Donald Trump changed a lot of things about American politics. When it comes to so-called “dark money,” however, Democratic Party leaders appear stuck in the Obama era.

According to CNN, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin plans to introduce a resolution at the Party’s August meeting next week directing a panel to study ways to eliminate corporate spending and “dark money” in the 2028 presidential primary elections. What does that mean?

In the short term, probably not much. As the draft resolution recognizes, the DNC lacks the power to actually ban corporate spending or “dark money” in its primaries. That would require changes at the U.S. Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment. The DNC can take actions to encourage or discourage these forms of spending, but they can’t prohibit it.

So, why does it matter? More important than the resolution itself is what it says about Democratic Party leadership in 2025. Many Democrats believe the Trump administration is currently engaged in a campaign to punish its enemies and intimidate critics in order to solidify power and silence opposition. Many go as far as saying Trump is a threat to democracy itself. Yet, despite this, Democratic leaders are still pushing policies that would make it harder for Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights without suffering retribution at the hands of the government.

Readers of this blog will know, after all, that “dark money” is not a legal or technical term. It is simply a pejorative label for any organization that does not publish a list of its supporters’ names and home addresses while trying to influence public policy or opinion. When politicians say they want to get rid of “dark money,” they mean they want to get rid of your right to privately donate to organizations that speak out about the actions of elected officials, government policy, or social issues.

The DNC resolution is just one example of actions Democrats in Congress have taken in the name of suppressing so-called “dark money.” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has pushed for laws to publicly expose the names and addresses of donors to any group that speaks about politics or files a friend-of-the-court brief in federal court. Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) has proposed legislation that would give Trump’s IRS carte blanche to regulate the political activities of nonprofit organizations.

These ideas all have their roots in the post-Citizens United era, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, labor unions, and nonprofits have a First Amendment right to run ads and speak about candidates for office. Democrats, who held a strong grip over the federal bureaucracy and mainstream media at the time, feared conservative nonprofits, business interests, and donors like the Koch brothers and Adelsons would gain significant influence as a result.

Setting aside the merits of that argument for now, the federal government is in decidedly different hands today. Progressive nonprofits represent one of the strongest sources of opposition to Trump and are a consistent thorn in the side of the right. Increasingly, complaints about “dark money” and nonprofit political influence originate with Republicans and take aim at progressive donors like George Soros and Hansjörg Wyss as well as organizations that support causes like abortion rights, immigration, and criminal justice reform.

It’s not the first time nonprofits have served as a refuge for causes associated with the left, either. The most significant Supreme Court case on donor privacy is one liberals tend to cheer: 1958’s NAACP v. Alabama. In that case, Jim Crow officials in the Alabama government wanted a list of the NAACP’s supporters. When confronted with that case, today’s pro-disclosure Democrats tend to say that was a unique situation: ‘It’s not the Civil Rights Movement anymore. Times have changed.’

But that raises the question: What time is it now? Is it a time of tolerance, free speech, and trustworthy government? Or is it a time of intolerance, creeping censorship, and corruption? If Democrats believe it’s the latter, why grow the government’s power to monitor our beliefs, track our donations, and suppress the voices of nonprofits?

The DNC is probably not looking that far ahead. Politicians don’t like being criticized, and when it happens, they want to know the culprit. That’s enough reason for many to support resolutions and even laws that make it harder for people to anonymously criticize their records.

In the big picture, however, anonymous speech and donor privacy are no small thing. They are a lifeline for free speech when your side loses power. As the Obama years fade further into the rearview, Democrats need to ditch their outdated “dark money” rhetoric and learn to love donor privacy once again.