Following the Money in Politics: Hilary Braseth

Summary

---

Future Hindsight – Following the Money in Politics: Hilary Braseth

Release Date: October 2, 2025
Guest: Hilary Braseth, Executive Director of Open Secrets
Host: Mila Atmos

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the intricate and often opaque influence of money in American politics. Host Mila Atmos talks with Hilary Braseth of Open Secrets—the nation’s foremost tracker of political finance, lobbying, and electoral spending—about the impact of transparency, the evolving tactics of donors and corporations, and how ordinary citizens can use data to hold their representatives accountable. The discussion surfaces core tensions at the intersection of democracy and capitalism, demystifies “dark money,” and underscores the urgent need for civic engagement in an era of record-shattering political spending.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Work of Open Secrets

[02:07–05:09]

• Mission: Nonpartisan, independent nonprofit tracking the flow of money in U.S. politics for over four decades.
  • Tracks federal and all 50 state campaign contributions, lobbying activities, and (historically) stock trades by Congress members.
  • Holds unique, comprehensive databases—some records go back to the 1980s and are unavailable elsewhere.
  • Challenges: Some state data is only accessible via handwritten PDFs, mailed CDs, or is not digitally standardized, making aggregation laborious.
• Quote:
  • “Open Secrets is truly the only source of that data. And we also are an archive or a library because our data goes back to the 80s and in some instances that data is no longer available elsewhere.” – Hilary Braseth [04:39]

---

2. Why Transparency Matters

[05:09–08:02]

• Transparency is a “baseline, a priori necessary factor for democracy to function.”
• Money in politics doesn’t always equal corruption; but seeing the data allows for public scrutiny and accountability.
• Money and democracy are inevitably intertwined—watching the flow allows citizens and watchdogs to spot patterns and potential abuses.
• Politics is a 24/7 process, not just about elections. The hope is to inspire continuous public engagement, not just during voting cycles.
• Quote:
  • “Money being a part of this process is an inevitability. We live in a system where we have these two pillars, capitalism and democracy, and it’s inevitable that the two will intersect…” – Hilary Braseth [06:30]

---

3. Public Interest & Data Use

[08:02–10:27]

• Open Secrets saw 11 million unique visitors last presidential cycle; traffic is increasing even in non-election years.
• 50,000 site searches daily; search trends closely follow breaking news, indicating a shift from traditional media to primary source data.
• The team carefully contextualizes data to avoid misinterpretation or misinformation.
• Quote:
  • “Without fail, when something happens in the news… the top trending searches are a name associated with what happened in the news...This indicates increasingly people want access to primary source information and data in a landscape where traditional sources of media are also losing trust.” – Hilary Braseth [09:26]

---

4. What Constitutes Corruption?

[10:27–14:29]

• New technology and AI now empower Open Secrets to identify anomalies and patterns, such as sudden spikes in industry lobbying around pending legislation.
• Example: In 2009, proposed soda tax led to a doubling of lobbying by the sugary beverage industry, and the tax failed to pass.
• Ongoing puzzle: Is heavy lobbying always a corruption indicator, or just strategic interest?
• Watch for industry responses to policy threats, e.g., anticipated pharma lobbying as regulations increase.
• Quote:
  • “I think we’re just now going to be seeing an era where we can do that analysis more rigorously.” – Hilary Braseth [11:46]

---

5. The “Price of Democracy” and Representation

[14:29–17:59]

• Policy innovation matters: e.g., New York City’s public matching fund system empowers non-wealthy candidates.
• Data reveal most congressional candidates now receive the majority of their funding from outside their own jurisdictions—a challenge to traditional ideas of representation.
• “Existential” question: If politicians’ campaign funds mostly come from non-constituents, whose interests do they really serve?
• Quote:
  • “To me, that’s the real price. That’s the real existential question at play here. Are we okay with the fact that… the majority of money going to campaigns… comes from outside the area that they’re going to end up governing?” – Hilary Braseth [16:38]

---

6. Citizens United and the Explosion of Political Spending

[21:59–23:44]

• Citizens United (2010) (and SpeechNow v. FEC) led to the rise of Super PACs and “independent expenditure” entities.
• Campaign spending skyrocketed: 2024 cycle cost ~$15 billion—a massive increase from ~$2 billion in 2008.
• The “vicious cycle” of perpetual fundraising entrenches the influence of big money.
• Quote:
  • “Since 2010… it’s astronomically increased year over year to the tune of last year, being at around $15 billion for the total cost of the election.” – Hilary Braseth [23:18]
• Widespread public disapproval: ~80% of Americans dislike the amount of money in politics, but systemic incentives keep the status quo.

---

7. State-Level Reform & Grassroots Efforts

[23:44–26:44]

• States like Maine, Michigan, and Montana are experimenting with contribution limits and redefining rules for corporate giving, even as legal challenges persist.
• These state-level movements offer hope in a gridlocked federal landscape and demonstrate rare bipartisan agreement on the urge to reduce money’s sway.

---

8. Dark Money and Its Mechanics

[26:44–29:15]

• Definitions:
  • Super PACs: Can take unlimited donations but must disclose donors.
  • Dark Money: Arises when Super PACs receive funds from LLCs or 501(c)(4) entities that don’t disclose their own donors, obscuring the real source.
  • Coordination: Super PACs are not legally allowed to coordinate with campaigns, but enforcement is weak and the line is blurry.
• Open Secrets rigorously classifies disclosed, partially disclosed, and opaque funding to shine light on these structures.
• Quote:
  • “If a super PAC is the thing that's spending money on behalf of a candidate, receiving unlimited donations from potentially an LLC or a C4 where you don't know where their true source of money comes from, that then becomes classified as a dark money source.” – Hilary Braseth [27:38]

---

9. Open Secrets’ History and Institutional Memory

[29:41–31:45]

• Founded in the 1980s by two bipartisan senators alarmed by rising money in politics.
• Originally published as a 1,500-page book; became one of the pioneering transparency websites in the 1990s.
• Staff expertise dates back decades—described as “a national treasure.”

---

10. Cryptocurrency and New Forms of Influence

[31:45–33:59]

• Open Secrets tracks lobbying and campaign donations from crypto companies, but not consumer crypto purchases like “TrumpCoin.”
• High-profile deals (e.g., UAE/Trump/crypto/AI chips) are often outside their purview unless reflected in legally required disclosures.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Purpose of Transparency:

  • “Transparency is a baseline, a priori necessary factor for democracy to function.” – Hilary Braseth [05:31]

• On Lobbying as Legalized Corruption:

  • “It feels like lobbying is just straight up legalized corruption.” – Mila Atmos [14:29]

• On Representation and Out-of-State Money:

  • “Are we okay with the fact that… the majority of money going to campaigns… comes from outside the area that they’re going to end up governing?” – Hilary Braseth [16:38]

• On the Post–Citizens United Era:

  • “Since 2010… it’s astronomically increased year over year to the tune of last year, being at around $15 billion for the total cost of the election.” – Hilary Braseth [23:18]

• On Hope and Civic Togetherness:

  • “What makes me hopeful…are examples of people coming together across difference. This is…me, Hillary, talking at this point. But… there’s a need to get back to basics where we foster a sense of curiosity around another person, another group, another belief system…” – Hilary Braseth [35:13]

---

Actionable Takeaways (Civic Spark)

[34:15–35:03]

• Visit Open Secrets' website and look up your state and representatives.
• Use accessible data to inform yourself and fuel local and state-level activism, such as advocating for campaign finance reform or joining grassroots efforts.
• Get involved in civic life outside of election cycles.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Open Secrets’ Mission & Methods: [02:07–05:09]
• Transparency & Democracy: [05:09–08:02]
• Website Usage & Public Trends: [08:02–10:27]
• Identifying Corruption Patterns: [10:27–14:29]
• Representation Crisis & State Reforms: [14:29–17:59]
• Citizens United & Big Money: [21:59–23:44]
• Dark Money Explained: [26:44–29:15]
• History of Open Secrets: [29:41–31:45]
• Crypto Influence & Tracking Limits: [31:45–33:59]
• Civic Spark – Taking Action: [34:15–35:03]
• On Hope & Bridging Divides: [35:13–36:11]

---

Concluding Note

This episode provides a comprehensive, sometimes sobering, look at the machinery of money in U.S. politics. Hilary Braseth’s insights drive home the value of transparency, the scale of post–Citizens United spending, and the urgent need for citizens to arm themselves with data-driven awareness. Listeners come away with a toolkit for investigative self-education—and a reminder that democracy, and hope, depend on the persistent engagement of an informed public.

---

Transcript

[A]

Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight. Shopify is a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere, giving entrepreneurs like myself the resources once reserved for big business. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com hopeful all lowercase and one last thing before we start the episode. We're thrilled to announce that Future Hindsight is a finalist in this year's Signal Awards.

[B]

Woohoo.

[A]

Thank you all for your continued support. We really, really appreciate it. And now please help us win. You can vote for Future Hindsight by clicking the link in the episode description or find the link in our Instagram biouturehiinsightpod. Thank you so, so much. And now let's get to the episode. Welcome to Future Hindsight, a podcast on a mission to spark civic action. I'm your host, Mila Atmos. I am a global citizen based in New York City, and I'm deeply curious about the way our society works. So each week I bring you conversations to cut through the confusion around today's most important civic issues and share clear, actionable ways for us to build a brighter future together. After all, democracy is not a spectator sport. Tomorrow starts right now. Money talks, and in politics, it speaks volumes when cash flows through campaigns, lobbying firms, and backroom deals. Who's really calling the shots? Who is spending money in our politics? And are they getting anything in return? Today, we're diving deep into the murky waters of money in politics with someone who knows where every dollar goes. Hilary Brasseth is the executive director of Open Secrets, the organization that's made it their mission to follow the money trail wherever it leads. Welcome, Hilary, thank you for joining us.

[B]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

So let's start with setting the table with the work of Open Secrets. What does Open Secrets do?

[B]

I think you put it quite accurately that we are a nonpartisan, independent, nonprofit organization that has been around for about four decades, and our mission is to follow the money in the US Political system. Now, what that means is we track money that goes to campaigns so candidates who run for election federally, but also across all 50 states, and we also track lobbying. So what are companies doing when it comes to their activity on Capitol Hill, what bills they're lobbying on, who is registered as a lobbyist, et cetera, to try to understand and piece together the web of influence and try to surface that so that the American public can also track that.

[A]

So in addition to political donations and lobbying, do you also track stock trades? Do you track state or federal donations? And how do you do this? How do you do the tracking.

[B]

We historically have tracked stock trades by members of Congress. That is a database that we had to pause six years ago for lack of funding. It is something that is high priority for us to restart hopefully later on this year into early next year. We also track campaign contributions federally and across all 50 states. So anyone running for state legislature or governor in some states, state supreme court justices are elected. And so we will also track the money trail in those races as well as. And it's not a simple process, especially when it comes to the state data acquisition work. This is a very labor intensive process because all 50 states run the gamut from one end of the spectrum of being quite arcane and complicated. Handwritten PDFs that are uploaded, in some cases we get a CD mailed to us with data to the opposite end of the spectrum where it's quite simple for us to plug into a database and retrieve the data and have it be integrated in our own system. So it's quite a complex process.

[A]

Right. So this is not something that an everyday person can necessarily figure out on their own.

[B]

It would take a lot of effort. We're actually the only ones with this data across all 50 states and federally. And so when it comes to being able to understand what's happening in your state and also being able to compare that to what's happening across other states, Open Secrets is truly the only source of that data. And we also are an archive or a library because our data goes back to the 80s and in some instances that data is no longer available elsewhere.

[A]

Right, right. So you mentioned that you are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. And I think there is a perception that money in politics equals corruption or undue influence. So what is the value of transparency? Is it that it necessarily uncovers wrongdoing or is just that we can see.

[B]

It's a great question, and it's one that I get asked often by partners, by potential donors, by just everyday people who want to understand why bother? And I think in our view, transparency is a baseline, a priori necessary factor for democracy to function. And the reason we believe this is sure, you say, well, if you can see all of this money pouring into the political system, doesn't that just confirm a person's confirmation bias that everything is corrupt? And I think in our view it's really important to actually examine what we mean by corruption and look at the data to understand does this mean undue influence or is this a natural part of the political process? And I think we, we are of the belief and view that money being A part of this process is an inevitability. We live in a system where we have these two pillars, capitalism and democracy, and it's inevitable that the two will intersect and intersect in a form of transactions via campaign contributions and elsewise. So we believe that it's important to see the data not because all money in politics is bad or means corruption, but it allows us to understand baseline function for how different players operate in the space, trying to get on the agenda, have a conversation, make sure that their issue is heard, and also for us to understand when there is one lever that does go wildly off kilter to allow folks to look at that more closely and determine, did this go outside the boundaries? Is there some kind of undue influence at play here that's worth the public speaking out around? And I think that's our theory of change really is that politics is not in every two year or four year process where you or I might participate in an election. It's 24, 7, I live in Washington D.C. there's constantly people cycling in and out of that city, having meetings on Capitol Hill, trying to get their agenda heard. And what our hope is that the American public via this data can be more engaged than just in every two year or four year cycle.

[A]

So do a lot of people check your website all the time as opposed to only during election cycles?

[B]

What's really interesting is we had last year in the presidential election cycle, about 11 million unique site visitors, people coming to our website. This year, which is not an election year, we are seeing an increase in traffic from last year.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Which is bizarre, curious, interesting because we're not in an election cycle and usually our traffic spikes during an election cycle. So there's something in the air, there's something that is drawing people more closely. I don't know, maybe we did marketing differently, who knows? But I do believe that there is something to be said about in general, people finding this data interesting and necessary.

[A]

Mm. Well, I definitely think that in this current political climate, everybody understands that the ground is shifting under our feet and that if you have any time at all that you should do at least some self education, get more information under your belt, even if you don't necessarily get engaged, but at least get more information.

[B]

And I'll also mention we also notice. So we log, we get about 50,000 searches on our website daily. We log all of the searches, we bubble up the trending searches, the top.

[A]

Five or so, okay.

[B]

Usually without fail, when something happens in the news, without fail, the 24 hours after that event, the top trending searches are a name associated with what happened in the news. Without fail. I've tracked this over the course of prior assassination attempts. I've tracked this over the course of something big happening with a company. And so to us this indicates increasingly people want access to primary source information and data in a landscape where traditional sources of media are also losing trust. And so that's a really interesting moment for us also as a nation of thinking about how do people get their information and how do we make sure that it's trustworthy? And so we carry that question very delicately of making sure that the data is accurate, making sure people have context with which to interpret the data so that it doesn't get spun into stories that just aren't accurate for sure.

[A]

So I was a history major in college and I tell people all the time what they should do is consult primary sources. So if somebody reads an article about a speech, I always ask, well, did you watch the speech? Because you can find it on YouTube and then you can make your own decision and your own analysis as opposed to believing what you read and how it's been spun to you. But definitely always go to the primary source. So I have a question about the evidence of money in politics. If money in politics isn't necessarily evidence of corruption, how do we sort the laundry? Like what money in politics is cari and what is not?

[B]

We, I think, are on the cusp ourselves of being able to discern that as well. With the advent and evolution of technology, AI, et cetera, and a little bit of boring history about Open Secrets is that we recently went through a merger in 2021. Two entities formed to create what is the now modern day Open Secrets. And one entity historically was focused on all the 50 states data. The other entity was focused on the federal data. So over the last four years, our team has been stitching those two massive databases. I mean, combined it's about a half a billion records that go back to the 80s.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

So our very nimble team has been painstakingly stitching those two data sets together and migrating to cloud infrastructure. Of course, we were historically on premise servers. So we now, as of this moment going forward, we'll have a very new analytical capability that we haven't had previously, where all of this data is living together in one database and we have the technologies to run scans, run anomaly detection, to better look at when something is out of the ordinary or when a specific donor is randomly interested in both Wyoming, but also Illinois. And why might that be the case? And so I think we're just now going to be seeing an era where we can do that analysis more rigorously. But I think what we're seeing over time is typically when an issue is floated on the agenda in Congress or when regulation is discussed, what we see in at least the lobbying data is very clear patterns that mirror the discourse on Capitol Hill. So one small example is in 2009, this was Obama's administration, There was a tax on sugary beverages that was floated as a means to reduce consumption of beverages that had a lot of sugar in them. When you look at that industry on our website and you chart the bar graph of the amount that that industry spends on lobbying year over year, you see a massive spike of that industry doubling down on spending. I mean, it's. The bar is almost two times as high as the prior year. And what happened? We didn't see that tax get passed. So there are instances like those where, again, it is a good question of is in the best interest of society to have this sugary beverage tax, or is it not? And are we okay with the fact that an industry could have and wield great power by virtue of their lobbying activity to thwart the ability for that to get passed? I think, as you mentioned, we're in an era where the ground is literally shifting beneath our feet, and we're going to see that play out with an administration that has really gone after, especially pharma. And pharma usually tops the list of industry spend on lobbying year over year. And so I think it'll be very interesting to see how that plays out. Will we see a spike in the numbers on that industry lobbying, or will there be a shakeup in terms of that industry and their capacity to gain access to conversations or the agenda by virtue of their activity?

[A]

Right. Well, you know, from my vantage point, it feels like lobbying is just straight up legalized corruption. And the example that you cited is, you know, essentially the perfect example to illustrate this. And of course, we don't know yet what is gonna happen with Big Pharma, although I am pretty confident that they do not want to have their profits reduced by fewer people having access to the medications that they sell. So I guess my question now is, what is the price of democracy? Because you made a connection between capitalism and democracy and how money in politics is inevitable. So how do you think about what the price of democracy is?

[B]

You mean in terms of gaining access or rigging the.

[A]

Yeah, correct.

[B]

You know, it's in some ways an existential question. And here is actually, in my belief, where policy actually matters. And the reason I say that is because the place in which we are located, literally right now, there is something very interesting happening with the mayoral race in this city. And New York City is one of the few municipalities that we have data on. Our data doesn't typically go down to the local level. It just gets inherently more complex. Our team would need to be 10x the size that it is now to be able to manage that. That being said, if you look at the data for this mayoral race, New York is interesting in that it has a public funding matching program, which I'm sure you know about.

[A]

Yes. Which is actually, I think, really powerful and makes it possible for people who don't inherently have deep pockets to participate in the process.

[B]

And there's an interesting answer to your question. I think through policy, there are very creative ways to make sure that those who have money aren't the ones who equal access to power. And you see it in the data on what Mamdani has been able to raise, especially with the public matching program versus the other players in the race. And he's benefiting by virtue of getting small dollar donations within the area that he's governing. We recently published a report in the last quarter around looking at senators and members of Congress running for office and where they get their money from, in state or in jurisdiction versus out of jurisdiction. And it's no shock here that increasingly the majority of money going to campaigns for folks running for those office positions comes from outside the area that they're going to end up governing. To me, that's the real price. That's the real existential question at play here. Are we okay with the fact that traditionally representation is that one person represents a base of people in a constituency? And is it the case that if their money is coming mostly from outside of that place, will their allegiance be splintered? And does that pervert our traditional notion of what it means to be represented? And I think we're at a real critical point in this nation where some of these old forms of representation, while in the traditional documents, are sound. It is a moment to really ask ourselves, is this working for us? Does this reflect not the mechanics or technicalities for how representation was defined to work, but rather the spirit of representation? Is there some different way we have to think about this going forward to ensure that all people have a representative?

[A]

Mm. Mm. Foreign we'll be back with Hillary in just a moment, so don't go anywhere. You'll definitely want to hear this episode's Civic Spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. But first, it's been a long time since the first episode of Future Hindsight found its way to your headphones, but it feels like just yesterday I was standing at the base of the mountain trying to figure out all of this podcasting stuff on my own episode recordings, guest bookings, editing audio, social media stuff, you name it. Starting something new is always tough. Every day seems to introduce another question that needs another answer. And like right away, it can be quite the overwhelming feeling, don't you think? Like your to do list just balloons with new tasks. And if you're not careful, that to do list can pretty easily take over your life. So how do you find the right tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything in the process? Because that will be the game changer. Well, for millions of businesses out there, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US 10% from household names like Road Beauty and Drew House to up and coming fresh brands that are just getting started. So if you want to get started, take the first step with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. What if you wanted to accelerate your content creation? No worries. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. With so many great tools at your fingertips, you can get the word out as if you have an entire marketing team behind you. In just a few quick minutes, you can easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. So if you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. Let me tell you what I love about Shopify. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. So turn your big business idea into Cha Ching. With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at shopify.com hopeful go to shopify.com hopeful shopify.com hopeful Cha Ching and now let's return to my conversation with Hilary Brazeth. Well, I feel like this is a good time to ask about Citizens United because it sounds like what you're saying. We need some kind of campaign finance reform that would rectify this problem of outside money, outside of the state, outside of the locality, flooding elections. So in 2010, Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court. It reversed campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections. And I think there is a conventional wisdom out there that overturning Citizens United will suck money back out of politics and will magically render a healthier democracy for all Americans. And I'm not sure, actually, if Citizens United will ever be undone. I'm not confident that that is somehow, anytime soon going to be within our grasp. But for sure, this decision has turbocharged spending and politics across the board. And what I'm trying to get at here is many people don't really know the full effect. If you're an everyday person, you don't know how much more money we're spending. So just what kind of change in dollars are we talking about in the aftermath of Citizens United?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, if you want to see the data, just go to our website and search the total cost of election. This is an analysis we put out every time we're in an election year. We calculate the cost of that overall election. And in presidential cycles, it's always higher, of course. And when you look at the chart, I can't remember the exact figures off the top of my head, but since 2010, when these decisions were made, and there's actually two decisions, not to get too technical, but SpeechNow v. FEC was also a court case that, combined with Citizens United, was able to give birth and rise to this entity that we colloquially know as the super pac. But when we look at the bar chart, I mean, it's astronomically increased year over year to the tune of last year, being at around $15 billion for the total cost of the election. And compare that way back of, you know, the figures in 2008, it's a mere fraction. I think it's less than 2 billion, if I'm not mistaken. We'll have to check that on a bar chart there.

[A]

But imagine if you spent $15 billion on community efforts or even climate mitigation. You name it. There's so many things you could be doing with $15 billion instead of spending it on elections.

[B]

Yes. And so you ask and wonder, is the idea of reversing Citizens United even realistic? And I think you're not alone in thinking that. But what inspires me is there's a lot of really interesting stuff happening at the state level. There are measures in play in the state of Maine, for example, Maine passed a ballot measure last fall with 75% of the public's vote in favor of limiting a contribution to a super PAC to $5,000. That ended up getting, of course, challenged and overturned, and now it's being appealed, and it will go and be heard at the district court level. So it's worth following that because that would be a significant shift in Terms of super PAC's power and capability to spend on elections. In Maine, the super PAC is the main vehicle by which unlimited contributions get funneled through in order to be spent on elections. And so that is a significant potential shift. There's also interesting work happening in Michigan, where there's a group that's trying to get corporate contributions out of elections. And similarly in Montana, they're looking at a ballot measure that would redefine for actually the corporate code what corporations can and couldn't do when it comes to electioneering. So there are a lot of very grassroots efforts happening at the state level, which is compelling, because in an era of a nation so deeply divisive as ours, especially in this moment, and the single issue that most people, Democrat or Republican, agree on, is they do not like the amount of money in politics. A vast majority of Americans, around 80%, from a survey back in February. And so, again, this is also really interesting where if the general public thinks this is a problem, why aren't those in power doing anything about it? And I think that's in and of itself reflective of the fact that who ends up getting elected into office becomes, in some ways, a part of their own bubble of notoriety, the fundraising saga. And I get it. If they're in office, they have to play the game to stay in office. And I can't remember the figure, but most people that get elected, day one, they start fundraising again, right?

[A]

It's a vicious cycle. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, it's very heartening to hear that there's some grassroots effort to take money out of politics or to limit the influence of money in politics. You mentioned super PACs, and I feel like this is a good time to talk about the monster under the bed, which is, what is dark money? Because I think there are lots of misconceptions. You know, people think, oh, so scary. But actually, most people don't know exactly what dark money is. So how does it work?

[B]

It's a great question. So I'm gonna back up a little bit and just share that. Historically, the idea around money in politics and campaign finance law is contributions to candidates should have limits, and they should be transparent. So they need to be reported to the federal Election Commission, of course, the state version of that for states. Now, when Citizens United passes SpeechNow v. FEC, it gave rise to this thing called an independent expenditure committee, otherwise known as a super pac. Now, what is a super pac? A super PAC is essentially an entity that can receive unlimited donations. They have to disclose their donors. But the catch here is that they can receive a donation from an LLC or a 501C4, basically other legal entities that could receive their money from a source and they don't have to disclose their donors. So if a super PAC is the thing that's spending money on behalf of a candidate, receiving unlimited donations from potentially an LLC or a C4 where you don't know where their true source of money comes from, that then becomes classified as a dark money source. And so when we get the filings on behalf of a super pac, our team very rigorously determines and discerns, based on the donors listed to that super pac, whether this super PAC is fully disclosing. We know the true origin for all funds. Partially disclosing some, we can understand who the true source is. Some are from this funky LLC that got set up a year ago or completely opaque. And those that are opaque would mean that all of the donors to that super PAC are one of these dark sources. The other technicality around super PACs is generally, yes, they can spend on behalf of a candidate. They're not supposed to spend in coordination with the candidate. And that's another murky aspect to these entities is the follow through or the sort of inspection of those activities is potentially suspect. I don't know how strict. I've never seen a real crackdown on a super PAC's activities and to what extent they are or are not coordinating with the candidate. It becomes a very murky area there, if that is happening or not.

[A]

Right. Well, officially my understanding is that they're not allowed to coordinate, but I think in reality I'm confident that they are. So how long have independent expenditures been a thing? Because I'm wondering about the origin story of Open Secrets four decades ago. How did it come to be? What was the issue they were trying to address? Like did they have independent expenditures then and wanted to address that, or why did it come about?

[B]

It's a great question. The independent expenditure committee came to be, if you will, in the wake of Citizens United. So that's a relatively recent phenomenon. And again, in the data you see a massive spike in subsequent years by virtue of these independent expenditure committees. And we'll also track that in elections, what percent of the money for a candidate is coming from their own committee versus these outside groups. But the origin story, which I love, of Open Secrets dates back to the 80s, when actually two senators from across opposite sides of the aisle saw this growing phenomenon of money and politics and felt that it was important for them to compile and make public data around these influxes of money into the system. And so, actually, our earliest iteration was in the form of a 3 inch thick book that was 1500 pages long. It was entitled Open Secrets. And you could go to the library, you could look up your member of Congress, you could see who funded them, you could look up a company and see what they funded. We have some of these old relics in, like a storage unit somewhere deep in DC. And then when the Internet was born in the 90s, the team essentially began the process of digitizing this data and making it available on opensecrets.org so you can look up on Wayback Machine and see some of our earliest iterations as a website. In the 90s, we recently celebrated our 28th birthday as a website.

[A]

Oh, congratulations.

[B]

Thank you. And over the years since then, of course, we've evolved to ingest new data sources and evolve to publish different comparison tables on our website to help the public try to understand and disentangle this information and make sense of it. But even still, on our team, we have folks who've been doing this since the 90s. And so there's a real depth of expertise housed within this organization that really is a national treasure.

[A]

Mm. Yeah, that's amazing. I wanna fast forward to more or less our current time. On September 15, the New York Times ran a story titled, quote, anatomy of Two Giant Deals. The UAE got chips. The Trump team got crypto riches. A lucrative transaction involving the Trump family's cryptocurrency firm and an agreement giving the Emiratis access to AI chips were connected in ways that have not been previously reported, end quote. So the reaction on the Internet was wide condemnation of this perceived corruption. Is this the kind of money you also track at Open Secrets? And while in this moment it has not been proven that there was a quid pro quo, how do you make sense of this?

[B]

Also a great question. And I think we're living in a time where a lot of our notions of corruption and integrity are being stretched and pulled at. And in this instance, that is not something that we have access to in order to track per se. I think for us, in instances as public as this, sometimes we will look up the company and try to discern and Understand what is their history of lobbying. Because really the source of our work has to come from a data source. And we get all of our federal data from the FEC and we get all the state data from all 50 states. So while we wouldn't necessarily have been able to track this, it's certainly something that we could comment on by virtue of doing our own analysis of either of these companies activities, lobbying wise.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. Well, so can you track crypto dollars or does that get reported somewhere if people buy, you know, the Trump cryptocurrency?

[B]

Unless it's a contribution to a candidate running for an election or a crypto company lobbying, which is something that we do track, and a lot of media outlets as of recent have been very interested in their behavior, also in the way that they contribute to elections. We will track those dollars. But if I go out and buy, you know, Trump Coin tomorrow, that's not something that open secrets would necessarily track.

[A]

Understood. So every week on future hindsight, I ask my guests to share a civic spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. What's a good way to turn the insights that you've shared with us into action?

[B]

This is not necessarily novel by virtue of the work that we do every day, but I do encourage people to go on our website and look up your state and start by trying to piece together the picture of what might be happening in your state. Also your members of Congress, you know, you can see the history of whoever has funded them on our website. And I think by virtue of that information, there might be an opportunity for you to do something like Maine or Montana or Michigan in your own state, or join those movements if you happen to be located there. If you do feel moved by wanting to get involved in civics outside of the two and four year election cycles.

[A]

Good advice and it's good to have the data to enrich our civic action toolkit. Last question. Looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?

[B]

What makes me hopeful? Looking into the future are examples of people coming together across difference. This is not necessarily related to my day to day work. This is me, Hillary, talking at this point. But I do think that we are at an incredibly critical inflection point as a nation. And really there's a need to get back to basics where we foster a sense of curiosity around another person, another group, another belief system that's different from our own. And so examples of that are, you know, walking around New York City and seeing people who look different than I do and perhaps having an opportunity to have a conversation with them in small ways. When I witness those acts of people getting offline and out into the world, that gives me hope.

[A]

Yeah. Hear, hear. I definitely agree with you. I was just at a party yesterday and there was a guest there that they did not expect. And I said, well, you know, at the end of the day, we all have to live together.

[B]

It's true.

[A]

Yeah. We have to figure it out and find a way to keep being in community together.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

Well, thank you so much for joining me on Future Hindsight. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show.

[B]

Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me.

[A]

You're welcome. Hilary Brazeth is the executive director of Open Secrets. Remember, civic action doesn't have to be complicated. It's about small steps that spark progress, like sharing this episode with a friend. Let's recap this week's civic spark and fire up our collective power. Head over to the Open Secrets website and check out what's going on in your state. Take some time to learn about the money trail in your own political backyard. You just might learn something and you might even feel empowered to push for change. Sign up for a newsletter. It's easy and free and a great way to build your civic action toolkit. Every week, sign [e-mail] should I say it again? Oh, yeah. Do the thanks to Shopify again. And I don't have to say. And if you want to support Future Right, because we're going to use the Please vote for us. And before you go, be sure to follow us on your podcast app. We bring brand new episodes every week to help you stay engaged, so don't miss a beat. Follow Future Hindsight now. And if you need a little more Future Hindsight in your life, subscribe to our YouTube channel. Head to YouTube.comFutureHinsight for more. Thanks for tuning in. And until next time, see clearly, act boldly, and spark the change you want to see. This episode was produced by Zach Travis and me.

[B]

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.