SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dark money
Sanders Cheers New DNC Push to Curb Dark Money in Democratic Presidential Primaries
"Billionaire-funded super PACs like AIPAC and crypto shouldn't be able to undermine democracy and determine Democratic candidates," said the senator. "This principle should apply to congressional primaries too."
Aug 12, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and the advocacy group he helped found applauded a new resolution from Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, revealed Tuesday, that aims to limit corporate and dark money spending in the party's next presidential primary.
CNN obtained a draft of the resolution that Martin plans to introduce at the DNC's August 25-27 meeting in Minneapolis. The outlet reported that it calls for creating a panel that would identify and study "real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process."
The draft "does not explicitly mention" super political action committees, "and it's not clear whether it will ultimately restrict super PAC spending in party primaries," according to CNN. It also says that the "only way to solve for this problem in the long term is through congressional action, including a constitutional amendment" to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to corporate spending on elections.
Still, Sanders (I-Vt.)—who ran for president as a Democrat in 2016 and 2020—welcomed the proposal as progress, writing on social media Tuesday, "Congrats to the DNC for starting the process to ban Big Money from presidential primaries."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs like AIPAC and Crypto shouldn't be able to undermine democracy and determine Democratic candidates," he added, calling out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "This principle should apply to congressional primaries too."
Sanders and seven of his Democratic colleagues—Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Tina Smith (Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.)—wrote to Martin and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) in June, urging them to curb the influence of rich donors and super PACs in party primaries.
Last year's federal elections were devastating for Democrats, who lost not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress. In the wake of that, Sanders said that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them."
"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign?" he wondered at the time. "Probably not."
While then-DNC Chair Jaime Harrison swiftly lashed out at Sanders in November, calling his critique "straight up BS," the forthcoming resolution is a sign that Martin may be listening to key progressives—as well as registered Democrats and Independent voters, who are frustrated with the party and want to see elected officials fight harder for working people.
Just before the February DNC election in which Martin was victorious, Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, the group that grew out of Sanders' first presidential campaign, declared that "this moment demands a Democratic Party that provides more than just reactive opposition to an administration bent on rigging our economic and political systems in favor of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals on Earth."
Geevarghese also stressed the need for "leaders who put the party's grassroots base ahead of the donor class" and reject corporate rule, and accused Democratic leadership of "failing disastrously to meet this urgent mandate."
On Tuesday, Geevarghese welcomed the reporting on Martin's proposal, saying that "for the last 15 years, the disgraceful Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of spending from dark money groups and corporate super PACs that has drowned out working people's voices and sidelined the progressive candidates our party needs to challenge the corrupt billionaire class."
"This resolution is a crucial step to ensure the Democratic presidential nominee is chosen by everyday people—not deep-pocketed donors and the special interests they serve," he added. "We urge every DNC member to rise to the moment, back this fight, and put power back where it belongs—in the hands of voters, not the billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Group Fights 'Flagrant, Self-Serving Attack on Church-State Separation' by Trump IRS
"President Trump and his Christian nationalist allies are once again exploiting religion to boost their own political power," said the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Jul 11, 2025
Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Thursday took a step toward blocking a proposed settlement that would officially allow churches to endorse U.S. political candidates and retain their nonprofit, tax-exempt status.
The advocacy group's move came in response to a proposed settlement to a lawsuit brought by the National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America and two Christian churches—Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom—against the provision of the federal tax code that blocks such endorsements, the Johnson Amendment.
Rather than fully scrapping the policy named for former President Lyndon B. Johnson, the plaintiffs and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on Monday filed a proposed settlement that would create an exception for houses of worship. Although the proposal would formalize a common practice, it was widely blasted as "dangerous for democracy."
Americans United (AU) is now requesting intervenor status in the case, writing to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas—which can approve or reject the settlement—that "defendants have taken the consequential step of abandoning the defense of a federal law that has safeguarded our democracy for decades."
"The majority of Americans—including faith leaders, evangelical Christians, and Republicans—don't want their churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics."
The filing explains that "as defendant-intervenor, Americans United will provide a critical perspective, including timely arguments opposing the proposed consent decree, that will otherwise be absent from this case and that will support this court's duty to reject entry of unlawful consent decrees."
"By preventing religious and other 501(c)(3) organizations from intervening in political campaigns, the Johnson Amendment protects their financial independence, ensuring that they are not corrupted by money and led astray from their intended missions," the document states. "That consideration applies to houses of worship and other religious entities just as much as to other nonprofits, and is in keeping with the fundamental principle underlying the separation of church and state: Religious freedom is best preserved by keeping religion apart from the corrupting influences of politics."
Ending the restriction on churches—which is rarely enforced by the IRS—has long been a priority for President Donald Trump. During his first term, in his 2017 address to the National Prayer Breakfast, he vowed to "get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution."
AU president and CEO Rachel Laser said in a Friday statement that "the Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics."
"President Trump and his Christian Nationalist allies are once again exploiting religion to boost their own political power. We're intervening in this case so we can urge the court to reject the administration's latest gambit to rewrite the law," Laser continued. "Americans United has long supported the Johnson Amendment because it protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship."
"The majority of Americans—including faith leaders, evangelical Christians, and Republicans—don't want their churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics," she added. "Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': Trump IRS Says Nonprofit Churches Can Make Political Endorsements
"Holy shit, a real masks-off moment," said one professor. "The divide between church and state is already falling. The divide between church and political group will disappear."
Jul 08, 2025
"This is another dark day for our democracy."
That's what American Humanist Association (AHA) executive director Fish Stark said in a Tuesday statement responding to a move from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to allow houses of worship to endorse political candidates.
When former President Lyndon B. Johnson was a senator, he introduced a provision of the U.S. tax code that bans organizations from participating or intervening in campaigns for public office as a condition for keeping their nonprofit, tax-exempt status.
The National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America and two Christian churches—Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom—wanted a federal court in Texas to strike down the Johnson Amendment. Instead, according to a Monday filing from the plaintiffs and Internal Revenue Service intended to settle the case, the IRS created a formal exception for houses of worship.
Noting the definitions of participate and intervene, the filing states that "bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates."
"Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted," the document continues.
R.I.P. The Johnson Amendment, 1954-2025
[image or embed]
— Robert Downen (@robertdownen.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 12:16 PM
While the court could reject the plan laid out by the Trump IRS and plaintiffs in this case, observers responded to the settlement document by declaring the 1954 Johnson Amendment "essentially overturned" and "effectively DEAD."
Like many critics of the decision, the court filing acknowledges that its new interpretation "is in keeping with the IRS' treatment of the Johnson Amendment in practice," as the agency "generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services."
Also highlighting that "it's been clear that many churches were both collecting tax deductions while engaging in partisan politics, so this merely formalizes the practice," Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, wrote on social media, "Holy shit, a real masks-off moment."
"There is already a problem of political operations pretending to be churches," he added, citing 2022 ProPublica reporting. "The divide between church and state is already falling. The divide between church and political group will disappear."
Christa Brown—whose memoir Baptistland tells the story of abuse she endured in her Texas childhood church—said that "churches were already doing this but now it's going to get a lot worse. Bad for the country, dangerous for democracy, and terrible for the separation of church and state. Inevitably, heaps of dark money will now get funneled through churches to influence elections."
AHA's Stark issued a similar warning, saying that "the Johnson Amendment, though weakened over the years by lax enforcement, is the small but mighty dam standing in the way of a torrent of dark money influencing our elections. Now that the Trump administration has opened the door to pastors and houses of worship explicitly backing candidates for office, all bets are off."
"There will be little to stop billionaires from funneling money through churches to buy our elections—and they will get a tax write-off for doing it, all subsidized by American taxpayers," Stark continued. "Weakening the Johnson Amendment to consolidate political power has long been a priority for Christian nationalists—and now they have the megaphone they've been waiting for for decades."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State president and CEO Rachel Laser said Tuesday that "the Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a brazen attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics. It's President Trump and his Christian nationalist allies' signature move: exploiting religion to boost their own political power."
"For more than 70 years, the Johnson Amendment has reflected the will of the American people, the majority of whom want to protect the integrity of our elections and shield our houses of worship from the corrupting influences of partisan politicking," Laser added, urging the court "to reject the administration's latest gambit to rewrite the law through the judicial system."
Trump’s IRS just declared churches can endorse political candidates from the pulpit.This move upends a core protection for church-state separation, AND erodes the freedom and independence of churches.www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/u...
[image or embed]
— Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons (@guthriegf.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, also criticized the "deeply concerning" court filing for "furthering an assault on the bedrock principle that charitable organizations must remain nonpartisan in law, fact, and purpose in order to serve their missions and communities."
"This action—long sought by President Trump—is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws," Yentel argued. "The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views."
Some political leaders also weighed in. Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said that "this is really bad. The merger of tax-exempt conservative churches with the MAGA Republican Party is complete. It started with endless rightwing attacks on the IRS, leading to partisan political operations like Family Research Council posing as 'churches,' and now this. American taxpayers are now subsidizing both partisan (mainly GOP) politics and religion."
California state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-25) concluded that "if churches can make political endorsements and make political donations, they can pay taxes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular