Anonymous spending with the intention of influencing an election has raised concern throughout the country and specifically in Phoenix, where a ballot measure could be at the "forefront" of bringing dark money spending to light.

“There's a big debate in campaign finance over the importance of transparency and disclosure,” said Princeton University politics and public affairs professor Nolan McCarty. “Currently there is an issue related both at the federal level and state and local levels with the type of contribution called Dark Money.”

“Dark money” is defined as political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. In 2016, dark money groups spent nearly $181 million nationwide, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Phoenix proposition (Prop. 419) would require businesses donating to political campaigns to reveal themselves.

Arizona’s former attorney general and co-chair of Outlaw Dirty Money, Terry Goddard, said anonymous cash has been flooding into Arizona since 2010. The Outlaw Dirty Money group hopes to make the process more transparent.

“In the last couple of election cycles and certainly in the one we're in right now, we've seen tens of millions of dollars, where if you look at the disclosure line you have no idea where that money comes from,” Goddard said.

McCarty said dark money comes from organizations that are primarily not political.

“Under the tax code, they're supposed to be social welfare organizations but they can spend up to 49.9 percent of their money on politics,” McCarty said. “These organizations do not have to disclose who gives them money.”

The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce is publicly opposed to Proposition 419. Its vice president of public affairs, Mike Huckins, said they are opposed to legislation that attacks businesses’ right to free speech.

“It comes back to protecting the business community’s constitutionally protected right to advocate in elections just like any other individual has—the businesses now have that right,” Huckins said. “To sort of punish the chamber and our members for exercising that right is detrimental to the business community and sort of undermines the fabric of free speech in America.”

While Huckins argues this would open up the chamber’s books to groups that may not agree with the positions they take on certain candidates or issues, and that donors should have the right to remain silent, Goddard said it shouldn’t protect a donor’s right to hide.

“As citizens, as voters, we need to have as much information as we possibly can and that information should include where the money came from that paid for the advertisement that’s trying to persuade us,” Goddard said. “I just think that's a critical part of having a knowledgeable democratic debate. If you don't have the knowledge, you're shooting in the dark. And I think it's absolutely critical that all voters at least have the option of knowing where the money comes from.”

Goddard’s push for a similar statewide proposition was put to a halt by Arizona’s Supreme Court in August because he did not have enough valid signatures for a statewide measure. But a similar proposition still made its way on the ballot in Phoenix. Goddard hopes that if it’s successful locally it would become part of the state’s agenda.

Other states and cities that started some type of election money transparency legislation in the last three years are: California and Washington, along with Denver, Philadelphia, and Austin, Texas.

Goddard said Phoenix could really be in the forefront of this issue.

“Other cities are concerned about development interests and others coming in and putting their (thumb) on the scale and influencing elections,” Goddard said. “I know that they're already looking at similar propositions. So, if Phoenix is successful with this proposition, I'm sure that other major cities around the country are going to follow their lead.”