## Dark Money - What is "dark money"? - Oxford Languages: "funds raised for the purpose of influencing elections by **non-profit** organisations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors." - This seems to be the definition used by Taylor as Sixteen Thirty is also a non-profit and therefore not required to disclose their donors - Question: Is "dark money" as defined above inherently bad? For example, a Muslim group that opposes the Trump administration might want to register as a non-profit because a public list of Muslim donors to such an organisation might risk putting a target on people's backs. There can be an argument for creators disclosing their relationship with Chorus (it seems many of them already did), but should they also be obligated to announce who funds their funders? If so, why? - [Different organisation structures](https://afj.org/resource/comparison-of-501c3-and-501c4-permissible-activities/) - 501(c): Non-profit organisation ; exempt from some federal income taxes - 501(c)(3): Public Charity - Can't support or oppose candidates for elected public office - Must only engage in non-partisan activity - Financial information is [publicly](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/501c3-organizations.asp) accessible - 501(c)(4): Social welfare organisation - Can engage in some partisan activity, but this can't be their primary purpose - Unlimited ability to: - Lobby for/against legislation - Support/oppose ballot measures - Can, unlike (c)(3)s: - Distribute voter guides that compare candidates on issues important to the org - Conduct voter registration activities based on party affiliation - Endorse candidates - Fund independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate - Make campaign contributions (prohibited for federal candidates; permissible in some states) - [Political Action Committee (PAC)](https://campaignlegal.org/update/pacs-super-pacs-dark-money-groups-whats-difference) - Raises or spends more than $1,000 to influence the outcome of a federal election in a calendar year - Required to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) - Can accept up to $5,000 per person per year - Can't accept union or corporate treasury funds - Multicandidate PAC can contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate and $15,000 to a party committee - No limit on the aggregate amount it can contribute - [FEC contribution limits 2025-2026](https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/contribution-limits-chart-2025-2026.pdf) - Super PAC - Unlike a regular PAC, a Super PAC can "accept *unlimited* contributions from any non-foreign source, including union and corporate treasury funds." - May not contribute directly to a candidate and may not coordinate with a candidate in making its expenditures - Publicly disclosed on the FEC website - "Dark Money Group" - 501(c)(4) or (c)(6) - Sometimes referred to as "issue advocacy" groups - Can accept unlimited contributions from *any* source - Not required to publicly disclose donors - Can engage in candidate election related activities but this cannot be their primary activity - Generally understood that is can't spend more than 50% of its funds on electioneering - Can't contribute directly to a candidate but can contribute unlimited amounts to a Super PAC which is supporting a candidate - Sixteen Thirty Fund - Non-profit, [not required to disclose donors](https://archive.ph/n7wsb#selection-1185.7-1185.88) - Partial disclosures - [2020](https://archive.ph/BDQOm): Omidyars' 501(c)(4) contributed $45m to "Civic Action Fund", a project of Sixteen Thirty - According to Taylor: - Supports issues such as "economic equity, affordable healthcare, climate solutions, racial justice, voter access, and other 'essential social-change goals.'" - 2018: Provided $141 million to over 100 left-leaning causes - 2020: Distributed over $400 million in "efforts to unseat then-president Donald Trump and Republicans' Senate Majority" - 2022: Spent $196 million backing state ballot measures on abortion rights in the mid-terms - Almost two thirds of their funding come from four donors, contributing $50.5m, $31.4m, $21.8m and $13.6m respectively - Civic Action Fund - Project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund - Voter mobilisation group - Operated in 2020 in 12 battleground states with the goal of getting "low-propensity voters" to become "lifelong voters" - According to [InfleunceWatch](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/civic-action-fund/) - [Received](https://archive.ph/BDQOm) $45m from the Omidyars' 501(c)(4) - Omidyar Network - According to their website: - "Philanthropic organisation whose mission is to bend the arc of the digital revolution toward shared power, prosperity, and possibility." - Committed more than $1.94 billion in initiatives "that share our vision" - Hybrid structure - Combines a Limited Liability Company (LLC) and a 501(c)(3) foundation - Supported by the Omidyars and part of "The Omidyar Group" - [Reporters in Residence program](https://omidyar.com/where-we-focus/reporters-in-residence-program/) - Started in 2023 - Aims to empower freelance journalists "to pursue rigorous reporting that drives national conversations and informs policy debates." - 6-month residency ; journalists receive a monthly stipend, travel expenses and access to Omidyar Network staff and partners - "The reporters maintain full editorial control and discretion over their work." - Taylor Lorenz is one of 6 journalists in their 2025 Summer cohort - [Statement following Taylor's article](https://omidyar.com/update/omidyar-networks-approach-to-funding-independent-journalism/) - No funding received for "Reporters in Residence program via The Sixteen Thirty Fund or any other outside sources." - Suggests their programs are funded by the LLC *and* the 501(c)(3) - Cayman Islands? - [NYMag](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/10/pierre-omidyar-first-look-media.html) article suggesting Omidyar funnelled money through a Cayman Islands-based private-equity fund ## Taylor's article - Published on *Wired* August 27th, 2025 - Revised August 28th, 2025 - Link: https://archive.ph/FuLMv - **Claim**: Secrecy - Subheading states that creators have to keep their relationship with Chorus a "secret" - Creators not allowed to disclose relationship with Chorus or the 1630 fund, *"or functionally, that they're being paid at all."* - Creators had to loop Chorus in on any independently organised engagements with government officials of political leaders - Forbids creators from disclosing the identity of any Funder - **Response**: Several creators have openly shown their connections to Chorus in the past 9 months or even featured on their website. The idea that creators had to keep the relationship a "secret" is plainly false. Some examples below: - [Chorus Newsroom event](https://www.instagram.com/p/DEyFJaxhvnl/?hl=en) on Instagram tagging BTC, PoliticsGirl, Bookersquared, thezactivist and Adam Mockler - [@bookersquared](https://linktr.ee/Bookersquared?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAacdomZ0HF_TGwRzNtAN4iOFC3B1-64tNGTGfBfabSl20VEFCrXLTrqJ4r4UOA_aem_fqTmLTK6AJNaUwJuq3dvPg) has "CHORUS" listed on her linktree - [Chorus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg5qJh378HQ&t=722s) forum on YouTube featuring PoliticsGirl, Adam Mockler, BTC, Bookersquared and others - As for the Creator Incubator Program, Chorus [advertised](https://imgur.com/a/qkBZFpe) this on [Instagram]([https://www.instagram.com/p/DCeWiBepgl0/](https://www.instagram.com/p/DCeWiBepgl0/)) on November 19th, 2024 - [Pakman vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0kAOyZOqWI&t=16s) from Nov 2024 scrolls past the Chorus website, showing pictures of numerous affiliated creators - **Claim**: Content restrictions - Creators have to "agree to restrictions on their content" - Contract gave Chorus the ability to force creators to remove or correct content based solely on organisation discretion if that content was made at a Chorus-organised event - Quoted in Taylor's article, Don Heider Chief executive for Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara says: *"If the contract for getting money from a particular interest group says you can't disclose it, then it's pretty simple, you can't take the money." - "creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus." - Quotes an unnamed creator who declined the contract: "If I get Zohran and he wants to \[do an] interview with me, I don't want to give that to them." - **Response**: The section about having to "funnel *all* bookings with lawmakers" is directly contradicted by @Allie_202_'s contract which simply asks for disclosure (not funnelling) on engagements relating to the Chorus Newsroom. It is absurd to believe that *every* independent engagement between creators and "government officials *or others*" would have to be micromanaged by the Chorus Newsroom. - Taylor's use of the word "funnel" and source suggesting that if they got an interview with Zohran they would have to "give that to \[Chorus]" is misleading. It appears the contract is asking creators to "disclose" engagements with government officials on topics related to the policy agenda. When showing this section of the contract, [@Allie_202_](https://www.tiktok.com/@allie_202_/video/7543788692905790751) explains that this is simply to inform other creators that *x* politician is open to booking (2:00) - In [@bookersquared](https://www.instagram.com/p/DN3xSpI0gdf/)'s response, she corroborates Allie's assertion that Chorus isn't looped in on who she's talking to "9/10 times" >[!quote]- Booking Engagements contract section >**iv. Book Engagements.** Chorus will provide Contractors with access to the Chorus Newsroom, which coordinates booking and engagement opportunities for creators with government officials, policy and nonprofit experts, and others whose expertise and experiences are relevant to Chorus's progressive policy agenda. Contractor agrees to (1) utilise the Chorus Newsroom to book engagements, (2) disclose to Chorus Newsroom personnel any engagements with government officials or others on topics related to Chorus's policy agenda that Contractor arranges through other means and (3) collaborate fully with Chorus regarding all such separately-arranged engagements. Contractor further agrees to participate in Newsroom events or booking opportunities (in-person) \[the remaining line can't be fully seen due to annoying TikTok bobbing head shit] - **Claim:** Predatory contract - *"At least one cohort specifically told they could not have their lawyers redline the contract"* - **Response**: In [Allie_202_](https://www.tiktok.com/@allie_202_/video/7543788692905790751)'s video, she indirectly implies that people have "lawyers and managers" to help them navigate the contract. She makes no mention of any prohibition on redlining from lawyers (3:03). - Taylor's own article quotes creators in a group chat talking about suggesting changes to the contract. One says "are we just going to send things separately and hope they change everything for everyone?", another referring to a "revised Chorus contract" and another complaining that "the vibe I got from their email was that there would be minimal, if any, changes." It appears that some people were allowed to redline the contract and at least one revision was made? Given that this is a particularly strong claim, it seems odd that only one cohort was willing to mention it. - **Claim**: Dark Money - Chorus is funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a *"powerful liberal dark money group"* - **Response**: At no point does Taylor clearly define what she means by "dark money". She does quote Graham Wilson, a lawyer working with Chorus, who states that one advantage of using a nonprofit is that it "avoids a lot of the public disclosure or public disclaimers." However, it is interesting that this would meet her bar for "dark money" because the Omidyar Network, which pays her $8,000 per month as part of their Reporters in Residence program [admits](https://omidyar.com/update/omidyar-networks-approach-to-funding-independent-journalism/) that their project is at least partly funded through an LLC which also doesn't require public disclosure. - **Claim**: Paid to toe the line - Subheading strongly implies that creators are paid specifically to uncritically support the Democratic Party - Chorus "offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line." - **Response**: At least two of the creators who responded have a history of criticising Democrats. [Allie_202_](https://www.instagram.com/allie_202_/) in particular has regularly attacked the Democratic Party since working with Chorus, particularly over their stances on Gaza. To say that they were paid to push the "party line" is simply false. ## Outside responses - [Jon Favreau on X](https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1961586491093860635), posted Aug 30th, 2025 - [Hasan responds](https://x.com/Awk20000/status/1962353491864903942) - [iamlegallyhype on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/iamlegallyhype/reel/DN8RjAxDXCP/?hl=en), posted Aug 30th, 2025 - Claims people are in her comment section "telling me I need to disclose where I'm getting my money from" - Offered $250 a month by Chorus and turned them down - Seems to corroborate one claim in Taylor's article: *"(Some influencers for Chorus Creator Incubator Program were offered as little as $250 per month, according to one creator who declined to accept the deal)"* - [Additional post](https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOB0wiYkRUs/) on Aug 31st, 2025 - [Mike from PA](https://x.com/Mike_from_PA/status/1962387519343083703) - Pulls up an old tweet of Olivia Julianna claiming to not be "in party leadership or paid by the \[Democratic] party in any capacity" ; seems to think the article has shown that she is paid by the DNC? - kendallybrown on [Tik Tok](https://www.tiktok.com/@kendallybrown/video/7544150002646420749) - Not part of the Chorus program ; has a background in digital strategy and journalism - Response to this paragraph: *"Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorisation from Chorus in advance and in writing, per the contract."* - this is made to sound unnecessarily restrictive, despite being a requirement under federal law. A 501(c)(4) is [prohibited](https://afj.org/resource/comparison-of-501c3-and-501c4-permissible-activities/) from using their resources to back federal candidates - Majority Report on [YT](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herbQyrZzGM) - ([1:35](https://youtu.be/herbQyrZzGM?si=eFm7zx-UOYfOotd5&t=95)) - Emma already assumes that creators are having their content restricted with regards to Gaza. It is clear she is just reading this article for the first time and making it up as she goes along. - Exactly a minute after admitting that she hasn't heard of most of the creators mentioned in Taylor's article ([3:32](https://youtu.be/herbQyrZzGM?si=5nV9HXE_y8OeHbkk&t=212)), Emma decides that none of them can be considered "pro-Palestine" ([4:31](https://youtu.be/herbQyrZzGM?si=5nV9HXE_y8OeHbkk&t=271)). As already mentioned, at [least one](https://www.instagram.com/p/DNbWNswxK5_/) of the mentioned creators has attacked the DNC several times over their positions on Gaza. - The MR hosts watch Hasan baselessly accuse the Chorus creators of being funded by the Democratic Party twice ([10:41](https://youtu.be/herbQyrZzGM?si=DVUhjIvjNVV9fJ9K&t=640); [11:28](https://youtu.be/herbQyrZzGM?si=DVUhjIvjNVV9fJ9K&t=640)) and none of them bother to correct this. Even Taylor herself hasn't accused anyone of being paid by the DNC. Mr. Baby Potatohead is simply inferring it, because he is stupid. ## Chorus affiliate responses - [Brian Tyler Cohen](https://x.com/briantylercohen/status/1961201488782578160), co-founder of Chorus - On the claim of secrecy, Brian claims there is a "standard confidentiality clause" in the contract to "protect creators", but on the first day of the program "it was made clear to all of the creators... that they were absolutely free to talk about chorus and we immediately followed up to confirm that in writing" - [@0liviajulianna](https://www.instagram.com/p/DN9LAjyCQnV/?hl=en) on Instagram - Calls out Taylor for obfuscating around whether or not she has received money from the same source that funds Sixteen Thirty - Taylor describes the residency program as "non-profit and non-partisan"; but so is Chorus??? - Attacks on Dems - [Jun 25th tweet about hating Andrew Cuomo](https://x.com/0liviajulianna/status/1937712809678086348) - [Aug 12th tweet](https://x.com/0liviajulianna/status/1955279820759187474) against Democratic Iowa State rep's voting record in response to them running for the Senate - Elizabeth Booker Houston [@bookersquared](https://www.instagram.com/p/DN3xSpI0gdf/) on Instagram - Article mention: *"Several influencers who doggedly defended Chorus throughout that controversy, including Elizabeth Booker Houston, a Democratic comedian and content creator on Instagram.... \[was] involved in membership talks for the highest-paid tier in Chorus' new creator incubator program. (Houston did not respond to requests for comment)"* - Claims to have been transparent about Chorus. Shows: - CHORUS link in Instagram bio - Feature on the Chorus website - DNC Chair with Chorus from Jan 15th - Tagged in [@chorusnewsroom](https://www.instagram.com/p/DEyFJaxhvnl/?hl=en) post on Jan 13th - Refutes the claim that Chorus have any control over content, nor do they even specifically pay her for content - [@allie_202_](https://www.tiktok.com/@allie_202_/video/7543788692905790751) on TikTok - Article mention: *"Allie O'Brien, a progressive creator with more than 600,000 followers on TikTok... involved in membership talks for the highest-paid tier in Chorus' new creator incubator program."* - Shows post apparently attacking Dems for supporting arms to Israel - [Aug 16th](https://www.instagram.com/p/DNbWNswxK5_/): Post from a pro-Palestine rally - [Aug 14th](https://www.instagram.com/p/DNVx0adRSdu/?img_index=1): Pro-Zohran post - [July 30th](https://www.instagram.com/p/DMt5zz_Mnwq/): Gaza segment about airdrops, attacking Dems - [July 27th](https://www.instagram.com/p/DMn6ZCjRaiK/): Pro-Greta flotilla upload - Shows Nov 2024 video of a creator on the Chorus website (1:00) - Claims contract says :"Hey... before you make a public statement about what Chorus is, just check with us." - Argues that this is in order to avoid small creators, especially trans, undocumented etc. being exposed to threats - PoliticsGirl - [Announced](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNGLx3knPTA) Chorus on her YouTube channel on Nov 22nd, 2024 - [Tweet](https://x.com/IAmPoliticsGirl/status/1900602276403965962) attacking Schumer on March 14th, 2025 - Many people - [Chorus-sponsored](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg5qJh378HQ&t=722s) forum on PoliticsGirl's YT channel, featuring Brian Tyler Cohen, Adam Mockler, Bookersquared and others - David Pakman - [One](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0kAOyZOqWI&t=16s) of several Chorus announcements; this one (Nov 19th, 2024) scrolls past a bunch of affiliated creators on their website - [Suzanne Lambert](https://www.tiktok.com/@itssuzannelambert/video/7543788933457480973?lang=en) - Listed in Taylor's article as one of several influencers "included in communication about the program, and in some cases an onboarding session for those receiving payments from The Sixteen Thirty Fund... Suzanne Lambert, who has called herself a "Regina George liberal" - Argues that she is not required to disclose her income sources, unless it's sponsored content - "What position did I drastically change?" - Alludes to being represented by "some of the best lawyers in the world" - I wonder if they redlined her contract with Chorus?