Dark Money in Politics: How a Network Conceals GOP Donors 2026

Dark money in politics has reached new levels of complexity, with a recent investigation revealing how a network of nonprofits and Super PACs can conceal the true sources of campaign funding. At the center of this labyrinth is Thomas Datwyler, a man whose name appears on the paperwork for charities, nonprofits, Super PACs, and campaigns across the country.

According to federal election records, Datwyler serves as treasurer for more than 350 federal political committees in the current election cycle, including 115 congressional campaigns and 100 Super PACs. He is also an officer of more than two dozen nonprofits. This sprawling network raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in American elections.

What Is Dark Money and Why Does It Matter?

Dark money refers to political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. These groups can raise unlimited funds and spend them on elections, often through social welfare nonprofits that are legally barred from making politics their primary activity.

The case of the Green Dragon Coalition illustrates how this works in practice. In the summer of 2024, the nonprofit wired the last $20,000 of a $445,000 grant to a Super PAC, describing the transfer as "educational" on its tax return. The same day, the Super PAC spent $8,000 attacking Republican congresswoman Celeste Maloy just four days before the primary that would decide her seat.

It had already spent more than $400,000 promoting her challenger, Colby Jenkins, who was running to her right with the endorsement of Utah senator Mike Lee. One man—Thomas Datwyler—was involved at every stage, his name on the paperwork for the charity that raised the money, the nonprofit that passed it on, the Super PAC that received the donation, and the campaign it ultimately supported.

How the Network Operates

Datwyler's businesses are mostly headquartered in a rented address in Hudson, Wisconsin, a town of 15,000 near the Minnesota border. From this unlikely base, he operates at an industrial scale, acting as treasurer for hundreds of political committees.

The structure allows money to flow from donors to charities, then to nonprofits, then to Super PACs, and finally to campaigns, with each step adding a layer of obfuscation. Because nonprofits are not required to disclose their donors, the original source of the funds can remain hidden from public view.

This is not illegal, but it undermines the spirit of transparency that campaign finance laws are meant to uphold. Voters are left in the dark about who is trying to influence their representatives.

The Players and the Stakes

The case in Utah's second district is a prime example. Celeste Maloy, the Republican incumbent, faced a primary challenge from Colby Jenkins, who was backed by Mike Lee. The Super PAC funded by the Green Dragon Coalition spent heavily to support Jenkins and attack Maloy.

While the article does not specify the outcome of the primary, it highlights how dark money can sway elections without voters knowing who is behind the ads. The use of a nonprofit to funnel money to a Super PAC, with the same person serving as treasurer for all entities, creates a web that is difficult to untangle.

Datwyler's role as treasurer for so many committees means he is a key gatekeeper in Republican fundraising. His ability to manage multiple entities simultaneously allows donors to remain anonymous while their money influences multiple races.

Why This Matters for Democracy

Transparency is a cornerstone of fair elections. When donors can hide behind layers of nonprofits, voters cannot hold them accountable or understand whose interests are being served. This erodes trust in the political system.

The scale of Datwyler's operations—over 350 committees—suggests that this is not an isolated incident but a systemic issue. It raises questions about the oversight of political treasurers and the enforcement of campaign finance laws.

While the FEC requires disclosure of certain contributions, the use of nonprofits as intermediaries creates a loophole. As long as this loophole exists, dark money will continue to flow into elections.

What to Watch Next

Investigations into dark money networks are ongoing, and watchdogs are calling for stricter disclosure rules. The case of Thomas Datwyler may prompt further scrutiny of the role of treasurers in managing multiple political committees. The background to this story is set out in How to Stop Wealthy Donors from Swaying UK Elections. A related thread runs through Aipac Super PACs Spend Millions in California Race to Defeat. Earlier coverage in Political Donations in Australia: Who’s Funding Albanese, Taylor, shows how the argument developed.

Voters should pay attention to who is funding the ads they see and whether the sources are disclosed. Understanding the mechanisms of dark money is the first step toward demanding transparency. A closer look at the same subject appears in Reform UK's £72m Donations: Boon or Bane for Political Funding. Anyone following the wider picture can start with Mega-Donors in UK Politics: Will MPs Stop the Influence?. The same theme surfaces in UK Taskforce to Tackle Political Mega-Donor Influence, which takes a different angle.

As the 2024 election cycle continues, the influence of dark money is likely to grow. The question is whether regulators and lawmakers will take action to close the loopholes that allow it to flourish. Context on how this played out before sits in Political Donations in Australia: Who Funds Albanese, Taylor & Hanson. A companion piece, Democrats Gain Voter Edge as GOP Identification Drops, approaches the same subject from another angle.

• Dark money hides donors through nonprofits that are not required to disclose their funding sources.
• One man, Thomas Datwyler, serves as treasurer for over 350 federal political committees, including 115 congressional campaigns and 100 Super PACs.
• The Green Dragon Coalition funneled $445,000 to a Super PAC, which then spent heavily in a Utah Republican primary.
• This network operates legally but undermines transparency and voter trust.
• Reform advocates are pushing for stricter disclosure requirements to close these loopholes.

Key Entities and Their Roles

FAQ

What is dark money in politics?

Dark money refers to political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. These groups often operate as social welfare nonprofits and can spend unlimited amounts on elections.

Who is Thomas Datwyler?

Thomas Datwyler is a treasurer and officer for numerous political committees and nonprofits. He acts as treasurer for more than 350 federal political committees, including 115 congressional campaigns and 100 Super PACs, and is an officer of more than two dozen nonprofits.

ADVERTISEMENT

How does the Green Dragon Coalition fit into this?

The Green Dragon Coalition is a nonprofit that transferred $445,000 to a Super PAC, describing the purpose as "educational." The Super PAC then spent the money on ads supporting Colby Jenkins and attacking Celeste Maloy in a Utah Republican primary.

Is this legal?

Yes, the use of nonprofits to funnel money to Super PACs is legal as long as the nonprofits adhere to tax laws that prohibit them from making politics their primary activity. However, critics argue it undermines transparency.

The story of Thomas Datwyler and the Green Dragon Coalition is a stark reminder of how dark money can operate in plain sight. While the names and amounts may seem complex, the underlying issue is simple: voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their elections.

As investigations continue, the pressure for reform is likely to build. The question is whether lawmakers will act to close the loopholes that allow dark money to flourish, or whether the labyrinth will only grow more convoluted.