For all their glaring differences in 2016, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both ran against "the rigged system" of American democracy. In a 2015 New York Timessurvey, 84 percent of Americans said money has too much influence in politics, while 85 percent said the way we finance our political campaigns needs either "fundamental changes" or a "complete rebuild." But just 11 days after taking office, President Trump nominated a judge to the Supreme Court who last week seemed to accept the growing piles of unaccountable money in our politics as simply the way things are.

Neil Gorsuch has $10 million in "dark money" backing his confirmation to the high court, which just happens to be the only body with a realistic chance of removing dark money from our politics on a national scale. After all, it was the same Supreme Court that unleashed this deluge of cash with its Citizens United decision in 2010. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein addressed the issue in an open committee session this week, but it will likely make little difference. If they have to, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans will break the filibuster to put Gorsuch on the bench. When he puts on the robe, any chance of the justices striking down Citizens United is simply gone for the foreseeable future.

Getty Images

So, how are we supposed to get all this loose cash out of the system? And how did it start flowing in the first place? We figured there was no one better to ask than Jane Mayer, the New Yorker staff writer who quite literally wrote the book on the subject. Her 2016 work, —recently released in paperback—remains the definitive account of how super wealthy individuals and special interests flex their financial might in the age of legalized influence-peddling. Mayer offered us a look at how this new system works, and how it's working in Gorsuch's favor, in an interview this week.

What exactly is dark money?

Dark money is the nickname that reporters have coined to describe the growing amount of untraceable cash into politics from undisclosed sources. It's aimed at manipulating American voters without them being able to understand who is behind it. It's "dark" in the sense that the public can't fully see it. Reporters can, for instance, see that a television ad has been made, and that airtime has been bought by some organization calling itself "Citizens For Virtue" or whatever, but when we try to figure out whose money is really paying for all of this, we hit a brick wall.

The names of the donors are purposefully hidden from public view. So the public has no idea who the "Citizens For Virtue" really are, or how "virtuous" their motives might be. Dark money is designed to keep the public in the dark.

How does dark money get into the system?

There are essentially two different species of dark money groups. The first is nonprofits, and the second is Political Action Committees. The nonprofits are groups that the IRS defines under section 501(c) of the tax code—nonprofit groups that are supposed to serve the public in some way. In exchange for this, the nonprofit groups are granted certain legal privileges. If you are a donor and you give to a nonprofit charity, which the IRS calls a 501(c)3, you can take a tax deduction, and you can keep your identity secret from the public. This was designed so that people could give to groups like the NAACP and not be harassed for supporting civil rights, even if their neighbors or community opposed the cause. The tax deduction was designed to encourage people to be more charitable. So it all began with the best of intentions.

Dark money is the nickname that reporters have coined to describe the growing amount of untraceable cash from undisclosed sources.

What has happened in recent years is that nonprofit groups have been weaponized for political warfare. One type of nonprofit in particular has turned into a giant loophole for secret political spending: 501(c)4 groups. Legally, these are defined as "social welfare groups." They are a bit more loosely policed than charities, because donations to them are not tax-deductible, but they are still supposed to be primarily engaged in serving the public, and so for that reason, donations to them can remain anonymous. These are what people refer to as dark money groups, and they have positively exploded in size over the past few years.

The other species of dark money groups are Super PACs. Unlike the nonprofits, Super PACs are explicitly political groups. Their donors can give as much cash as they want without limits, but they are required to publicly disclose their names to the Federal Election Commission, as well as the size of their contributions. And donors to these groups can't take tax deductions for their contributions. What's happened though is that some of the donors to Super PACS have defeated the transparency rules by setting up limited partnerships (LLCs) or other organizations that they can hide behind. So, again, super donors are finding ways to hide their hands from the American public.

What is the significance of the dark money campaign backing Neil Gorsuch's confirmation―and the $7 million-plus that was spent opposing Merrick Garland's?

Here's the problem as I see it: you've now got hugely wealthy donors who want to influence the choice of lifetime seats on the Supreme Court—and who may have huge financial stakes in legal cases. Yet because these donors are hiding their spending in dark money groups, which are now waging campaigns for and against Supreme Court nominees, the public has no idea who the donors are or what they want.

Getty Images

You can be pretty sure, though, that the justices have a pretty good idea who their deep-pocketed supporters are—there's no law barring donors from identifying themselves to the candidates. So when the a nominee for the high court is confirmed, he or she likely knows to whom the favors are owed. But the rest of the country is in the dark. It's a recipe for corruption.

Have we entered an era when even Supreme Court nominations are run like campaigns?

Yes. That's actually been true for quite some time. What's happened though is that the nature of campaigns has changed so that there's much more dark money. That's true at the Supreme Court level, too.

How much impact does dark money really have on campaigns and policy?

It's hard to measure. Obviously, those spending the cash think there's a payoff, otherwise they wouldn't pour millions of dollars into it.

Why do you think campaign finance, and dark money in particular, is a difficult issue to get ordinary people motivated on?

I actually think the public cares a lot about these issues. Every poll shows huge bipartisan disgust with the amount of money being spent in politics—and specifically, huge opposition to the 2010 Citizens United decision that opened up new forms of unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and individuals. The problem comes when people get bogged down in the details, which can be dizzyingly complex and dull.

"When the a nominee for the high court is confirmed, he or she likely knows to whom the favors are owed."

But keeping elections from being rigged by those with the most cash is something people care about enormously in this country. They just sometimes despair about how to fix it. So apathy is a stumbling block, but the concern is real, and widespread.

What did you make of the fact that in his own way, Trump voiced a lot of opposition to the current campaign finance system―and pretty much agreed with Bernie Sanders that it's rigged?

I think this explains a lot of the popularity of both Trump and Sanders. They both seized on the public's anger over a two-tiered political process, where Big Money buys influence, and ordinary citizens have almost none at all.

What will it take to fix the problem? A constitutional amendment?

The easiest reform would have been overturning the Citizens United decision, but that won't happen under Trump. He talked about campaign corruption while running for office, but has shown no interest in reforming it now that he's been elected. But there are actually a number of really interesting reforms being tried around the country at the local level.

New York City, for instance, has a pretty effective system now that other places are copying. It uses public funds to multiply the size of small donations, so that smaller donors can wield more influence. The result is that politicians now spend more time wooing small donors—and listening to their concerns—because the small donors are now worth more to them. It's aimed at leveling the playing field, and other places are now passing similar laws. What it takes, though, is the public getting mad, taking action, and taking the country back. In the end, it's up to the voters.

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io