On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously denied a petition asking for the “emergency stay” of a lower court’s ruling, that tossed out “federal election regulation allowing nonprofit groups to keep donors secret,” the American Bar Association reports. “Dark Money” groups that pay for “advertisements in support or opposition of candidates” are now required to “identify individuals who donated more than $200.”

Noah Bookbinder calls it, “a great day for transparency and democracy.” It’s a great day for the Republic, too. He’s the executive director of the group that filed the underlying action. “Three courts, including the Supreme Court, have now rejected Crossroads’ arguments for a stay, meaning we’re about to know a lot more about who is funding our elections.”

“It does not solve all of the current disclosure problems, but this is a victory for transparency,” political science professor Rick Hasen agreed. “This is an important decision which will help insure that voters have valuable information they need in evaluating advertising which is unquestionably aimed at trying to influence how they vote in elections.”

Washington D.C.’s Federal District Court issued the underlying ruling, shredding decades of Federal Election Commission procedure that only loosely regulated nonprofit political donations. “Before the ruling, such groups could generally shield their donors from public scrutiny,” New York Times reports.

Washington, D.C. based Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics took the Federal Elections Commission and political group Crossroads GPS to federal court over an incident that happened more than six years ago.

In 2012, they filed a complaint with the agency that regulates elections, the FEC, demanding that “donors who funded a $6 million Crossroads campaign against Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), be revealed,” the Post is cited as reporting.

After taking an initial look at the matter, the FEC couldn’t break a deadlocked panel, so declined to open an investigation. The complaint was dismissed in 2015. CREW went back to the drawing board and prepared the federal lawsuit against the regulator itself in 2016.

After hearing all the facts and evidence, on August 3, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell issued her controversial ruling. In it, she ordered the FEC to develop new regulations “requiring more donor disclosure.” They have 45 days to comply.

Judge Howell based her ruling, the Post asserts, on a “federal regulation that had effectively allowed secret contributions, saying it conflicted with a federal statute.”

It is already a foregone conclusion that her ruling will be appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be the next to decide the issue but they will not have a chance to do so until long after this year’s crucial mid-term elections. That means the current crop of donors must be disclosed.

The Post points out that “the ruling applies to groups like social welfare and business organizations that do not register as political committees with the election commission.” Up until now, donors were only required to be disclosed “when they contributed money for specific advertisements,” which allowed them to exploit the loophole to bypass donation caps.

Judge Howell explained it in her decision. Under the questioned rules, “a donor contributing over $200 during a calendar year to a non-political committee for the express purpose of advocating for or against the election of a candidate for federal office, would nonetheless not be identified.” It isn’t supposed to work that way. The donor virtually has to say “identify me please.”

“Absent the donor’s express agreement that the funds be used for the specific expenditures reported to the FEC, even though the donor may otherwise support and in fact contribute for the purpose of funding those expenditures.”

In other words, there are caps on political campaign spending for a reason and this loophole allowed the caps to be bypassed. A donor maxes out direct contributions then can write checks for as much as they want anonymously, to groups both fighting for the candidate and those fighting against the opponent.

Lawyers for Crossroads GPS briefed the Supreme Court that their position is that “there is no compelling reason to hastily throw the clear reporting standards it provides to donors and speakers into confusion just prior to a national election, thereby chilling core First Amendment speech and association.”

CREW fought back hard, arguing that “the public’s interest in disclosure includes knowing ‘where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent’ in order to know the ‘sources of a candidate’s financial support,’ and deterring actual corruption and avoiding ‘the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.”

According to the Wesleyan Media Project, the “majority of spending” comes from “groups that don’t disclose.” They track “the disclosure type of outside groups in federal races.”

“The majority of spending has come from groups, mostly 501c organizations, that do not report their donors.” Overall, they say, “dark money advertising is up” over 2014 numbers.

“This report shows that absent meaningful oversight from the FEC or the IRS, groups that raise money from anonymous, possibly even foreign donors, will continue to spend heavily to influence who wields power in Washington,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics shares.

The Supreme Court ruling replaces a temporary one that blocked the district court’s action only long enough for the supremes to kick it around. When the final decision was made, none of the Justices dissented, including Chief Justice Roberts who granted the temporary stay, Hasen relates.

According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court didn’t supply any discussion with their ruling so there isn’t any way to get inside their heads to see which way they might lean if the case ends up working its way back up the ladder to them following the appeal.