Dark Money

Dark Money Plot Summary

Introduction

In the quiet suburbs of Wichita, Kansas, during the tumultuous years following World War II, a transformation was beginning that would fundamentally reshape American democracy. While most Americans focused on building middle-class lives in the booming postwar economy, a small group of wealthy industrialists were laying the groundwork for what would become a decades-long campaign to redefine the relationship between money and political power. This story of patient, strategic activism by billionaire families reveals how concentrated wealth gradually rewrote the rules of American governance. The historical journey traced in these pages illuminates how a network of ultra-wealthy donors systematically built an infrastructure designed to translate economic power into political influence. From the creation of libertarian think tanks in the 1970s to the emergence of "dark money" following the Citizens United decision, readers will discover how ideological conviction merged with business interests to create a powerful force in American politics. This account offers essential context for anyone seeking to understand why American policy often diverges from popular opinion on issues ranging from climate change to taxation, and how the mechanics of democracy have been fundamentally altered by the strategic application of enormous wealth.

Chapter 1: Industrial Origins: From Oil Refineries to Political Ambitions (1940-1980)

The story begins with Fred Koch, who built his fortune through an innovative oil refining process in the 1930s. After being shut out by major American oil companies, Fred took his business abroad, working with both Stalin's Soviet Union and later Nazi Germany. These experiences profoundly shaped his worldview, turning him into a staunch anti-communist who eventually joined the John Birch Society, an ultra-conservative group known for promoting conspiracy theories about communist infiltration of American institutions. Fred Koch raised his four sons—Frederick, Charles, and twins David and William—in extraordinary wealth at their Wichita estate, but with strict discipline designed to prevent them from becoming "country-club bums." After Fred's death in 1967, Charles emerged as the family's dominant force, taking control of the family business and renaming it Koch Industries. Under his leadership, the company expanded dramatically, with the Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota becoming the crown jewel of their holdings by processing cheap Canadian crude oil at exceptional profit margins. While building their business empire, Charles and David Koch developed a systematic libertarian philosophy that went beyond their father's reflexive conservatism. Charles became deeply influenced by economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, whose theories championed free markets and minimal government intervention. This ideological framework would guide their political activities for decades to come, providing intellectual justification for policies that aligned with their business interests. By the late 1970s, the Koch brothers had begun translating their economic power into political influence. Charles funded the Cato Institute, America's first libertarian think tank, while David ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in 1980 on a platform calling for the abolition of Social Security, Medicare, income tax, and most federal agencies. Though this campaign garnered only 1% of the vote, it represented the brothers' first major foray into politics—a testing ground for ideas they would later advance through more sophisticated means. The Kochs' early political evolution reflected a broader movement among wealthy conservatives who felt threatened by the regulatory state that had emerged from the New Deal and Great Society programs. Unlike traditional business lobbying, which focused on specific policy issues affecting bottom lines, the Kochs sought to fundamentally transform American politics and society. Their approach was distinguished by its comprehensive nature and long-term vision—they weren't simply trying to win elections but to change how Americans thought about government, markets, and individual liberty. This period established the foundation for what would become one of the most influential political operations in American history. The Koch brothers' combination of enormous wealth, ideological conviction, and strategic vision enabled them to begin building an infrastructure that would eventually challenge the liberal consensus that had dominated American politics since the New Deal era. Their patient, multi-generational approach to political change would prove far more consequential than traditional campaign contributions or lobbying efforts.

Chapter 2: Building the Infrastructure: Think Tanks and Academic Influence

Following their disappointing electoral experiment in 1980, the Koch brothers shifted strategy. Rather than seeking direct political power through elections, they began building what Charles called a "vertically and horizontally integrated" infrastructure to reshape American politics from the ground up. This approach was formalized by Richard Fink, a libertarian economist who became Charles Koch's key political strategist and developed a three-phase model for political change that would guide their efforts for decades. Fink's model treated political change like a manufacturing process—a concept that appealed to Charles Koch's engineering mindset. First, they would invest in intellectuals to develop "raw products" (ideas). Second, they would fund think tanks to transform these ideas into marketable policies. Third, they would create advocacy groups to pressure elected officials to implement these policies. This systematic approach represented a fundamental innovation in how wealthy individuals could influence politics, focusing on the entire production chain of political change rather than just its final stages. The Kochs' academic strategy focused on establishing what they called "beachheads" at prestigious universities. Their most significant investment was at George Mason University in Virginia, where they donated approximately $30 million to create the Mercatus Center and support the Institute for Humane Studies. These institutions produced research promoting deregulation and free-market policies while training generations of libertarian scholars. The Kochs also funded programs at hundreds of other universities, including Ivy League schools, where they established centers teaching free-market economics. In parallel, the Kochs poured millions into think tanks that could translate academic theories into policy proposals. Beyond the Cato Institute, they supported the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and dozens of other organizations that produced research papers, policy briefs, and media commentary advocating for lower taxes, deregulation, and limited government. These think tanks created what one observer called an "echo chamber" for Koch-approved ideas, giving them an appearance of broad intellectual support. The Kochs were particularly successful in promoting "Law and Economics," an approach to legal theory that emphasized analyzing laws for their economic impact rather than social justice considerations. With funding from the John M. Olin Foundation (another conservative philanthropy), this perspective gained influence in America's top law schools and eventually the judiciary, as judges attended Koch-funded seminars on the subject. By reshaping how legal questions were approached, the Kochs and their allies influenced court decisions on issues ranging from environmental regulations to antitrust enforcement. This infrastructure operated largely behind the scenes, with the Kochs' role often hidden from public view. As James Piereson, a key figure in conservative philanthropy, explained, it was essential for the integrity and reputation of these programs that they not be defined by "ideological points of view." Instead, they were presented as neutral academic pursuits, even as they advanced a specific political agenda. This strategy of working through seemingly independent institutions allowed the Kochs to exert influence while maintaining plausible deniability about their political motives, creating a powerful but largely invisible network that critics would eventually dub the "Kochtopus."

Chapter 3: The Tea Party Revolution: Manufacturing Grassroots Opposition

When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the infrastructure the Koch network had spent decades building sprang into action. Within 48 hours of Obama's inauguration, Americans for Prosperity began organizing "Porkulus" rallies to oppose his $800 billion economic stimulus plan. These early protests, though sparsely attended, became dress rehearsals for what would soon emerge as the Tea Party movement—a political phenomenon that would fundamentally reshape American politics during the Obama era. The conventional narrative holds that the Tea Party was a spontaneous grassroots uprising triggered by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli's February 19, 2009, on-air rant against Obama's mortgage relief plan. In reality, the movement's emergence was facilitated by years of infrastructure building and funding by the Koch network and other wealthy conservatives. The Kochs had been attempting to foment anti-tax "Tea Party" protests since at least the early 1990s, when Citizens for a Sound Economy promoted a "re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party" in North Carolina. When public anger grew over government bailouts and economic uncertainty in 2009, the Kochs' network was perfectly positioned to channel this energy. Americans for Prosperity provided organizational support, training, and transportation for Tea Party rallies across the country. The group's state chapters coordinated with local Tea Party groups, offering them professional resources while maintaining the appearance of a grassroots movement. This approach represented a new form of political campaign—one waged not by politicians but by wealthy individuals with the resources to fund their own private field operations. As Richard Fink later boasted, "Every rock they overturned, they saw people who were against it, and it turned out to be us." The Tea Party's messaging brilliantly merged populist rhetoric with policies that benefited wealthy donors. Protesters railed against government bailouts and rising national debt, channeling legitimate economic grievances into opposition to healthcare reform, financial regulations, and climate legislation. The movement's anti-elitist language resonated with middle-class Americans struggling in the wake of the recession, even as its policy agenda aligned with the interests of billionaire funders like the Kochs. This apparent contradiction reflected the success of decades of conservative messaging that had convinced many Americans to view government, rather than economic inequality, as the primary threat to their wellbeing. By the summer of 2009, the Tea Party had become a powerful political force. Angry protesters disrupted congressional town halls across the country, creating scenes of chaos that dominated news coverage. Public support for Obama's healthcare reform proposal plummeted, and Democratic lawmakers grew increasingly fearful of the political consequences of supporting the president's agenda. The movement's energy translated into electoral success in the 2010 midterm elections, when Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives—the largest midterm swing since 1938. The Tea Party represented the Koch network's most successful application of their political model. By combining sophisticated campaign operations with grassroots mobilization and ideological infrastructure, they had helped engineer a historic political reversal. What had begun as a seemingly spontaneous outburst of populist anger had evolved into a coordinated campaign that threatened to derail Obama's presidency and set the stage for even more ambitious efforts to reshape American politics in the years ahead.

Chapter 4: Dark Money and Citizens United: Rewriting Campaign Finance

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, fundamentally altering the landscape of American campaign finance. The 5-4 decision struck down restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations, effectively allowing unlimited spending on elections as long as it wasn't directly coordinated with candidates. This ruling represented the culmination of decades of legal advocacy by the Koch network and other conservative groups who had long opposed campaign finance regulations as infringements on free speech. Citizens United opened the floodgates to a new era of political spending, particularly through "super PACs" that could raise unlimited funds. But perhaps more significant was the rise of "dark money"—political spending by nonprofit organizations that weren't required to disclose their donors. The Koch network quickly recognized the potential of this new system and moved to exploit it. At their January 2010 donor summit in Aspen, Colorado, the Kochs announced plans to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the upcoming midterm elections through a complex network of nonprofit organizations, allowing donors to remain anonymous while funding aggressive political campaigns. The impact of this new system extended far beyond elections. By 2010, politicians on both sides of the aisle were increasingly aware that crossing certain powerful donors could result in millions of dollars being spent against them. This created a form of political leverage that existed outside the traditional democratic process—one that could shape policy decisions even without directly influencing elections. The Kochs' donor network, which gathered twice yearly at luxury resorts, essentially functioned as a private political party, with Charles Koch as its de facto chairman. The 2010 midterm elections marked the first major test of this expanded political operation, and the results exceeded even the Kochs' expectations. Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives, the largest swing since 1938, giving them a commanding majority. They also picked up six Senate seats and captured governorships and state legislatures across the country. Americans for Prosperity alone spent over $40 million on the election, targeting vulnerable Democratic incumbents with relentless advertising campaigns focusing on healthcare reform, government spending, and the stimulus package. Perhaps most significantly, the 2010 election coincided with the decennial census and redistricting process. By capturing state legislatures and governorships, Republicans gained control over the redrawing of congressional districts in many states. The Koch network had invested heavily in state-level races through groups like the Republican State Leadership Committee, recognizing the long-term strategic importance of redistricting. This investment paid dividends as Republicans drew district lines that would cement their advantage for the next decade. The post-Citizens United landscape created what critics called a "shadow party"—a network of ostensibly independent groups that could effectively function as an alternative to traditional political parties. Unlike parties, however, these groups were controlled by a small circle of wealthy donors and operated with minimal transparency or accountability. This transformation represented a fundamental shift in American democracy, creating new power centers outside the traditional political system and giving unprecedented influence to a tiny slice of the population with the resources to exploit the new rules of the game.

Chapter 5: State-Level Transformation: Laboratories for Conservative Policy

While national politics captured headlines, some of the most consequential political transformations were occurring at the state level. Beginning around 2010, the Koch network implemented a coordinated strategy to gain control of state governments across the country, recognizing that states could serve as laboratories for conservative policies and building blocks for national change. This approach reflected a sophisticated understanding of American federalism and the opportunities it presented for advancing their agenda even when Washington was gridlocked. Wisconsin became the epicenter of this transformation under Governor Scott Walker. Koch Industries PAC was the second-largest contributor to Walker's 2010 campaign, and Americans for Prosperity provided crucial support through its Wisconsin chapter. Once elected, Walker moved quickly to implement policies long advocated by Koch-funded think tanks. In February 2011, he introduced legislation stripping most public employees of collective bargaining rights—a move he privately described to a wealthy donor as a strategy to "divide and conquer" the labor movement. The ensuing protests in Madison drew national attention, with tens of thousands of demonstrators occupying the state capitol. Walker's opponents attempted to recall him from office, but the Koch network mobilized to defend him. Americans for Prosperity spent millions on pro-Walker advertising and used Themis, the Kochs' voter database, to identify and turn out supportive voters. Walker survived the recall, cementing his status as a conservative hero and demonstrating the effectiveness of the Koch network's state-level strategy. Similar battles unfolded in Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina, where Koch-backed governors and legislators pursued aggressive conservative agendas. In North Carolina, Art Pope, a discount store magnate and longtime Koch ally, spent millions electing Republican legislators in 2010. When Republicans won control of the state legislature for the first time since 1870, Pope was appointed budget director and helped implement sweeping tax cuts and spending reductions. The state also passed strict voter ID requirements, reduced early voting periods, and eliminated same-day registration—measures that disproportionately affected Democratic-leaning constituencies. The Koch network's state-level focus was supported by a coordinated infrastructure of organizations. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) provided model legislation on everything from tax policy to voting restrictions. The State Policy Network maintained conservative think tanks in every state that supplied intellectual justification for right-wing policies. Americans for Prosperity and similar groups mobilized grassroots support and pressured legislators who showed signs of moderation. This comprehensive approach allowed the network to influence policy at multiple levels of government simultaneously. By 2015, this state-level strategy had fundamentally altered the balance of power in American politics. Republicans controlled 31 governorships and both legislative chambers in 30 states, giving them unprecedented ability to implement conservative policies regardless of federal opposition. These state laboratories became testing grounds for policies that could later be implemented nationally. Perhaps most importantly, state control provided a firewall against demographic changes that threatened conservative electoral prospects. Through voting restrictions, gerrymandering, and weakening Democratic-leaning constituencies, conservatives had built structural advantages that could maintain their power even as the country became more diverse.

Chapter 6: Climate Change Denial: Protecting Business Interests Through Skepticism

Throughout their political evolution, the Koch brothers maintained a consistent focus on fighting environmental regulations, particularly those related to climate change. This agenda aligned perfectly with their business interests, as Koch Industries was one of America's largest industrial polluters with substantial investments in oil refineries, pipelines, and fossil fuel trading. The company had a direct financial stake in preventing policies that might reduce carbon emissions or impose costs on polluters. Under Charles Koch's leadership, Koch Industries had developed a reputation for aggressive resistance to environmental regulations. In the 1990s, the company faced multiple major legal cases for environmental violations. In 1999, a jury imposed a $296 million penalty on Koch Industries after a corroded pipeline caused an explosion that killed two teenagers in Texas. That same year, the company paid a $30 million fine for hundreds of oil spills from its pipelines. In 2000, Koch Industries pleaded guilty to covering up violations of the Clean Air Act at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, paying a $20 million fine. These legal battles shaped the Kochs' political agenda and their approach to climate change. As scientific consensus on human-caused global warming solidified in the early 2000s, the Koch network launched a sophisticated campaign to undermine climate science and block legislative solutions. Between 2005 and 2008, a Greenpeace investigation found that the Kochs spent nearly $25 million funding organizations that questioned climate science—outspending even ExxonMobil by a factor of three. This money flowed to dozens of think tanks, advocacy groups, and academic programs that worked to create doubt about climate change. The Kochs' strategy followed a playbook previously used by the tobacco industry: manufacture uncertainty about established science. Their network promoted a small number of contrarian scientists who questioned climate change, giving them platforms through think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute. These "merchants of doubt," as historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called them, created the impression of significant scientific disagreement where little actually existed among climate scientists. A pivotal moment came in 2009 when hackers released thousands of emails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Dubbed "Climategate," the incident was seized upon by Koch-funded organizations to suggest that scientists were manipulating data. Though multiple investigations later exonerated the scientists, the manufactured controversy damaged public confidence in climate science. Organizations like Americans for Prosperity amplified these claims through media campaigns and grassroots activism, turning climate skepticism into a conservative litmus test. The impact of this campaign was dramatic. In 2007, both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates acknowledged climate change and supported action to address it. By 2010, climate denial had become Republican orthodoxy. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, openly boasted about this transformation: "If you look at where the situation was three years ago and where it is today, there's been a dramatic turnaround. We've made great headway." When cap-and-trade legislation to address climate change reached the Senate in 2010, it died without even coming to a vote—a remarkable reversal for a policy approach that had once enjoyed bipartisan support. The Kochs' climate denial campaign represented a triumph of private interests over scientific consensus and public welfare. By spending strategically to influence both elite and public opinion, they helped transform climate change from a bipartisan concern into a polarizing political issue. This case study demonstrated how concentrated wealth could be deployed to shape policy debates on issues of global importance, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence—a pattern that would repeat itself across numerous policy domains as the Koch network's influence expanded.

Chapter 7: The Rebranding Strategy: Recasting Oligarchy as Liberty

By 2013, the conservative donor network faced a serious image problem. Their political victories had come at the cost of public perception, with figures like the Koch brothers increasingly portrayed as self-interested plutocrats rather than principled advocates for freedom. The 2012 election, in which their network spent over $400 million yet failed to defeat President Obama, highlighted the limitations of their approach. In response, they embarked on a sophisticated rebranding campaign designed to make their libertarian economic agenda more palatable to average Americans. The strategic pivot was crystallized at a 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference panel titled "The Smartest Guys in the Room," where Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute diagnosed the movement's core problem. Conservatives, he explained, were seen as "the money guys" rather than champions of fairness and compassion. To win, they needed to "lead with vulnerable people" and "lead with fairness"—not by changing their policies, but by reframing their messaging. This insight led to what Richard Fink, Charles Koch's longtime strategist, later described as a "movement for well-being" that would present free-market economics as the path to human flourishing rather than simply a means of limiting government. This rebranding effort manifested in several ways. The Koch network began highlighting their philanthropic activities, particularly Charles Koch's $25 million donation to the United Negro College Fund in 2014. They formed unexpected alliances with progressive groups on criminal justice reform, allowing them to appear bipartisan while pursuing changes to the legal system that aligned with libertarian principles. Koch representatives began emphasizing how their policy preferences would benefit the poor and middle class, arguing that government regulations and welfare programs created dependency rather than opportunity. The language of the movement shifted accordingly. Instead of attacking "big government" directly, advocates began speaking about "human flourishing," "dignity," and "earned success." Charles Koch increasingly cited the work of philosophers and social scientists rather than economists, positioning himself as a humanitarian rather than merely a businessman protecting his interests. At academic institutions funded by Koch foundations, professors developed curricula around these concepts of "well-being" that provided intellectual legitimacy to traditional libertarian policy prescriptions. This rebranding strategy was remarkably transparent within the network itself. At a private donor summit in June 2014, Richard Fink candidly acknowledged that their actual goals remained unchanged—they still wanted to "decrease regulations" because "we can make more profit" and "cut government spending so we don't have to pay so much taxes." The challenge was convincing moderate voters that "we mean well and that we're good people." James Otteson, a professor who received Koch funding, told donors that "well-being" was "a game changer" because "who can be against well-being?" While the messaging changed, the underlying policy agenda remained consistent. The network continued to oppose minimum wage increases, environmental regulations, healthcare reform, and progressive taxation. They maintained their support for candidates who advocated these positions, even as they presented their motivations in more altruistic terms. The rebranding effort represented not a substantive shift but a sophisticated public relations campaign designed to make policies benefiting the wealthy more appealing to the broader public—a strategy that would continue to evolve as the Koch network sought to maintain its influence in an increasingly polarized political landscape.

Summary

The transformation of American democracy documented throughout this historical account reveals a fundamental tension between concentrated wealth and democratic governance. Over several decades, a small network of billionaire donors systematically built an infrastructure designed to translate their economic power into political influence. What began as a fringe movement of libertarian ideologues evolved into a sophisticated political machine capable of reshaping public policy despite often operating against majority opinion. This development represents not just a shift in partisan advantage but a structural change in how American democracy functions, with private wealth increasingly able to override public preferences on issues from taxation to climate change. The lessons from this history are both cautionary and instructive. First, democracy requires vigilance against the concentration of both economic and political power, as each reinforces the other in a potentially dangerous cycle. Second, institutional infrastructure matters enormously—the patient building of think tanks, advocacy groups, media outlets, and legal organizations proved far more consequential than individual election outcomes. Finally, narrative control remains essential to political success, as even unpopular policies can gain acceptance when effectively framed in terms of widely shared values like freedom and opportunity. Moving forward, preserving meaningful democratic governance will require addressing the structural advantages that extreme wealth provides in the political arena, rebuilding civic institutions that can counterbalance private power, and reclaiming the language of liberty and well-being to serve truly collective purposes rather than narrow economic interests.

About Author

Loading...

Jane Mayer

Jane Mayer is a staff writer for The New Yorker and the author of three bestselling and critically acclaimed narrative nonfiction books. She co-authored Landslide: The Unmaking of the President, 1984–1988, with Doyle McManus, and Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas, with Jill Abramson, which was a finalist for the National Book Award. Her book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, for which she was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship, was named one of The New York Times’s Top 10 Books of the Year and won the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize, the Goldsmith Book Prize, the Edward Weintal Prize, the Ridenhour Prize, the New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism, and the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. It was also a finalist for the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award.For her reporting at The New Yorker, Mayer has been awarded the John Chancellor Award, the George Polk Award, the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting, and the I. F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence presented by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard. Mayer lives in Washington, D.C.

Read more