Introduction
On May 1, 2025, the United States witnessed a surge of protests under the banner of the “50501” movement, symbolizing “50 protests, 50 states, 1 movement.” These demonstrations, coinciding with International Workers’ Day, aimed to challenge President Donald Trump’s administration and its policies. Organizers framed the protests as a fight against “Trump and his billionaire profiteers,” advocating for public schools over private profits, healthcare over hedge funds, and prosperity over free-market politics.
However, investigations reveal that many of these so-called grassroots organizations received substantial funding from wealthy donors and dark-money networks. Notably, Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and the Arabella Advisors network collectively funneled over $500 million into progressive groups between 2016 and 2023. While these funds were not earmarked specifically for the May Day protests, they have significantly bolstered the infrastructure of participating organizations like the Sunrise Movement, Indivisible, and Planned Parenthood.
“The hypocrisy of the May Day protests is glaring,” remarked Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust. “These organizations project the illusion of being driven by everyday Americans, but in reality, they’re being bankrolled … .”
This article delves into the legal, historical, and societal implications of such funding mechanisms, examining the tension between democratic ideals and the influence of undisclosed wealth in political activism.
Legal and Historical Background
Understanding Dark Money
“Dark money” refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. These entities, often classified under sections 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, can engage in various levels of political activity. While 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted from direct political campaigning, 501(c)(4) entities, labeled as “social welfare” organizations, can participate in political activities as long as it’s not their primary function.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) significantly altered the landscape of political financing. The ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, provided they operate independently of the candidates. This decision paved the way for increased influence of undisclosed donors in politics.
The Role of Key Players
Hansjörg Wyss: A Swiss billionaire, Wyss has donated extensively to U.S. progressive causes through entities like the Berger Action Fund. Although foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing directly to U.S. political campaigns, Wyss’s donations to nonprofit organizations have raised concerns about indirect foreign influence.
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations: Established to promote democratic governance and human rights, the foundation has been a significant funder of progressive initiatives worldwide. In the U.S., it has supported various organizations involved in political activism.
Arabella Advisors: This for-profit consulting firm manages several nonprofit entities, including the Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Windward Fund. These organizations have collectively funneled vast sums into progressive causes, often without disclosing donor identities.
“The use of dark money by both sides of the political spectrum undermines transparency and erodes public trust in democratic institutions,” notes legal scholar Professor Richard Hasen. “While legal, the lack of disclosure raises ethical concerns about accountability.”
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
As of now, there are no specific legal proceedings directly challenging the funding of the May Day protests. However, the broader issue of dark money in politics continues to be a focal point of legislative and judicial scrutiny.
In December 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the threat of foreign interference in U.S. elections. The discussions highlighted the loopholes that allow foreign nationals to influence domestic politics indirectly through donations to nonprofit organizations.
Additionally, watchdog groups have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding the activities of organizations like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, urging stricter regulations and greater transparency.
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Proponents argue that the funding from wealthy donors enables marginalized voices to be heard and counterbalances the influence of conservative money in politics.
“Our support for organizations committed to justice and democratic … is unwavering,” stated a representative from the Open Society Foundations. “How these organizations choose to engage in political moments … .”
Similarly, Arabella Advisors emphasized their nonpartisan role: “We provide operational and administrative support to philanthrop … . We have no connection to the May Day … .”
From this viewpoint, the financial backing is seen as a means to promote civic engagement and address systemic inequalities.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Critics argue that the undisclosed funding undermines the democratic process and creates an illusion of grassroots support.
“These organizations project the illusion of … ,” asserted Caitlin Sutherland of Americans for Public Trust.
The concern is that such funding skews public perception and policy in favor of elite interests, contrary to the movements’ purported objectives.
Comparable or Historical Cases
Historically, politically charged movements—though publicly characterized as grassroots—have often been traced to significant funding sources. Two prime examples highlight this bipartisan trend: the Tea Party Movement and the protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Tea Party Movement, which gained national momentum following the 2008 financial crisis, was initially portrayed as a spontaneous uprising of fiscally conservative Americans opposing big government and taxation. Yet investigative reporting later revealed substantial financial backing from conservative megadonors, particularly Charles and David Koch, through groups like Americans for Prosperity. These donors contributed funds to support events, media campaigns, and political candidates aligned with the Tea Party’s ideology. As political theorist Theda Skocpol notes, “The Tea Party’s emergence as a major political force was not simply a bottom-up phenomenon, but the product of a deliberate top-down strategy implemented by elite funders.”
Conversely, progressive movements have faced similar scrutiny. The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, prominently involving Greenpeace and other environmental groups, were backed by several nonprofit advocacy networks. While these organizations framed their actions as environmental justice campaigns, critics argued that the protests were partly enabled by opaque donor networks. In 2024, Greenpeace was hit with a $667 million judgment for its role in disruptive actions, reigniting debates about the legal accountability of advocacy groups that receive undisclosed financial support.
Both cases illustrate the blurred line between authentic grassroots mobilization and strategic donor-supported activism. While such support can enhance the capacity of movements to reach national prominence, it also challenges the transparency of political discourse and raises questions about manipulation of public sentiment.
As legal scholar Bruce Cain explains, “We must acknowledge that all movements, regardless of ideology, are susceptible to external influence. The task is not to demonize funding, but to ensure it operates under clear and enforceable norms.” The lesson drawn from these examples is not the illegitimacy of movements that receive major donations, but the necessity of robust disclosure mechanisms that preserve democratic accountability.
Policy Implications and Forecasting
The presence of billionaire-backed activism—whether liberal or conservative—raises critical policy concerns about the integrity, transparency, and equity of the American democratic process. While nonprofit organizations are legally permitted to participate in issue advocacy, the growing influence of undisclosed funding sources poses systemic risks.
One significant implication is the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. When political messaging appears to stem from local or community-based initiatives but is later revealed to be the product of strategic, elite funding, citizens may feel misled. This perceived deception diminishes faith in the authenticity of civil society movements, regardless of the ideology they support.
Legislative bodies at the federal and state levels have begun to respond. Proposals have emerged to enhance disclosure requirements for 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations. These would require any organization spending above a specified threshold on political activities to disclose its top donors. While critics argue that such mandates infringe on donor privacy and free association rights under NAACP v. Alabama (1958), proponents counter that transparency in political spending is essential in an age of digital misinformation and coordinated influence campaigns.
Further, there is growing bipartisan concern over foreign interference through nonprofit networks. Recent congressional inquiries suggest that individuals or foundations based abroad may leverage domestic nonprofit structures to shape public discourse—an indirect circumvention of the foreign national contribution ban under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Policy think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute have proposed different but overlapping solutions. Brookings supports regulatory modernization, while Cato emphasizes voluntary transparency and improved IRS enforcement. “It is no longer enough to say the law prohibits direct political spending by charities,” asserts constitutional law expert Ilya Shapiro. “We need clear standards, technological tracking, and independent oversight.”
Looking forward, the policy debate is unlikely to settle along clear partisan lines. Instead, it represents a foundational conflict between transparency and privacy, between regulatory reach and freedom of speech. The outcome will shape not only campaign finance but also how the public perceives legitimacy in civic advocacy and mass mobilization.
Conclusion
The 2025 May Day protests, framed as a collective pushback against economic inequality and political elitism, were emblematic of the tensions underlying modern activism: the simultaneous demand for grassroots legitimacy and the reliance on institutional funding. While such demonstrations may inspire mass participation and public debate, their association with billionaire-funded networks like those linked to Hansjörg Wyss or the Arabella Advisors framework complicates claims of authenticity.
At the core of the controversy is a constitutional paradox. On one hand, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and association, permitting individuals and entities to support causes they believe in. On the other hand, the lack of transparency surrounding these contributions has created a shadow system in which influence flows not through visible, accountable democratic channels, but via opaque nonprofit structures and consultancies.
Both progressive and conservative actors have leveraged these mechanisms, leading to what some scholars call an “arms race of influence.” As law professor Ellen Aprill argues, “The legal structure permits a great deal of ambiguity, and that ambiguity benefits those with the resources to navigate it.”
This phenomenon raises a broader societal concern: when political movements become indistinguishable from corporate strategies or philanthropic ventures, the participatory essence of democracy may be diluted. If activists, lawmakers, and citizens cannot easily trace the origins of advocacy messaging or organizational funding, they are left to question the motivations behind the causes they are asked to support.
However, calls for reform must be carefully balanced with the need to preserve civil liberties. Overreaching disclosure requirements may chill legitimate advocacy, particularly among marginalized groups wary of retaliation. Thus, future policymaking must aim not for the eradication of donor influence but for its responsible regulation.
In the end, the May Day protests reveal not just a divide in political ideology, but a deeper fissure in the architecture of American democracy—between ideals of public participation and the realities of private capital steering the political narrative. As legal reform debates continue, the central question remains:
Can democracy endure when the loudest voices are often the best-funded? The answer will determine the future of civic life in a society where activism, influence, and accountability are increasingly intertwined.
For Further Reading
- Lefty groups behind ‘grassroots’ anti-Trump protests in US propped up by billionaires and dark-money network
https://nypost.com/2025/05/05/us-news/lefty-groups-behind-grassroots-may-day-protests-in-us-propped-up-by-billionaires-and-dark-money-network/ - How Dark Money Is Reshaping American Politics
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/dark-money-political-campaign-donors/621215/ - Dark Money and the Left: Big Donors and the Hypocrisy of Campaign Finance Reform
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/dark-money-and-the-left-big-donors-and-the-hypocrisy-campaign-finance - Strengthening Campaign Finance Transparency Laws
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/strengthening-campaign-finance-transparency-laws - The Shadowy World of Dark Money Groups That Are Remaking American Politics
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-political-groups-2024