Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, is moving to rein in the corporate and “dark money” spending that has been running rampant in Democratic primary contests. This week, Martin circulated materials to DNC members including a resolution he will introduce that would task a new Committee on Reforms with proposing “real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process.” Sludge obtained a copy of the draft resolution, embedded below.
The measure was applauded by DNC members who have been pushing to limit corporate and dark money that is spent to sway voters in primaries. Outside spending in Democratic primaries has soared, with the cryptocurrency industry and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dropping enormous sums to back candidates. Even outside spending groups tied to Democratic Party leaders have ramped up their dark money spending in recent cycles.
“For those of us who have been talking about corporate and dark money for years, this is a huge step forward,” said Larry Cohen, a DNC member and chair of the progressive group Our Revolution, which endorsed the measure. “This resolution represents a growing awareness that we can’t talk about voters and be addicted to Big Money at the same time. We need active voters who will build party infrastructure in all 3,000 counties, and currently we don’t even have half of that.”
The resolution will go before DNC members at the party’s summer meeting in Minneapolis from Aug. 25–27, with the goal of having the reform proposals considered at the summer meeting in 2026.
Much remains to be worked out by the new panel: for one, the resolution does not explicitly mention super PACs. So the question will arise of how to treat super PACs in the presidential primary that spend money that comes from dark money groups, like nonprofits, or other PACs with less transparency on their true funders.
Super PACs are often dubbed “gray money” groups for these practices of spotty disclosure of their original sources of funding. Spending groups can also hide their donors’ information from the public by running contributions through a series of groups, leaving behind a tangled—and often long-delayed—trail of disclosures, which voters may not hear about until after votes are cast.
Another major issue is what type of enforcement is lined up for spending groups that flout the rules in the presidential primary. The DNC’s rules can’t wholly prevent outside spending in elections, given the Supreme Court’s rulings that spending to influence elections is protected by the First Amendment as free speech. The resolution acknowledges that challenge, saying, “the only way to solve this problem in the long term is through Congressional action, including a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and its progeny…”
Recognizing the national campaign finance landscape, the resolution says that the new reform committee would put forward “a specific set of necessary legislative actions that the DNC should endorse as a body to present to Congressional leaders.” It mentions past Senate Republican filibusters of the major DISCLOSE Act, the leading measure to make public the sources of dark money spending in elections that was passed by House Democrats in 2021 and before.
But Martin’s proposal strikes a new tone by committing the party to meeting its claimed principles in decrying the shadowy money influencing voters in elections. The chair calls unlimited super PAC donations and dark money a “problem” and says that the DNC “encourages Democratic officeholders and candidates at all levels of government to reduce the influence of corporate and dark money… and to lead by example in rejecting such donations.”
In June, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and seven Democratic senators sent a letter to Martin and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling on party leaders to ban super PAC and dark money from Democratic primaries. The letter was the latest salvo in Sanders’ efforts going back years to cut off super PAC cash in Democratic primaries. The senators’ letter sparked resistance from former DNC chair Jaime Harrison, a former corporate lobbyist who said that party rules wouldn’t work to bind corporate-funded super PACs, and told the lawmakers to “just pass a damn bill,” ignoring the Republican filibusters in the Senate that have blocked campaign finance reform.
Yet state parties have recently shown they’re interested in countering billionaires’ and corporations’ ability to swamp primaries with spending: the Arizona Democratic Party adopted a resolution in June to establish a “People’s Primary,” a process joined later that month by the North Carolina party, with other parties like Nebraska raising the issue.
Martin, who was chair of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party and formerly president of the Association of State Democratic Chairs, prevailed on Feb. 1 in a crowded race to be head of the DNC with a message that included a commitment to fund state parties and organizing efforts.
Cohen wrote recently that the Democratic Party should curb outside spending, citing existing state rules like Pennsylvania’s supermajority vote requirement and Massachusetts’ delegate threshold for primary ballot access as models for fair processes, as well rising support in states like Arizona and North Carolina for limiting independent expenditures. He argues that the DNC and state parties should implement measures like debate exclusions and other penalties to prevent candidates who welcome independent expenditures from participating on equal footing with those who don’t.
“Most importantly, this resolution represents encouragement to all 57 Democratic parties to take this issue up in their own federal, state, and municipal elections,” Cohen told Sludge.
While Harrison might discount the ability of party rules to shape primaries, previous resolutions adopted by Democratic Party organizations have had effects, even if the measures were not themselves laws. In 2019, for example, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) implemented a blacklist of vendors who were willing to work with progressive primary challengers, prompting public pushback from progressive advocacy groups. In past years, the DNC opted to reject donations from fossil fuel PACs, party rules that were overturned under former Chair Tom Perez in August 2018. The restriction was floated again in 2020 and made it into the party platform, only to be quietly dropped.
Usually, the DNC ducks discussion about ways that the party can reduce the corporate and dark money flooding into its primary contests. In 2022, when leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to the heads of the DNC and other Democratic campaign groups asking them to condemn the trend of unlimited outside spending bankrolled by billionaires and corporations, the DNC offered no public response. Many previous efforts by Democratic Party reformers to curb corporate influence and dark money spending in primaries were short-circuited (in 2020) and twice blocked (in 2022 and 2023) in opaque DNC committees.
Also to be decided by the reform committee: whether super PACs funded by wealthy individuals and billionaires in the 2028 presidential scrum would be barred under the measure. Another question to be worked out is whether super PACs funded by trade associations—technically nonprofit groups, that are overwhelmingly funded by their corporate members’ dues—would count as corporate money and be prohibited.
“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,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, in a statement this week. “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.”
Below, draft of DNC Chair's "Resolution on Integrity in the Financing of our Presidential Primary Elections":
Speed Read
NOTUS: Private equity is making some big investments in lobbying firms.
Axios: The Israeli government is courting popular MAGA influencers in an effort to address Republican divisions over the war in Gaza, where scenes of violence and starvation have fueled global outrage.
Brennan Center: The Trump administration has asserted a radical and unrestrained view of executive power, pointedly dismantling watchdog entities and longstanding anticorruption enforcement mechanisms.
The American Prospect: Tech and crypto firms have spent $1.2 billion during and since the 2024 election, and they are reaping the benefits.
