What’s so dangerous about dark money?

This week it became public that a quiet Chicago electronics manufacturing magnate made the single largest gift in American history for a nontraditional nonprofit organization: $1.6 billion to the Marble Freedom Trust, a conservative-leaning group that can spend the funds on politics, advocacy, issues, and ideas.

The left immediately decried the gift as “dark money,” with hyperbolic headlines like this from CNN.com: “Massive dark money windfall.” Equally exasperated is Esquire.com: “Right-Wing Influence Peddler Leonard Leo Hits the Dark Money Motherlode.” And just for good measure, Huffington Post: “Conservative Dark Money Group Gets $1.6 Billion Donation In Huge Win For The Right.”

The irony is that all three of these stories then report who gave the $1.6 billion—Chicago businessman Barre Seid. So how exactly is money “dark” if we know who gave the funds?

It’s not. Dark money is just a phrase the left and the media use to scare people. All of these transactions were disclosed on publicly available tax and stock filings with federal government agencies—that’s how the New York Times put together the story and how Pro Publica independently verified it.

But even if the donor had been private, no law would have been broken. In fact, quite the opposite. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that privacy enhances the possibilities of nonprofit organizations. That principle started in the 1950s when members of the NAACP in the South were targeted by the KKK and other extremists for their support of the civil rights group. The Supreme Court, in a landmark case called NAACP v. Alabama, upheld the First Amendment freedom of association for the NAACP to keep its membership list private from the prying eyes of an Alabama state agency, which would presumably have leaked it to the KKK or others.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that holding just last summer in an important case called Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta. The Court recognized the dangers of our modern cancel culture, which doesn’t lead to church bombings or burning crosses, but can still cost people dearly in their careers and communities. The nonprofit groups that supported a right to private charitable giving ranged across the political and social spectrum, “from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund; from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to the Zionist Organization of America; from Feeding America—Eastern Wisconsin to PBS Reno. The deterrent effect feared by these organizations is real and pervasive,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Bible commands Christians to give to the local church. But that should not be the end of our charitable giving. We should support parachurch ministries, missionaries, and social service groups. And we should support political organizations and candidates who share our beliefs and advance our values in the public square. We need good people to advance good ideas in public life, and that takes money.

And we should not fear what the left calls dark money. Though there are appropriate times and ways to recognize generosity publicly, we can be equally mindful of Christ’s suggestion to give our alms in private. The activities of organizations and campaigns should be judged on the ideas they advance and the integrity with which they operate, not on who funds them.

And for those on the left who decry a flood of money into politics, the answer is simple: support a smaller government. The only reason we need an army of lobbyists, or why campaigns for the presidency cost billions, and for U.S. Senate or governor tens of millions, is because the government regulates and runs every aspect of our society. A smaller government that didn’t wield so much power wouldn’t be worth spending so much to shape. It is only because so much is at stake in who holds public offices that so much money is spent to influence their election.

So, good for Barre Seid. Our country needs more patriotic philanthropists, not fewer. We should celebrate and applaud his incredible generosity and his commitment to preserving the Constitution.