According to Sean Ross at Investopedia,
Mayer is a left-of-center activist, and a reasonable degree of bias exists in her presentation. For example, she frequently lumps together neoconservatives and libertarian groups, and her book singles out Charles and David Koch. She also routinely criticizes Richard Mellon Scaife and John M. Olin, two other right-of-center donors. A broader and more appropriate list of dark money billionaire activists could include Warren Buffett, Eric Schmidt, George Soros, Bill Gates and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, each a significant donor in his own right. (“The Role of Dark Money in Politics,” Aug., 27, 2016)
In your view, is the effectiveness of Mayer’s argument compromised by her liberal bias? Does the fact that liberal billionaires also influence the political process make the role of dark money in politics any more or less problematic?
Yes, I do think Mayer’s liberal bias compromises her position on dark money. It’s easy to say that the other side is jumping through loopholes so their wealthy donors can make unlimited donations, but it very difficult to say that even your own people are doing the same thing. Mayer definitely takes the easy way out and avoids any kind of self examination. But in her defense, I think most people see dark money as a conservative and GOP issue. It is easy to because Citizens Untied, the group who brought the case to the Supreme Court, is a conservative one. Also, other stereotypes might reinforce this assumption further. People *tend* to think of conservatives as having more money while liberals are more middle class. Therefore only conservatives can afford to make multi million dollar donations. The fact that both sides participate in dark money is very problematic because it makes the situation that much more difficult to change. Also the more shady money there is in politics, the less influence the voting public has and the more power very few rich individuals have over elections. Dark money in effect dilutes democracy because now instead of the voters actually choosing who gets to be in office, officeholders are chosen by the pocketbooks of highly interested individuals who have certain issues in mind and politicians wrapped around their fingers.