What HBO's 'The Dark Money Game' won't tell you about the left
"The Dark Money Game" – two new feature-length documentaries from Alex Gibney that debuted this week on HBO make it sound like the network's initials stand for Helping Bernie on Oligarchy. Some leftist journalists and filmmakers have suggested Donald Trump represents the end of American democracy, but the bitterest socialists suggest democracy was ended by the Supreme Court in the 2010 Citizens United decision.
To paraphrase a famous bank commercial, it's apparently the worst decision in the history of decisions.
Radical documentarian Gibney – dyspeptic enough that he told the Daily Beast in 2013 that Pope Benedict XVI was a "criminal" – made two films under the heading "The Dark Money Case." They debuted this week on HBO. In the two documentaries, he uncorked a large conspiracy theory, that religious conservatives and rapacious corporate capitalists have overthrown democracy since 2010. This conspiracy was realized with the help of those evil conservatives at the Federalist Society.
The first of the two Gibney documentaries, "Ohio Confidential," is about a bribery scheme within the Republican Party, but to Gibney the "corruption" in Ohio included the passage of a pro-life bill. "Flush with campaign cash from dark money donors, the anti-abortion side was all smiles, like a team that plays the game knowing the fix is in."
All the journalism exposing dark money from George Soros or Reid Hoffman or Arabella Advisors or Act Blue is never going to get a minute on HBO. Ohio's scandal is presented as a national scandal for the GOP. But, any local scandal for the Democrats is never national.
Gibney was inspired by leftist New Yorker writer Jane Mayer and her 2017 book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right." She echoed the thought that a pro-life bill in Ohio represented "private interests" taking over politics. When the Left loses, the "public interest" loses.
Journalists should expose bribery when it happens in politics, of course, but Gibney and HBO proceed as if one side of the democracy is corrupt, and that "dark money" is somehow something that is never scandalous when employed on behalf of the Left. So, all the journalism exposing George Soros or Reid Hoffman or Arabella Advisors or Act Blue is never going to get a minute on HBO. Ohio's scandal is presented as a national scandal for the GOP. But any local scandal for the Democrats is never national.
The second Gibney documentary, "Wealth of the Wicked," focuses on the origin of the Citizens United case, how the McCain-Feingold "campaign reform" bill made it illegal for the group Citizens United to air ads for its film "Hillary: The Movie" within 60 days of an election. "Campaign reform" was designed to prevent conservatives from going around the liberal media elite with critical films about Democrats. Now they try to suppress that information as a "misinformation" offense.
Mayer complained that in 90% of races, the candidate spending the most money is the winner. "And if you have so much more money than the other side has, you can completely drown out the other side."
The problem with an argument like this is that many House and Senate races are not competitive. According to Ballotpedia, in 2024, 43 House and Senate candidates won an election by five percentage points or fewer, representing 9% of all congressional elections. Eighty candidates won an election by ten percentage points or fewer, representing 17% of all congressional elections. Candidates who aren't expected to have a chance won't get funded.
Then there's the umbrage about "completely drowning out the other side." This is unintentionally hilarious, because these Gibney films for HBO always drown out the other side. In this case, Gibney offered "conservatives" like former pro-lifer Rob Schenck, who is now in favor of abortion. Hence, they are no longer conservatives.
Schenck underlined the Gibney thesis: "We have a little aphorism built on a Bible verse: 'The wealth of the wicked is laid up for the righteous.' So, yeah, let's baptize the billionaires' money. We can do that and it eventually brought together this alliance."
The leftist critique of big money in politics, and their demands to somehow remove it, is utopian wishful thinking. Trying to take money out of politics is like trying to take the bark out of dogs. It can't be done. It's especially near-sighted because it doesn't acknowledge the centrality of TV advertising and the news media in campaigns.
The Left complains that speech is money, but leftist journalists can propagandize on HBO and that somehow doesn't count as "money in politics," which it certainly is. What's the advertising equivalent of that kind of airtime? The Left doesn't see it that way, because dominating the national discussion is what they define as democracy.
"Non-commercial" non-capitalist media outlets like PBS and NPR promote a lot of leftist messaging and drown out conservatives, which represents Gibney's radical goal of "taking the money out." But they're taking the money out of conservative pockets and using it to smear them. That's somehow the antonym of "oligarchy." Documentaries like these imply the political system is unfair when conservatives win anything.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: What exactly is Trump's new travel ban about? Not national security
Any reasonable American could objectively ask what exactly President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which affects a dozen countries, is about. Is it about protecting Americans from 'murderers,' as Trump said Thursday, or punishing small countries for a modest number of students who overstayed their visas? The drive for Trump's first-term travel ban in 2017 and 2018 was clear. He was seeking to deliver on an ugly campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the US. That morphed, over the course of years as the administration adapted to court cases, into a ban on travel to the US by people from certain countries, most of which were majority-Muslim. It was only by agreeing to ignore Trump's anti-Muslim 2016 campaign statements and focus solely on the security-related language in his third attempt at a travel ban that the US Supreme Court ultimately gave its blessing to that ban. '… We must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. Trump is using that authority again in his second term. But this time, as he said Thursday in the Oval Office, the ban is about removing 'horrendous' people who are in the country now and about keeping murderers out. The data suggest the travel ban will primarily affect students and businesspeople from countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean as well as the Middle East. It was an attack on Jewish community members in Colorado by an Egyptian national that convinced Trump to speed up plans to ban people from a dozen countries from entering the US, restarting the travel ban policy he pioneered during his first term. But Egypt is not on the travel ban list. Neither is Kuwait, the country where Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect in the Boulder attack, lived before coming to the US. 'Egypt has been a country we deal with very closely. They have things under control,' Trump told reporters Thursday. Instead, the travel ban includes countries that Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assembled the list, feel don't have things under control. That includes places like Equatorial Guinea in Africa and Burma, also known as Myanmar, in Asia. Neither is a nexus of terror threatening the American homeland. Trump's order announcing the travel ban explains that these countries have high rates of students and other travelers overstaying their visas in the US. It points to a report of DHS 'overstay' data from 2023 to argue that for more than 70% of people from Equatorial Guinea with US student visas, there is no record of them leaving the US when their visa ended. In real numbers, that equals 233 people with student visas. The numbers are similarly small for other African countries. 'They're just throwing things at the wall,' said David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato institute and a Trump immigration policy critic. 'There's not really a coherent philosophy behind any of this,' Bier added. The reinstated travel ban does include countries associated with terrorism, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, all of which were also included in Trump's first-term travel ban. But it's worth noting that no immigrant or traveler from one of these countries has launched a terror attack on the US in recent years, according to a review by the Washington Post during Trump's first term. A man from Sudan killed one person at a Tennessee church in 2017. 'The president claims that there is no way to vet these nationals, yet that is exactly what his consular officers and border officials have successfully done for decades,' Bier said. The man responsible for the ISIS-inspired truck bomb in New Orleans in January, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was a Texas-born Army veteran and US citizen. The new travel ban also includes Afghanistan, which could jeopardize many Afghans related to those who aided the US during its war there, as Shawn VanDiver, president of the aid organization #AfghanEvac, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Thursday. 'There are 12,000 people who have been separated through the actions of our government, who have been waiting for more than three and a half years,' he said. The Trump administration recently paused the processing of student visas, interrupting the plans of thousands of people to study in the US. In the Oval Office, Trump said he was not interested in banning students from China. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly, we want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked,' Trump said, suggesting there will be even more strenuous background checks in the future. The existence of the travel ban list could also factor into tariff negotiations the Trump administration has taken on with nations across the world, as well as its effort to countries nations to take back migrants it wants to deport. 'It's about power and control and manipulating both the US population to suppress dissent as well as trying to manipulate foreign relations with these countries by getting them to do whatever he wants in order to get off the disfavored nation list,' Bier said.
Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent Looks to Revamp Currency Monitoring After Damage Done
I'm Chris Anstey, an economics editor in Boston. Today we're looking at the US Treasury's semiannual foreign-exchange report. Send us feedback and tips to ecodaily@ And if you aren't yet signed up to receive this newsletter, you can do so here. The first US Treasury semiannual assessment of American trading partners' exchange-rate policies since Trump returned to the White House read, in substance, much the same as the last one under President Joe Biden.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk-Trump spat on X is a distraction from the failures of DOGE
Elon Musk stepped down from his position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on May 30, only months after promising to transform government by cutting trillions of dollars from the federal budget and eliminating so-called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Just a week later, Musk's relationship with President Donald Trump ― the man Musk spent nearly $300 million to elect — went up in flames, as Americans watched the drama unfold in real time on X and Truth Social. Trump publicly denounced Musk as 'disloyal' for criticizing the president's signature legislative effort, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' while Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination' and openly called for Trump's impeachment. The spectacle of the richest man in the world and the president of the United States exchanging insults online may be remembered as DOGE's final chapter in the public imagination. But it should not obscure the damage Musk wrought when he commanded one of the most powerful positions in the Trump administration. More from Freep Opinion: Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run To start, Musk's promised savings never came. The DOGE website currently claims to have saved the public $175 billion through a range of actions like eliminating 'fraud and improper payment' and cancelling grants. But even that sum — which is believed to be falsely inflated through a combination of guesswork and suspect arithmetic — is less than 3% of the federal budget, and less than 9% of the $2 trillion in cuts Musk promised upon assuming his role. In other words, DOGE failed on Musk's own terms. What did materialize is an unprecedented attack on public institutions, beginning with the people who carry out the work of public service. According to the latest data, around 260,000 federal employees have either been forced out, been slated for cuts, or chosen to leave their posts since DOGE began its work. These aren't faceless 'bureaucrats.' They are the people who test our water for contaminants, inspect our food for harmful bacteria, and ensure air travel is safe, among other public services. The department with the highest number of planned terminations is Veterans Affairs, with up to 80,900 personnel serving our nation's veterans slated for future cuts, according to the New York Times. Many of these jobs are health care workers who care for veterans directly. More from Freep Opinion: I'm a gay man in Detroit. Celebrating Pride feels more important than ever In cutting both people and programs that provide essential services, DOGE attempted a bargain that Michiganders are painfully familiar with: treat government like a business, and attempt to cut public services to balance the books no matter the risks to public health, the economy or democracy. During our state's era of emergency management, decision-making power in several cities and school districts like Flint and Detroit shifted from democratically elected local officials to appointees of the governor. In Flint, a series of emergency managers focused on cost-cutting to address the city's financial crisis, including the ill-fated decision to switch the city's water source. The result was the worst man-made environmental catastrophe in American history. Flint should have been a warning to the country that 'efficiency' without regard for public welfare is a dangerous proposition. Yet DOGE was a far more extreme expression of this logic. Like Flint, the DOGE experiment is a grave warning about what happens when democracy is treated as a private enterprise rather than a public trust, when billionaires think they know best what people need in their own communities. And while it may take decades to account for the potential harms DOGE's actions might produce, we are already seeing some. Here in Michigan, DOGE reportedly canceled $394 million in federal public health grants, money that ultimately supports local health initiatives statewide. These cuts are not abstract. They will be felt in people's bodies and the broader society. Local health providers will have to cut back on critical services such as vaccine administration and interventions for substance use disorder. According to a 2019 study, every dollar invested in public health departments yields as much as $67 to $88 of benefits to society. DOGE also cut $15 million in AmeriCorps funding for our state, impacting programs that offered tutoring, support for seniors, and assistance for homeless residents. At a time when Michigan ranks 34th in the nation in overall child wellbeing, students in more than 60 school districts may see tutoring support disappear. This begs the question: Who ultimately benefited from Musk's relentless cutting? The clear answer is Elon Musk, who is $170 billion richer since endorsing Trump in the summer of 2024, even accounting for the drop in Tesla's stock attributed to the public backlash over DOGE's actions. (How this most recent fiasco will affect Musk's bottom line remains to be seen.) Meanwhile, DOGE spent months attempting to 'delete' entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which stops predatory banks from scamming veterans, seniors, and consumers in general. And it destroyed the IRS' ability to audit wealthy tax cheats, forcing workers and families to shoulder more of the nation's tax responsibility. DOGE has also made us less free. The initiative's most significant legacy may be what the writer Julia Anguin described as 'a sprawling domestic surveillance system for the Trump administration ― the likes of which we have never seen in the United States.' In agency after agency, Musk and his lieutenants accessed the most sensitive data about Americans and handled it with reckless disregard. Information like Social Security numbers and bank accounts that once stood in the relative safety of government silos are now being merged to create more sweeping surveillance tools than ever before. They could be used to further crack down on immigrants' speech, or to simply make it easier to target political enemies. This is what we're left with. A public more exposed to harm — from preventable diseases, from corporate predation and scams, from toxins in our air and water—and a small group of wealthy elites more empowered to dominate our government and our democracy. Perhaps this is why a solid majority of Americans disapprove of Musk's job performance, arguably accelerating his departure from government. The American public deserves a government that is fit for purpose and delivers on its promises. But Elon Musk never intended to create that. DOGE was built on the fiction of Musk's mastery of all things, one of the many myths attributed to the ultra-wealthy. What it concealed was a public sector novice who failed to understand the basic mechanics of the institutions he railed against. On the day Musk announced his departure, a lawsuit against him and DOGE was cleared to proceed, accusing him of wielding unlawful power over federal agencies, contracts and data without democratic oversight. It was a fitting coda. Musk left behind no durable reform, only institutions hollowed out, public trust frayed, and a template for how easily government can be turned against the people it exists to serve. Even this spectacular fallout with Trump should not distract from the wreckage he leaves behind. Bilal Baydoun is Director of Democratic Institutions at the Roosevelt Institute, a national policy think tank devoted to building on the legacy of FDR. A version of this column was previously published on the Roosevelt Institute's Substack. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access witha Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Elon Musk-Trump spat is a distraction from DOGE failures | Opinion
