Origins and Flows of Money Through the Democrat Political Ecosystem
The Democrat Party is a Criminal Enterprise, Part VII
The Democrat Party may not have invented political corruption, but they have perfected and exported it throughout Blue states over the last 125 years. In recent years, the Democrats have been building and intertwining vast fraud networks as a means to fund their illicit enterprise in their efforts to turn the US into a one-party state for all time.
This is Part VII of a multi-part series that is examining the premise that the Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise whose goal has always been to gain and maintain absolution political power in America. Fraud and attendant corruption are the vehicles being used to achieve this end.
Part I summarized major Democrat Party fraud from 1900 through 1960.
Part II summarized major Democrat fraud from 1960 through 2000, and how it has grown in scope, complexity, and enormity, and an estimate of total cost of the fraud to US taxpayers.
Part III completed the survey of Democrat election fraud through 2025, with emphasis on Minnesota-centric fraud uncovered in recent months while hinting at the importance of a key hub of the fraud networks that helps tie it all together.
Part IV described that fraud hub in Minnesota and discussed how the hub is connected to other fraud sectors.
Part V described remittances (where some of the fraud receipts in Minnesota went), as well as the role of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in facilitating the remittance fraud aspects of the story (fraud on top of fraud!).
Part VI described the Democrat political ecosystem, setting the table for how money flows through the system to Democrat politicians and others.
This part discusses the sources of funding and financial flows through that ecosystem, including annual estimates during presidential and off-year election cycles.
Let’s get started….
FINANCIAL FLOWS THROUGH THE DEMOCRAT ECOSYSTEM
The Democrat Party political ecosystem is the interconnected network of progressive-to-moderate elected officials, party organizations, large donors, activist groups, labor unions, think tanks, advocacy organizations, mainstream media outlets, academia, Hollywood/entertainment industry figures, and online influencer communities that collectively shape, fund, amplify, and defend center-left to left-wing policy priorities and cultural narratives in the United States.
The ecosystem encompasses a wide range of financial flows, including direct campaign contributions, PAC expenditures, union donations, philanthropic funding to NGOs and think tanks, dark money infusions, and support from sectors like big tech and entertainment. These funds support election efforts, policy advocacy, voter mobilization, and ongoing operations.
Dark Money: A Big Source of Democrat Campaign Dollars
Dark money refers to political spending – typically on advertisements, advocacy, or other efforts to influence elections, public policy, or voter opinions – where the original donors or true sources of the funds are not publicly disclosed. This lack of transparency makes it “dark” because voters and the public cannot easily trace who is funding the messages or campaigns, potentially hiding conflicts of interest, special-interest influence, or even foreign involvement.
How Dark Money Works and Its Legal Basis. The term gained prominence after the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations, unions, and other entities to spend unlimited amounts on independent political advocacy (e.g., ads not directly coordinated with candidates). Combined with related rulings like SpeechNow.org v. FEC, this enabled super PACs (which must disclose donors but can accept unlimited funds) and certain nonprofits to channel money without full transparency. The primary vehicles for dark money are:
501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations: These nonprofits can engage in political activity as long as it’s not their “primary” purpose (often interpreted loosely). They are not required to disclose donors publicly, even when spending on elections or donating to super PACs.
Other 501(c) groups: Such as 501(c)(6) trade associations (e.g., US Chamber of Commerce) or 501(c)(5) labor unions, which operate under similar rules.
Shell companies (often LLCs): These can donate to super PACs, obscuring the ultimate source since super PACs only report the immediate donor.
Donor-advised funds or layered nonprofits: Funds pass through multiple entities, making tracing nearly impossible.
While the spending itself is generally legal (after the Citizens United decision), critics argue it undermines democracy by allowing hidden influence, concentrating power among wealthy donors, and eroding voter trust.
Sources of Dark Money. Dark money originates from a mix of domestic and (in some cases) potentially foreign-influenced entities, funneled through nondisclosing channels. Key sources include:
Wealthy individuals and billionaires — Megadonors (e.g., groups funded by figures like Hansjörg Wyss or large anonymous contributions) provide massive sums anonymously via 501(c)(4)s or shell entities. In recent cycles, billionaires have driven record surges, with outside spending exceeding $4.5 billion in 2024, much of it partially or fully undisclosed.
Corporations and business interests — Large companies or trade groups donate through 501(c)(6)s or opaque channels to influence policy (e.g., taxes, regulations). This includes US subsidiaries of foreign-owned firms, creating loopholes for indirect foreign influence.
Unions and labor organizations — 501(c)(5) groups fund advocacy, often supporting Democrat-leaning causes.
Ideological or advocacy networks — Groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and the TIDES Foundation (George Soros) serve as hubs, receiving funds from aligned donors and redistributing them.
Potential foreign influence — Direct foreign donations to campaigns are illegal, but loopholes allow indirect flows via US-based nonprofits or foreign-influenced corporations (e.g., Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss funding left-leaning groups, or subsidiaries of foreign companies like those tied to Saudi Arabia, China, or Japan spending via PACs). Investigations have highlighted concerns about foreign nationals using 501(c)(4)s to route money to super PACs.
Scale and Trends. Dark money spending has exploded since 2010:
Over $1 billion in undisclosed spending in 2020.
A record $1.9 billion in 2024 federal races (via nonprofits and shell companies), with contributions to super PACs alone hitting $1.3 billion from non-disclosing sources.
Democrats outspent Republicans via dark channels by far in 2020 and again in 2024.
Overall, dark money allows concentrated wealth to exert outsized influence while shielding donors from scrutiny, fueling ongoing debates about campaign finance reform. And the Democrat political ecosystem is the big beneficiary.
Smurfing
A critical mechanism used to “spread the wealth” to Democrat candidates and supporting groups (the ultimate beneficiaries) is a process called smurfing. Smurfing (also called “structuring” in some financial contexts) is a money-laundering tactic adapted to US campaign finance. It involves breaking large sums of money – frequently “dark money” from undisclosed, foreign, or otherwise restricted sources – into thousands of small individual contributions. These appear as legitimate “small-dollar” grassroots donations while concealing the true origin and evading federal contribution limits (which are $3,300 per individual per election to a candidate, for example) and state and federal campaign disclosure rules.
According to investigations by the non-profits Election Watch and the Gibson Group of Maryland, here is how the process works. A large pool of money is divided (by ActBlue and/or other intermediaries) into many tiny transactions (often $10–$200 each) to stay below reporting thresholds or detection patterns. These contributions are funneled through numerous “smurf” accounts (either real or fabricated donor identities). Common tactics used include using names and addresses of unwitting people (frequently elderly, retired individuals); creating slight variations (”derivatives”) in spelling of names, addresses, zip codes, or occupations to avoid automated duplicate-detection; routing the money through online platforms that allow easy, low-verification donations. The small donations are often bundled by PACs or intermediary committees and then transferred to target campaigns or other PACs, making the influx look like broad public support. Campaigns that receive these funds must (in theory) refund illegal or untraceable contributions, but the sheer volume can obscure the scheme. And FEC oversight is problematic, to say the least.
The smurfs themselves are typically white, retired, liberal-leaning, and middle- to lower-income individuals whose personal data is exploited (sometimes without their knowledge). The operation is essentially a large-scale laundering scheme that has moved over $200 million through such channels (this is probably a low estimate).
Examples discovered by Election Watch include one individual in Michigan was linked to 41,842 contributions (using name/address variations), the top 11 smurfs in Arizona accounted for 113,876 contributions combined, and other reports highlighting schemes in Louisiana and other states, with funds flowing to Democratic-aligned PACs, committees, and candidates.
There are big-name Democrats implicated, too, e.g., US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and her related committees. FEC data analyses show substantial smurfed contributions totaling over $9.6 million in alleged smurfed funds. These figures stem from state-specific FEC queries (e.g., Minnesota data via the site’s search tool) and have been cited in FEC complaints and a federal lawsuit seeking investigation into identity fraud/smurfing allegations. The specifics include:
Klobuchar for Minnesota: $3,946,364 from 46,448 smurfing contributions (5,160 contributors).
Amy for America: $4,880,382 from 66,796 smurfing contributions (7,724 contributors).
Amy Klobuchar Victory Committee: $807,166 from 309 smurfing contributions (239 contributors).
Analyses and reports from Election Watch’s database of millions of ActBlue transactions point to patterns benefiting other top Democrat figures/campaigns such as Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Mark Kelly, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Elissa Slotkin, Gretchen Whitmer, and Democrat committees like the DSCC (Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee), the DCCC (Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, the DNC (Democrat National Committee), and Progressive Takeover (a large hybrid PAC).
Call it what you will, this is election fraud on steroids.
Annual Estimate of Total Dollars Flowing through the Ecosystem
Based on data from federal election reports, nonprofit analyses, and industry contribution trackers, a gross estimate of the total dollars flowing through the Democrat ecosystem annually is approximately $5-7 billion. This figure represents an average across election cycles, accounting for spikes during high-stakes periods. It includes both traceable contributions (e.g., via the Federal Election Commission) and estimates of opaque funding like dark money and grants to aligned organizations.
The estimates provided below are “gross” in that they aggregate inflows and outflows without netting, focusing on the scale of resources circulating through the network. Furthermore, the numbers are conservative and based on publicly reported data; actual flows may be higher due to unreported in-kind contributions and indirect funding, as well as any donations that escape the scrutiny of the FEC.
This annual average is derived by averaging spending over a four-year period (one presidential cycle and one midterm cycle), as election-related funds are typically reported on a two-year basis. Ongoing non-election funding—such as annual grants to NGOs, think tanks, and advocacy groups—adds a baseline of roughly $2-3 billion per year, drawn from philanthropic trends and sector-specific donations. Election cycles amplify this, with presidential years quite naturally seeing the highest intensity due to national races.
Drilling Down on Election Costs in Presidential and Off-Year Cycles. Election spending forms the core of the ecosystem’s financial activity, often comprising 60-70% of total flows in peak years. These costs include candidate fundraising, party committee expenditures, super PAC and hybrid PAC outlays, independent expenditures, and in-kind support routed through unions, NGOs, and donors. Below is a breakdown by cycle type, emphasizing Democratic-aligned spending.
Presidential Election Cycles (e.g., 2019-2020, 2023-2024): These two-year periods see the highest financial throughput, with an estimated $8-10 billion flowing through Democrat channels. For the 2019-2020 cycle, Democrat presidential candidates, congressional campaigns, and supporting entities raised and spent approximately $8.7 billion, including $4.1 billion in presidential fundraising alone (with Joe Biden’s campaign and allied groups accounting for over $1.6 billion). Total federal election costs reached $14.4 billion, with Democrats outpacing opponents due to strong small-dollar and large-donor contributions. Dark money added at least $500 million-1 billion to Democrat efforts, often through nonprofits shielding donor identities. Union contributions provided about $350-450 million annually during the cycle (totaling $700-900 million over two years), with over 95% directed to Democrat causes. Big tech and entertainment sectors contributed around $100-200 million combined, with 90% of internet industry donations favoring Democrats. NGO and think tank funding, including foreign-linked grants, added $500 million-1 billion, supporting voter outreach and advocacy. In the 2023-2024 cycle, preliminary data shows similar scales, with $1.6 billion in presidential fundraising by mid-cycle and total projections exceeding $10 billion for Democrats amid record outside spending.
Off-Year (Midterm) Election Cycles (e.g., 2021-2022): These cycles involve lower but still substantial flows, estimated at $4-6 billion over two years for Democrat entities. In 2021-2022, federal midterm costs totaled $8.9 billion, with Democrats accounting for roughly $4.5 billion in fundraising and expenditures across congressional races, party committees, and PACs. This included $3.1 billion raised by congressional candidates and $1.7 billion by political parties, with Democrat shares bolstered by individual donations totaling $1.44 billion for Senate races alone. Dark money inflows were around $400-600 million, union support averaged $300-400 million annually (focusing on state and local races), and sector donations from big tech and Hollywood added $50-100 million. NGO/think tank grants provided a steady $400-600 million, often for issue advocacy that indirectly supports electoral goals. When including state-level elections, the total rises to $7-8 billion for the cycle.
Key Factors Influencing the Above Estimates. The following have significant impacts on the estimates summarized above:
Baseline Ongoing Flows: Outside election spikes, the ecosystem sustains through annual philanthropic grants ($1-2 billion to progressive NGOs and think tanks), union dues redirected to politics ($300-400 million), and sector donations (~$100-200 million from big tech and entertainment). Foreign-linked funding adds $20-50 million annually via think tanks and NGOs (the actual number is probably far higher).
Variability and Opacity: Dark money (discussed above) introduces uncertainty, with estimates of $500 million-1 billion per election cycle disproportionately aiding high-profile races. Inflation, donor trends, and events like strikes or major economic shifts (esp. downturns) can fluctuate totals by 10-20%.
Annualization: Averaging presidential ($9 billion over 2 years = $4.5 billion/year) and midterm ($5 billion over 2 years = $2.5 billion/year) cycles, plus baseline, yields the $5-7 billion range. In actual presidential election years, flows can exceed $6-8 billion, while non-election years hover at $3-4 billion.
US TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE DEMOCRAT ECOSYSTEM
The US taxpayer pays much of the freight of the Democrat ecosystem. It is thus no wonder why the Democrat Party is the party of government, i.e., they seek to control federal and state budgets in order to fund the fraud and corruption laid out in Parts I through IV of this series.
The portion of the Democratic Party ecosystem’s annual financial flows that originates from US taxpayers is mostly through indirect support as described below.
Key Sources of Taxpayer Funding in the Democrat Ecosystem. Taxpayer dollars enter indirectly through government grants, contracts, reimbursements, and programs that support aligned organizations (NGOs, unions, advocacy groups, etc.). These funds often support service delivery, advocacy, or operations that can free up private resources for political activities or indirectly bolster the network.
Federal Grants and Contracts to Nonprofits/NGOs: Roughly 30% of US nonprofits receive some government funding, totaling around $300 billion annually across all sectors (not party-specific). Progressive or left-leaning NGOs receive a portion via programs like HHS grants, Title X family planning, community development, or labor-related initiatives. Estimates suggest hundreds of millions to low billions flow to such groups yearly, though not all is “progressive.” Specific examples include grants to migrant aid NGOs or civil rights-aligned entities, often in the $100-500 million range annually for relevant subsectors.
Public-Sector Union Funding Loops: Public-sector unions (e.g., teachers, government workers) receive salaries funded by taxpayer dollars, from which dues are deducted. These dues fund union operations, including political spending (e.g., advocacy, independent expenditures). While dues are member money, the taxpayer-funded payroll system enables collection. Political spending from major public-sector unions (NEA, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU) totals hundreds of millions per cycle, with dues funding ~60% of their political activities in some reports. This indirectly ties taxpayer dollars to Democrat-aligned efforts, though federal law prohibits direct use of dues for candidate contributions (PACs handle voluntary portions).
Specific Advocacy Groups:
Planned Parenthood: Receives ~$500-600 million annually in government reimbursements and grants (primarily Medicaid and Title X for non-abortion services like contraception and STI screening). This represents over 40% of its revenue and supports reproductive rights advocacy aligned with Democrat priorities.
Civil Rights Organizations (e.g., ACLU, NAACP): Generally receive little to no direct government funding (ACLU explicitly states it receives none). Some affiliates or related programs may access grants, but totals are minimal compared to private donations.
Gross Estimate of Taxpayer-Derived Portion. Combining these channels, taxpayer funds flowing into the broader Democrat ecosystem (NGOs, unions, advocacy groups, etc.) likely total $1-3 billion annually on average. This is a rough range accounting for:
NGO/nonprofit grants/contracts (~$500 million to $2 billion for progressive-aligned causes/services).
Indirect union salary/dues loops contributing to political resources (~$300-500 million in effective political support from public-sector dues).
Specific high-profile recipients like Planned Parenthood (~$500-600 million).
Minimal direct campaign public funding (near zero in recent cycles).
This represents roughly 15-40% of the ecosystem’s $5-7 billion total annual flows, with the lower end more likely for strictly political/election-focused elements and the higher end including service-oriented grants that indirectly support the network. The bulk (60-85%) remains private donations, with taxpayer involvement concentrated in non-campaign advocacy and service provision rather than direct election spending. These figures are estimates based on available reports and trends; exact attribution is challenging due to opacity in some grants and the separation of service vs. political uses.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Money is the mother’s milk of politics, and Democrats have been perfecting a well-oiled political ecosystem that extracts the maximum possible of dollars from the maximum number of sources, especially of the “dark variety.” There is an extremely high probability that a large chunk of the money that flows through the ecosystem violates FEC rules and is, in fact, obtained and disbursed fraudulently, whether foreign money laundered through non-profits and PACs to Democrat politicians via smurfing, or as kickbacks from the fraud networks described in this series.
The end.