Talk:DonorsTrust

"Dark money" in first paragraph

Perhaps we should discuss "dark money" in the first paragraph. It is longstanding, first added to the top paragraph in 2020, but two editors appear to have concerns about it. Llll5032 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Far more than two editors have expressed concerns; see Talk:DonorsTrust/Archive 1#Mother Jones quote. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to Mother Jones, Politico, for example, referring to Michael Beckel, describes DonorsTrust as an "ATM for dark money groups." This term is widely used in articles about DonorsTrust and similar funds in the context of discussing anonymous donations. The term may seem non-neutral, but we have no alternative, nor is there another Wikipedia article on this topic. However, since the topic is important, it should be included in the preamble or "Overview". Deepak-nsk (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Politico, CNBC, and more RS have described DonorsTrust prominently as a "dark money" organization since the 2015 discussion referred to by BBQboffin, and from 2020 to 2024 the phrase "dark money" was stable in this article's first paragraph. Similar organizations on the "other" side have been described as "dark money" in their first sentences uncontroversially, including the Arabella Advisors article, which references Politico for the description in its first sentence. The Sixteen Thirty Fund article, about a liberal dark money organization which Politico has compared with DonorsTrust, has "dark money" in its first sentence, and Politico's descriptions about such take most of the second paragraph. Should this article be so different? Llll5032 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have the Mother Jones ATM quote in the body, as we currently do, as that has been repeated quite widely. As for comparing the Donors Trust article with Arabella, Donors Trust is a donor advised fund more akin to Tides Foundation, whereas Arabella Advisors is a for-profit company. Marquardtika (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Colleagues, based on the discussion, it seems no one is against bringing back "dark money". Can we revert this edit or do it as it was in 2020? Deepak-nsk (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine to discuss the "dark money" accusations in-article with the appropriate context and the discussion of the nuances of c4 (Arabella and 1630 Fund can contribute to political candidates and campaigns) and c3 organizations (Tides and Donor Trust can't do that). But not fine to conceal the bias of who is making the accusations with weasel words. I'd say either rewrite it in an NPOV way or leave it out of the lede, with my preference for the latter. BBQboffin^{grill me} 04:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with BBQboffin--this should be discussed in the body, but I don't see a way to put it in the lede with the needed context. Marquardtika (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I know this conversation is a little stale, but I'm with Llll5032 and Deepak-nsk for the inclusion of "dark money" in the lead. I appreciate that Mother Jones isn't a good source for this kind of language in the lead, but the fact is that there were many other sources cited. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

References