Media outlets on the right and the left have noted the huge advantage Kamala Harris holds over Donald Trump in support from nonprofit groups that do not disclose their donors. Yet they have failed to make their charge of hypocrisy against Harris on “dark money” stick, for two reasons.

For one, the numbers are neither clear nor shocking. An analysis by Sludge of nonprofit contributions to super PACs shows Harris benefitting from 8 times more such money than Trump. That is enough for some in the media to declare that Harris is benefitting from 8 times more “dark money” than Trump. But Sludge’s analysis is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. 

Nonprofit donations to super PACs are really not “dark money” at all. Super PACs are legally required to disclose their donors, including nonprofits, in their reports to the Federal Election Commission. And if a donor to a nonprofit instructs that nonprofit to transfer their money to a super PAC, that individual donor must be reported on the super PAC’s filings as well. 

Some pro-disclosure advocates are nevertheless unsatisfied with this arrangement because the nonprofits are not required to publicly disclose their general donors – those who did not instruct the nonprofit how to spend their money. But this misunderstands the purpose of disclosure in campaign finance law. The goal is not to trace the path of every dollar all the way back to the mint, but rather to inform voters about who controls spending decisions in the election. When a nonprofit decides to give money to a super PAC, that nonprofit is the donor. There’s nothing more to disclose. 

Sludge’s analysis is also underinclusive because it does not include things like direct spending on independent expenditures by nonprofits that do not disclose their donors. This is the more traditional form of “dark money” that groups like the Institute for Free Speech have studied over the years. These numbers are not easy to pin down during an election cycle, but according to OpenSecrets, the entire universe of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor unions, and 501(c)(6) trade associations have spent a grand total of ~$50 million on independent expenditures in the 2024 campaign. (Further illustrating the subjectivity of “dark money” statistics, Sludge chose not to count labor unions as “dark money” groups at all.)

It’s hard to get excited about $50 million in nonprofit spending in an election cycle where the Harris and Trump campaigns have raised nearly $1.4 billion combined. Even if we take the numbers from Sludge’s report, they found only $23.2 million in transfers from nonprofits to super PACs supporting Trump, and $195.8 million in such transfers backing Harris. That may be a significant disparity, but in the scale of the overall campaign, it barely registers among Harris’s other financial advantages over Trump. Simply put, “dark money” is one of the most overhyped forces in politics.

The second reason the hypocrisy charge fails to land is because it misses the point. Politicians on both sides regularly attack “dark money” while making excuses for groups and spending that they personally like or benefit from. Harris being that kind of hypocrite is a dog-bites-man story.

The actual hypocrisy charge that deserves attention here is Harris’s unusually strong record of attacking nonprofit donor privacy. Back when Democratic politics was trending in a more progressive direction, Harris carved out a niche as a warrior against so-called “dark money” in politics. As Attorney General of California, she demanded and then leaked thousands of confidential donor lists to nonprofit organizations, triggering lawsuits from conservative groups. In the U.S. Senate, she co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act, which would force nonprofit advocacy groups to publicly expose their supporters.

Harris does not highlight this aspect of her record on the campaign trail, but she has never repudiated it either. These policies also remain a major priority for Democratic leadership. As recently as the Democratic National Convention, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reiterated his commitment to passing the DISCLOSE Act under a Harris administration, among other changes to elections and campaign finance law.

Harris’s record and the Democratic platform both suggest she intends to prohibit and punish Americans for using the very same tactics that her supporters are currently using to help her try to win the White House. And the reason her hypocrisy is a problem is precisely because those tactics are not shady. Everyone should be free to donate to nonprofits without having their personal information blasted to the world. Every nonprofit should be free to speak about how candidates’ policies will impact their members and missions without painting a target on their members’ backs. 

No one is surprised that some progressive nonprofits are supporting Harris. The real scandal is that we could wake up one day to discover we are no longer able to support groups that oppose the government’s agenda without adding our name and address to the president’s Enemies List.