I’ve been a member of the Democratic National Committee for 33 years. In that time, I’ve gone to scores of meetings and have frequently been left frustrated by the lack of membership engagement I’ve seen. This past weekend’s meeting in New Orleans was different, for reasons I’ll describe below.

Throughout my DNC tenure, I, along with other like-minded members, have fought for reforms in how the party operates—particularly for more financial transparency, accountability, and internal democracy.

Current DNC chair Ken Martin was elected a little over a year ago in part because he promised to implement these kinds of reforms—and, indeed, some of that work was in evidence in New Orleans. There’s greater transparency in the budget. The DNC’s allocation to state parties has been dramatically increased (causing some of the consultant class to complain that there’s less for them). Instead of the chair appointing all of the at-large members to the DNC and selecting who would sit on the decision-making standing committees, the membership elected by their states or party caucuses and councils are now empowered to vote on a portion of the at-large positions. While more can always be done, these initial steps are consequential.

There were two other significant developments at this past week’s meetings that must be noted. First and foremost is Martin’s insistence that we take steps to stop corporate and dark money from taking over our elections. The second was the debate on this issue that occurred during the DNC’s general session.

At the August 2025 meeting of party members, Martin was able to pass a resolution that called for banning corporate and dark money from Democratic presidential primaries. Dark money refers to election spending that is not subject to federally imposed limits or reporting requirements. It does not include contributions to campaigns by individuals or registered political action committees—both of which have established limits and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission and then released to the public at regular intervals. Nor does it include actions by membership groups that are entitled to endorse candidates and spend money in consultation with their members. These are also regulated by law and must be reported.

By contrast, the nearly unregulated dark money world allows billionaires to create groups with nondescriptive names that will spend millions of dollars in a campaign to boost or tank favored candidates or causes—all without disclosing any of this activity to the public. The amounts of such dark money outlays have grown so dramatically in recent years that in several competitive races they exceed by 10 times the amounts spent by the candidates themselves or the party’s committees supporting them.

Current Issue

May 2026 Issue

In 2023 and 2024, I was part of a group that attempted to get the DNC to pass a resolution that would ban dark money in all Democratic primaries. In both instances, we failed. And so we were delighted when chair Martin took the lead last year in passing his resolution to ban dark money in presidential primaries. His focus was limited to presidential primaries for two reasons. While dark money is a problem in all elections, the party has greater control over the processes involved in presidential primaries, so they are the best place to start dealing with this problem. Second, Martin’s resolution deals only with primaries so as not to suggest that Democrats would unilaterally disarm in a general election against Republicans. Following the passage of his resolution, Martin created a Reform Task Force to develop the plan to implement this dark-money ban in time for the 2028 presidential primaries.

At last weekend’s meeting, two separate additional resolutions on dark money were submitted by some members to the party’s Resolutions Committee. One called for banning dark money from groups supporting artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency interests. The other noted the negative role played by pro-Israel individuals and groups that have targeted progressive candidates for defeat. The first resolution was amended to strip mention of the specific groups cited. The second was defeated and passed on to the party’s Middle East Working Group.

At the general meeting, when the final report from the Resolution Committee was introduced for consideration, a motion was introduced from the floor to reconsider adding back into the final resolutions package the two original proposals that mentioned the three named sources of dark money. Both Chair Martin and Resolutions Committee Chair Ron Harris concurred that the motion to reconsider be debated, and a debate ensued with multiple speeches for and against. The motion was ultimately defeated, but was nevertheless noteworthy. Here’s why.

In my more than three decades as a DNC member, with 11 of them serving as chair of the Resolutions Committee, there have only been a handful of occasions where an issue of controversy was actually debated and then voted on by the full membership. Because of this, I have sometimes described being a DNC member as akin to being a prop to fill seats at meetings to listen to speeches. Because I’m a Catholic, I’ve felt I could compare it to going to church, where we learn when to stand up, when to sit down, when to clap, when to leave, and not to ask tough questions.

That’s why I say this meeting was different. We witnessed and were able to participate in a debate about a topic that, prior to this meeting, had been taboo—in this case, the role of pro-Israel billionaires (sometimes Republicans) weighing in with millions of dollars to influence our primaries. The resolution in question may have lost, but a not inconsequential victory was won. A debate was held, the issue aired, and members left empowered and respected. And, by the way, the resolution that was passed and will now be implemented by the Reform Task Force will act to ban all dark money from any and all sources, including AIPAC.

So don’t count me among those who left New Orleans complaining of defeat. This weekend’s meeting marked a turning point in enhancing democracy within the Democratic Party. It was an important step on the road to real reform, and, if we keep working, to victory over dark money.