This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
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)[reply]
Yes, Politico,[1] CNBC,[2] 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,[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BBQboffingrill me04:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]