How Dark Money Pushed Trump’s Bill Through the Senate and Is Set to Ram It Through the House

What Dark Money Really Is, Who’s Behind It, and How We Take Our Democracy Back

The CBO and leading experts warn that Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” will slash Medicaid by over $1 trillion, leave between 10.9 and 17 million Americans uninsured, force rural hospitals to close or severely cut services, potentially eliminating care for millions, while triggering 8,200 to 24,600 additional annual deaths, and burden the economy with a $2.4 to $3.3 trillion debt increase through 2034.

The bill delivers the largest wealth transfer from the poor and middle class, to the rich, in modern American history by permanently slashing taxes for corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals and sending billions to the top 1 percent, while stripping essential benefits from working families, children, veterans, and seniors to pay for it.

Republicans celebrated on Capitol Hill like it was a triumph.

You should be sick to your stomach right now. Because what Republicans just did wasn’t politics, it was a betrayal. They sold out your family, your friends, and this country, and they’re hoping you’re too distracted to notice. Don’t let them get away with it.

What Is Dark Money?

Dark money refers to political spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors, allowing powerful industries and billionaires to exert influence in secret.

Since Trump’s return to the White House, such shadowy funding has surged, from oil magnates bankrolling deregulation to pharmaceutical giants fighting drug-price controls, all aiming to sway GOP votes in favor of their interests. This flood of cash has real consequences: the bill now before Congress is packed with provisions that read like a lobbyist’s wish list, and future House votes are already being teed up by these same moneyed forces.

Fossil Fuel Fortunes Fuel Environmental Rollbacks

Fossil fuel executives have invested millions to secure favorable policies.The oil and gas industry’s spending in the 2024 election cycle was astronomical, totaling $445 million to install a friendly Congress and presidency. That figure, which excludes undisclosed dark money, included $96 million directly boosting Trump’s campaign (much of it from oil billionaires like Harold Hamm and pipeline tycoon Kelcy Warren) and $243 million lobbying Congress.

Big Oil also poured $80 million into nationwide ads to sway public opinion, such as an American Petroleum Institute “eight-figure” blitz touting fossil fuels’ importance. And at least $16 million was funneled specifically into House races to ensure a GOP majority friendly to fossil fuels.

These investments are already paying off: on Day One of Trump’s term, he unleashed dozens of pro-drilling executive actions with Congress’s support. The energy bill now in the House (branded the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) reads like an oil executive’s dream, mandating expanded drilling on public lands, slashing royalties and methane fees, and scrapping clean energy programs.

Oil barons have not been shy about what they expect for their money. In fact, Trump reportedly promised oil executives “essentially anything they wanted” in policy giveaways in exchange for $1 billion in campaign support at a private dinner, a gathering organized by Harold Hamm. Hamm, a billionaire fracking tycoon long dubbed Trump’s “energy whisperer,” helped raise that war chest and saw to it that the fossil fuel industry delivered on its end: donating the $96 million directly to Trump and launching the $80 million ad barrage, while routing untold sums through donor-shielded nonprofits.

Hamm personally orchestrated many high-dollar fundraisers and stocked the new administration with his allies. Within weeks of inauguration, Trump’s agencies, led by Hamm’s hand-picked officials, moved to “unwind” environmental rules across the board. From ending the pause on oil leasing to gutting emissions standards, virtually every item on Hamm’s wish list has been fulfilled. It’s a stark illustration of how dark money and megadonor clout translate into policy: fossil fuel interests covertly finance Republican campaigns, and in return GOP leaders push aggressive deregulatory measures that boost those financiers’ profits.

The influence extends beyond Congress into the states. The Republican Attorneys General Association, which often sues to block federal climate rules, has itself been a major dark-money conduit. RAGA quietly took in $5.8 million from oil and gas companies (and their lobbying groups) since 2020.

Even more eye-opening: a nonprofit controlled by GOP operative Leonard Leo, called The Concord Fund, poured $18.8 million into RAGA since 2014 (including $2 million in early 2024 alone). Leo, famed for channeling anonymous billions to shape the courts, here bankrolled attorneys general who align with industry in fighting climate lawsuits.

Critics slam this “pay-to-play” system, noting RAGA has accepted six-figure checks from Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and others while those donors directly benefit from the AGs’ legal challenges to environmental regulations. It’s a parallel track to the same goal: use dark money to stack government with fossil-friendly officials. Now, with Republicans controlling Washington, these fossil fuel financiers have both state and federal allies primed to “capture our courts and government” for Big Oil’s benefit.

Pharmaceutical Cash Blocks Drug Price Reforms

Big Pharma is another heavyweight throwing around secret money to sway Republican votes. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry’s lobbying arm, quietly routed $7.5 million to the House GOP-aligned dark-money group American Action Network (AAN) in 2022, PhRMA’s largest ever one-year donation to AAN. (AAN, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that doesn’t disclose donors, has now received $34.5 million from PhRMA since 2010.) This cash was spent blitzing voters with ads attacking Medicare drug-price negotiation proposals.

The pressure campaign helped torpedo stronger reforms; ultimately only a watered-down drug pricing provision survived into law, saving the pharmaceutical industry billions. Having invested so heavily to kill pricing controls, Pharma interests are keen to see the new House GOP majority resist any expansion of Medicare negotiations, or even roll back the modest measures enacted last Congress. Indeed, the 2025 omnibus bill leaves out broader price caps, and pharma-backed Republicans show little appetite for revisiting the topic.

Newly obtained tax filings reveal that in 2023 PhRMA upped the ante again, donating $3.5 million to AAN (bringing its total funding of AAN to $38 million since *Citizens United*). In the words of Issue One, a campaign finance watchdog, PhRMA has “covertly curried favor” by secretly bankrolling groups that push its policy agenda.

Those groups then run ads or lobby in ways that influence lawmakers without voters knowing who’s behind it. For example, PhRMA sent $525,000 to a shadowy group in Minnesota that helped defeat a state law to control prescription costs. It also gave $275,000 to AAN’s sister “think tank” the American Action Forum and six figures to right-wing advocacy outfits like ALEC (a corporate bill-mill that fights drug price regulations).

All of this spending is aimed at one result: keep drug pricing regime favorable to industry profits. House Republicans, flush with pharma-funded dark ads supporting their campaigns, have reliably echoed industry talking points that government negotiation would stifle innovation. As the current House considers health provisions (like whether to delay Medicare’s upcoming negotiated price program), that $7.5 million investment in GOP dark ads is poised to bear fruit in the form of sympathetic votes.

Other health industries are following Pharma’s playbook. The health insurance lobby, for instance, has long favored Republicans in hopes of dismantling regulations and curbing programs like the Affordable Care Act. During the 2024 cycle, insurance companies and trade groups pumped over $60 million into federal campaigns. Notably, their giving tilted toward the GOP, $30.4 million to Republican candidates.

This reflects insurers’ desire for “friends” in power who will block measures like a public option or stricter industry oversight. It also aligns with the broader finance sector trend: since the Dodd-Frank financial reforms passed in 2010, the combined Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector has “heavily biased Republicans” in donations, aiming to overturn those regulations.

In the House bill, GOP leaders did insurers a favor by inserting Medicaid work requirements and tighter eligibility checks, moves that could shrink public insurance rolls and potentially funnel more customers into private plans. The cozy relationship is further evidenced by health insurers’ lobbying being “remarkably flat,” steady spending each year to maintain influence, and their top PACs cutting generous checks to key committee Republicans.

While not all of this money is dark (some is disclosed PAC contributions), much also flows through industry groups and 501(c) entities that obscure the source. The bottom line: health companies are investing heavily in this Republican Congress, and they expect returns, whether it’s stopping drug price curbs, loosening insurance regulations, or protecting hospital payments in rural GOP districts.

---

---

The Koch Network’s Push for Tax Cuts and Deregulation

No discussion of dark money influence is complete without the Koch network, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch and his late brother’s political empire. Koch-affiliated groups spent freely to help Republicans regain power, and now they are cashing in.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Kochs’ flagship advocacy arm, privately told donors it planned a “herculean” $20 million campaign to back Trump’s 2025 agenda of renewing tax cuts and slashing federal regulations. In a fundraising letter to secret donors (obtained by the press), AFP vowed to push for “deepened” corporate tax cuts that would directly benefit Koch Industries, estimated at $1 billion per year in savings if Trump’s tax rates are extended. Simultaneously, Koch’s group pledged to unwind as many “growth-killing” rules as possible, especially environmental regulations that raise costs for Koch’s oil refining and chemical operations.

By early 2025, AFP had a war chest of $168 million (in 2023 alone), with $130 million of that coming from Koch’s own funds funneled through his donor network. That money fuels a massive influence machine, from TV ads and door-knockers pressuring lawmakers, to policy papers and lobbyists drafting friendly legislation. Indeed, AFP’s political arm (a super PAC) shattered records in 2024, tripling its spending compared to a few years prior.

We’re saw the fruits of Koch’s investment in the Senate vote and will again in the House’s actions. The omnibus bill on the floor would permanently extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for corporations and high earners, a top Koch priority. It also repeals dozens of clean energy programs and subsidies from the last administration, which aligns perfectly with Koch Industries’ interest in undercutting renewable energy competitors.

Koch-tied advocacy helped build support for these measures at the grassroots: for example, Koch’s super PAC and dark-money fronts spent tens of millions on campaign ads painting clean energy initiatives as harmful and urging voters to “renew” the tax cuts. The strategy is often subtle, rather than directly saying “vote to help Koch Industries,” the ads use anti-government and pro-jobs rhetoric that resonates with constituents, thereby nudging their Republican representatives to vote accordingly.

But make no mistake, the architects of this agenda are wealthy donors seeking to enrich themselves. As one analysis noted, an oligarchy of “extreme wealth, power and influence” has coalesced around Trump’s second term. Koch is a prime example: his network’s influence on the GOP ensures policies are enacted that save his company money (in taxes and compliance costs) at the public’s expense. And Koch is hardly alone, other ultra-rich GOP donors likewise expect policy payback.

Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin, for instance, poured $100 million into the 2024 elections (making him the 5th largest donor) to bolster pro-business Republicans. Griffin avoided donating to Trump directly, focusing on congressional super PACs like the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund that support establishment Republicans.

His goal was clear: elect lawmakers who embrace free-market, low-tax, light-regulation orthodoxy, which aligns with his financial interests. “These megadonors…help their bottom line” through political giving, said one watchdog, noting that many are “hard-edged conservatives pragmatic about how giving can help their business”. Griffin’s massive bet paid off with a GOP House keen on deregulatory measures.

Similarly, reclusive financier Tim Mellon became the single largest donor of 2024 by quietly funneling at least $197 million to pro-Trump efforts. Mellon, an heir with deep disdain for government regulation, has evidently decided that installing Republicans will protect his wealth and “curb intrusive government” in areas from environmental rules to labor laws. Such enormous contributions often went into dark-money vehicles, groups with generic patriotic names that ran attack ads benefiting GOP candidates, so the public rarely connected the dots to donors like Mellon.

But once the election was won, the influence was unmistakable: Republicans are pushing exactly the policies these benefactors desire (e.g. easing Endangered Species Act protections and other rules Mellon chafed at). In effect, a handful of billionaires bankrolled a sympathetic government, and now their wish lists are being translated into legislation.

Even many of the tech titans joined the dark-money-fueled policy influence game. Elon Musk, currently the world’s richest man, reportedly contributed over $130 million of his own money (and an astonishing $200 million via his aligned super PAC) to help elect Trump. Musk’s motivations appear twofold: ideological (favoring less regulation and certain policy directions) and business-driven. His reward was immediate, Trump not only adopted Musk’s policy suggestions but even appointed Musk to co-lead DOGE, a new government efficiency commission and gave him direct access to high-level decision-making.

Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla interests stand to gain from friendlier contracting terms and a rollback of regulations on tech and manufacturing. Here again, the lines blur between public policy and private benefit. Musk’s huge donation was disclosed, but if he also steered money through dark channels (as many CEOs do via trade associations or nonprofit advocacy groups), the public might never know. What’s clear is that several billionaire donors, from Musk to Oracle’s Larry Ellison to venture capitalists backing crypto, expect this administration to repay their generosity in policy coin.

House Republicans have signaled openness to accommodating these interests, whether it’s pushing for crypto-friendly rules (after tens of millions in contributions from crypto investors) or ensuring Musk’s businesses aren’t hindered by antitrust or regulatory crackdowns. Such influence often happens via quiet phone calls and closed-door meetings, greased by the knowledge of financial support. As a result, dark money doesn’t just buy votes on bills, it can buy access and agenda-setting power that shapes what bills even get considered.

Immigration Crackdown Underwritten by Private Prisons

One of the most striking examples of dark money’s sway is in immigration policy. The 2025 House bill includes a whopping $45 billion for ICE detention and border enforcement, funding that will “line the pockets of the private prison industry,” as Rep. Veronica Escobar bluntly noted. Companies that run immigration detention centers, like GEO Group and CoreCivic, have spent years cultivating Republican support through campaign cash.

Much of it is routed indirectly or opaquely, given the legal ban on federal contractors donating directly. GEO Group found a workaround: it used a subsidiary to funnel $1 million to a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 campaign. (The donations, made in installments of $500k and $250k, skirted rules against contractors contributing by using a sister company without direct government contracts.)

This covert largesse coincided with Trump touting plans to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, a policy that GEO’s executives openly salivated over. On a post-election earnings call, GEO’s CEO estimated Trump’s enforcement agenda could net the company an extra $400 million in annual revenue by filling its empty detention beds. In other words, GEO’s secret donation was an investment with an extremely lucrative potential return.

CoreCivic’s leadership took a similar tack: its president personally gave $300,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising committee in 2024, and the company’s PAC directed over $277,000 (out of $300k total) to Republican campaigns and committees. These contributions far eclipsed any token amounts to Democrats, signaling that private prison firms overwhelmingly banked on the GOP to deliver hardline immigration policies.

They were not disappointed. Upon taking power, Republicans moved swiftly on immigration enforcement. Trump’s new budget (the “big, beautiful bill”) allocates billions to expand detention camps, accelerate deportations, and even restart border wall construction. The $45 billion ICE detention boost in the bill virtually guarantees long-term contracts (and profits) for companies like GEO and CoreCivic. It’s a textbook case of pay-to-play politics: private prison operators helped fund the election effort, and got a policy bonanza in return. GEO Group’s stock price reportedly jumped 80% after Trump’s victory, reflecting investor awareness that the company had friends in high places.

Internal documents and statements reinforce the quid pro quo dynamic. “We have assured ICE of our capability to rapidly scale up…to achieve the government’s immigration objectives,” GEO’s president told investors, practically congratulating the partnership. On the outside, these companies burnish their image by claiming their PACs “educate officials” on public safety, but the numbers tell the story: GEO’s PAC gave $670,000+ to Republicans vs just $17,500 to Democrats in the past two years, and CoreCivic’s PAC gave Ninety-Five percent of its $300k+ to Republicans. Those donations, some disclosed and some through dark money channels, bought sympathetic ears in Congress.

When Democrats previously sought to limit private detention or question abuses, GOP lawmakers (flush with prison PAC dollars) often stonewalled oversight. Now in the majority, Republicans are actively steering taxpayer funds to enrich the detention industry. As Escobar pointed out, every dollar poured into incarcerating immigrants is a dollar not spent on public health or veterans, but it does boost the bottom lines of a few prison corporations. The public never sees the behind-the-scenes influence, only the policy outcomes.

Getting Dark Money Out of Our Politics

First, to help set the stage as to why reform is so damn important, let’s take a look at what Sen. Chris Murphy had to say last night immediately after the Senate passed the bill.

Look, I know that I’ve painted a pretty dark picture in this article. But as highlighted by Sen. Murphy, it’s an accurate assessment of the current status of politics.

As an American, a voter, and a parent, it sickens me to see our democracy bending to the will of hidden money like this. I believe this is one of the great political battles of our time, the battle to get dark money out of politics and return power to the people. It won’t be easy. It is absolutely necessary if we want a government that actually works for the public interest rather than a handful of rich donors. So, how can we do it? How can we legislate dark money out of existence?

First, we must shine a light on it. Transparency is the simplest starting point. We should enact strong laws that require full disclosure of all significant political donations and expenditures. If a billionaire dumps $10 million into a super PAC that is flooding the airwaves with ads, the public deserves to know that person’s name. If a shadowy non-profit organization is pumping money into campaign ads or lobbying, we should know who their funders are.

Forcing disclosure would at least let voters see who is trying to influence their representatives. Sunlight can disinfect some of this corruption. Politicians might think twice about doing the bidding of a group called “Americans for Apple Pie” if everyone can later find out it was funded by, say, a single oil company or a foreign actor. Right now we can’t always know that. That needs to change immediately.

Next, we need to reduce politicians’ reliance on big-money donors. One promising approach is public campaign financing. This might mean giving every voter a voucher or credit to donate to campaigns, or matching small donations with public funds so candidates can stay competitive without billionaire backers.

The idea is to empower ordinary Americans to financially support candidates of their choice, leveling the playing field. If our lawmakers could raise the money they need to run for office from their constituents and public funds, they wouldn’t have to constantly court the ultra-rich or cater to secretive PACs. They could spend more time legislating and listening to voters, and less time dialing wealthy donors for dollars. Some states and cities have already implemented systems like this with success, proving that we can change the incentives.

We also have to strengthen the laws to directly limit dark money. The truth is, a lot of this comes back to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and related cases that equated money with free speech and struck down many campaign finance limits. I am a lawyer, and I will be the first to say that decision was a travesty for democracy.

To truly root out dark money, we may need to overturn or override those court rulings. That could happen if the Court changes its mind in the future (this isn’t going to happen with this current court) or, more feasibly, if we pass a constitutional amendment clarifying that unlimited (this only has a chance if democrats take back a majority in Congress in the 2026 midterms), secret spending is not protected speech. I know that amending the Constitution is a tall order. There are already movements afoot to try to do just that.

Even without an amendment, Congress could pass strong legislation requiring disclosure and closing loopholes, and then dare the Supreme Court to strike it down. At the very least, we can tighten the laws we have. For example, Congress could outlaw the practice of donor-funded “social welfare” nonprofits being used as passthroughs for political money, and beef up the Federal Election Commission so that it actually enforces the rules on coordination between campaigns and outside groups.

In addition, we should seriously consider rules to stop the revolving door of big donors and government officials. If a billionaire bundler gets an ambassadorship, or a corporate lobbyist becomes a regulator overseeing their former industry, it creates a huge conflict of interest. We need stricter ethics laws to prevent high-dollar donors from literally running the government they invested in. Public service should not be a reward for writing checks. Under Trump that seems to be happening in broad daylight.

Reforms like transparency in funding, public campaign financing, stricter limits on big money, and strong ethics rules can all help curb the power of dark money. We must demand that candidates in both parties pledge support for anti-dark-money legislation, and then pass the new legislation into enforceable laws. We should support advocacy groups pushing for these changes. As citizens, we cannot throw up our hands in cynicism. We have to speak out, vote, and hold our representatives accountable to us, the people, not to their anonymous donors.

Bringing Back Democracy for the People

I firmly believe that dark money is at the core of what is poisoning our politics. It allows a tiny, unrepresentative slice of wealthy interests to have an outsized say in what our government does. That is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to inherit. The story of the “Big Beautiful Bill” and its journey through Congress is a perfect example of this sickness. Republican lawmakers had a choice between listening to their constituents or pleasing their secret donors. Overwhelmingly, they chose the donors.

The result is legislation that rewards the richest and harms everyone else, passed by means of threats and backroom deals. This is exactly how a democracy dies a little bit each day. It doesn’t happen with tanks in the streets; it happens with legislators slowly abandoning the people’s will in favor of a pay-to-play system.

The good news, if I can call it that, is that people are waking up. I meet Americans every day who are furious that their voices are being drowned out by money. They are tired of feeling like nothing will change because “the big guys always win.” I share that anger. I refuse to sink into despair. I am determined to fight back by spreading awareness and pushing for change.

In my opinion, we absolutely can reclaim our democracy from the clutches of dark money. It will take time, and it will take a broad coalition of citizens who care about fair play, whether they are liberal, conservative, or anything in between. This issue isn’t about left or right. It is about right and wrong.

The first step is understanding the problem, which is why I wrote this piece. Now that we see how dark money influenced Republican votes on this bill and threatens to do the same in the House, we can call it out. We can tell our friends and neighbors, we can confront our representatives with the facts, and we can demand transparency and accountability. We must urge every honest lawmaker left (yes, there are a few) to band together and push reforms that banish this shadowy corruption from our system. And if those lawmakers won’t do it, then we voters must replace them with people who will.

I won’t pretend any of this is easy. As I said at the start, Trump and his enablers have unleashed a tide of division and damage that could take years or decades to repair. Dark money is a big part of that story. I have faith in the American people and in the ideals of our Constitution. We have overcome threats to our democracy before, and we can do it again.

In the end, sunlight defeats darkness. It’s time to drag dark money into the light, clean up our politics, and make our government truly of, by, and for the people again. That is the beautiful future worth fighting for.

Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links

---

No paywall. No fine print. Just the truth—served straight, no chaser.

If this speaks to you, hit subscribe and share it with someone who needs to hear it. Want to back it with a paid subscription? That’s badass. But know this: I’ll never put a price tag on facts. They belong in the open, where everyone can see them, hear them, and use them to fight back.

---