections to promptly disclose their donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle. It also would broaden the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals. As a senator, Harris co-sponsored the legislation in 2019 and urged immediate passage of the Freedom to Vote Act during her presidential nomination acceptance speech in August. The legislation is also part of the Democratic Party’s official 2024 policy platform. In the event Harris wins but does not have Democratic majorities in Congress, activists plan to put pressure on her administration to consider executive actions to curb money in politics. One possible executive action, known as the dark money order, would mandate companies that hold federal government contracts to disclose their political contributions, including money they give to trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Watchdog groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen, which unsuccessfully lobbied the Obama administration to take the action, said they would renew that push under Harris. “If you're getting large amounts of taxpayer dollars to do work, we the taxpayers should understand that you're not sort of buying [government] contracts by playing in politics,” said Lisa Gilbert, the co-president of Public Citizen. “So that's something we would strongly push for.” Others say Harris would be wise to put pressure on the FEC to more proactively enforce the campaign finance rules already on the books. “It’s an independent agency, it would not answer to her [Harris] in the same way as other parts of the executive branch, but I think she could still use her bully pulpit to really call on the Commission to vigorously enforce the law,” Weiner said. 'Unfortunate truth' While elected Democrats have long criticized the influence of money in politics — their legislative record on campaign finance draws a contrast with the GOP — both parties have relied heavily on dark money, or contributions from nonprofit organizations that aren't required to disclose their donors. “It’s an unfortunate truth that all politicians, all parties, everyone who engages in politics right now uses the dark money apparatus that we have in place,” Gilbert said. “It just puts reform-minded politicians like Harris, who do want to fix the system, in a position which is challenging." This cycle, conservative and liberal dark money groups are on track to break previous spending records. For Harris, much of the undisclosed money is coming from one source: Future Forward USA Action, the 501(c)(4) nonprofit arm of Future Forward, the main super PAC backing her presidential bid. But unlike Future Forward, which by law is required to disclose its donors, Forward USA Action is not obligated to report that information. The dark money group is the single biggest individual contributor to Future Forward, having donated at least $56 million to the super PAC this cycle, according to FEC filings. Future Forward, which is spending tens of millions on an advertising blitz for Harris, reportedly concealed the source of at least $130 million in donations it has received. Meanwhile, the group’s dark money nonprofit arm has become the preferred vehicle through which high-profile billionaires can support Harris while trying to stay under the radar. In recent weeks, it was reported that Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg secretly gave Future Forward USA Action $50 million each. “By giving to dark money groups, wealthy mega donors and special interests can avoid the limelight and avoid scrutiny of their massive political spending,” said Beckel. His group, Issue One, has called on both Harris and Trump to make public information about each campaigns’ top fundraisers before Election Day. Campaign conundrum Harris’s boost from dark money groups belies her yearslong criticism of money in politics. In 2014, Harris, then serving as California’s attorney general, was sued by a dark money nonprofit funded by Republican billionaires Charles and David Koch, after her office sought the names and addresses of the group’s top donors. Then in 2019, as she was serving her first term as California’s junior senator and preparing to run for the Democratic nomination, Harris publicly decried the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, saying one of her “areas of high priority” would be to overturn the ruling and “to take money out of this process.” Meanwhile, election reformers say they are clear-eyed about Democrats' hypocrisy on the issue, as party leaders decry the influence of money in politics whilst benefiting from dark money contributions. But, they argue, as long as such contributions are legal, it's unrealistic to expect one party to “unilaterally disarm” by opting to forgo a possible source of campaign cash if the opposing party won’t do likewise. “Anyone who works in this area has to accept that, particularly in this election, which is a game of inches, both sides are going to try to find whatever advantage they possibly can, and they're not going to cede any ground,” said Weiner. Scherb concurred. “I think one can only be judged by what the current laws are, not by what sort of laws we're trying to change,” he said. But, he added, “I think it's certainly possible to push for stronger disclosure and push for getting rid of big secret money in politics while playing by the current rules that exist in today's system.” Delayed disclosure Major changes to campaign finance law have stalled in Congress for over a decade. Advocates point the finger at the GOP. “Right now, there's just one party in Washington that continues to block really needed reform, and that's the Republican Party,” Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, said. The DISCLOSE Act's journey in Congress highlights the challenges of passing even modest changes. For years, GOP lawmakers have argued the bill’s disclosure requirements would violate the privacy of private citizens and warned its passage could lead to voter and donor harassment and intimidation. The bill was first introduced by Schumer and Sen. Chris Van Hollen D-Md., in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision that held that nonprofit organizations and labor unions can spend unlimited amounts in support of, or opposition to, candidates in federal elections. The bill narrowly passed the House in 2010 but was blocked in the Senate by a successful Republican filibuster. Versions of the bill have since been introduced in each subsequent Congress by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat. In 2022, Senate Democrats again were unable to break a GOP filibuster to bring the bill to a final vote. Top Republicans have also criticized Democrats' broad election integrity and campaign finance bill over its voter ID, gerrymandering, and voter registration regulations, which Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has said amount to a “federal government takeover” of how elections are conducted. The so-called Freedom to Vote Act went down in the Senate in 2022, after Joe Manchin III, I-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., rejected Democrats' calls to change the 60-vote filibuster rule to push through the legislation. But, with Manchin and Sinema retiring, Senate Democrats are hopeful those dynamics could change if they keep the chamber. “I think without Joe Manchin and without Kyrsten Sinema, there's a very real prospect that we can find a way around the Republican efforts to filibuster our efforts,” Whitehouse said. But he said his party needs to do a better job messaging on the issue. Referencing public surveys that show a majority of the electorate support tighter limits and increased transparency on election spending, Whitehouse argued Democrats have the electorate behind them and should have turned Senate Republicans’ opposition to those measures into a bigger political liability for the GOP. “Accountability matters in politics,” he said, “and they [Republicans] have taken the bad vote and had no accountability because we didn't follow up effectively.” That, he added, “is on us.”
