Dark Money, Media, and Online Creators: Parsing the Chorus Controversy

Recently, there’s been significant online discussion about the “Chorus Creator Program,” a mentorship initiative funded by the 1630 Fund, a nonprofit with progressive donors. Critics, including Taylor Lorenz in Wired, framed it as a secretive program paying creators to stay silent on Israel and enforcing a partisan line. After reviewing the reporting and responses from creators, this framing is misleading and reflects a broader problem in online media: weaponizing “dark money” to create controversy while omitting critical context.

What Chorus Actually Is

The Chorus Creator Program, founded by Brian Tyler Cohen and Stuart Perelmuter, was designed to support smaller creators by pairing them with more established ones. Public statements from participants make it clear that mentorship, not content production, was the program’s primary goal. There were no required deliverables, and creators were not censored.

For example, David Pakman, a progressive YouTube creator with millions of monthly views, participated primarily as a mentor to smaller creators, contributing guidance with minimal impact on his own content or revenue. Similarly, Olivia Juliana, a Gen Z centrist influencer, publicly discussed her involvement, demonstrating that claims of strict secrecy or enforced silence are misleading.

Contracts reportedly included standard nonprofit confidentiality clauses regarding payment sources. These provisions are common for nonprofit programs, serving to protect nonprofit status and prevent harassment of smaller creators—and are not unique to progressive initiatives.

Dark Money: Context Matters

The term “dark money” is often weaponized as inherently sinister, but not all funding is the same—context matters.

Many conservative organizations, like PragerU or Turning Point USA, operate with donor anonymity. On the left, creators also receive funding with limited disclosure. For example, Hasan Piker, a progressive Twitch streamer, was sponsored by Ubisoft to stream Assassin’s Creed Shadows. While not political, this demonstrates that audiences rarely see the full details of creator compensation, and optics are often politicized.

Similarly, Chorus provided creators with $8,000/month to focus on content full-time and participate in mentorship. For smaller creators, this funding was transformative; for top creators like David Pakman, it was minor. Importantly, the program did not require content deliverables or censorship. Funding alone does not automatically compromise integrity—context is key.

Israel-Palestine Coverage and Creator Independence

Critics disproportionately focused on the Israel-Palestine conflict, implying left-leaning creators were being paid to remain silent. Public statements from Chorus-supported creators directly contradict this.

Creator Autonomy: Sarah Taber, a Chorus creator with expertise in agriculture, publicly addressed Gaza through the lens of food distribution and famine. She stresses that she only speaks on topics where she can add insight and is not constrained by the stipend or mentorship.

No Editorial Restrictions: Brian Tyler Cohen confirms that Chorus does not dictate messaging. Creators can discuss Gaza, criticize Democrats, or take positions contrary to the left. The stipend supports creators financially while they focus full-time on content, without imposing political directives.

Program Transparency: Taber emphasizes that Chorus provides mentorship, legal support, and guidance on creating effective content. This includes understanding where sensitive topics intersect with expertise, not censoring viewpoints.

Focusing narrowly on Israel-Palestine while ignoring these broader dynamics misrepresents the program. Chorus amplifies creator voices, not political agendas. Assuming creators are being paid to stay silent erases the work they are already doing.

Broader Observations: Pragmatism and Progressive Unity

Supporting creators through pragmatic means—funding, mentorship, or technical support—does not compromise independence. It allows smaller voices to grow and be heard. Programs like Chorus provide stipends and training, not directives, enabling creators to speak their minds while amplifying their work effectively.

Uneven funding is a natural part of any ideological ecosystem. Conservative groups choose which voices to back; left-leaning funds make strategic decisions about who they support. This pragmatic approach maximizes impact. Rather than debating perceived “bias,” the left can focus on building infrastructure to empower creators, regardless of starting point.

Pragmatism also requires rejecting false equivalences. Oversimplifying politics by equating both parties undermines progressive gains. While no political actor is perfect, dismissing practical victories—protecting voting rights, advancing climate initiatives, or supporting social programs—squanders opportunities for measurable progress. Emphasizing practical outcomes over ideological purity cultivates a cohesive, action-oriented ecosystem capable of generating tangible improvements.

Ultimately, fostering pragmatism strengthens the movement as a whole. Supporting creators, amplifying authentic voices, and valuing measurable progress creates a foundation for true progressive change: ideals guide action, and practical support ensures those ideals reach the world.

Conclusion: Focus on What Matters

The panic around Chorus is misplaced. Dark money isn’t inherently evil. Contracts aren’t censorship. Independent creators aren’t secretly controlled by a nonprofit simply for accepting support.

What truly threatens the left isn’t Chorus—it’s the endless cycle of purity tests, bad-faith journalism, and infighting that distracts from real battles. Building a more just society requires stopping the tearing down of imperfect allies and focusing on the bigger picture: beating authoritarianism, protecting vulnerable communities, and building toward a stronger progressive movement.

---

References

Cohen, B. T. (2023, August). Public statements on Chorus Creator Program [Video transcript]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@briantylercohen

Taber, S. (2023). Public discussion on Gaza and Chorus [Video]. Twitter/X. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber

Lorenz, T. (2023, August). A dark money group is secretly funding high-profile Democratic influencers. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/dark-money-democratic-influencers-chorus/

Pakman, D. (2023). Involvement in Chorus mentorship program [YouTube channel]. https://www.youtube.com/@DavidPakmanShow

Juliana, O. (2023). Public discussion of participation in Chorus [Instagram/TikTok posts].

Hasanabi (Piker, H.) (2023). Sponsorship example: Ubisoft streaming [Twitch stream]. https://www.twitch.tv/hasanabi

1630 Fund. (2023). Fiscal sponsorship and funding initiatives. https://1630fund.org

PragerU. (n.d.). Funding and creator partnerships. https://www.prageru.com

Turning Point USA. (n.d.). Donor and creator funding information. https://www.tpusa.com

U.S. Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). Nonprofit confidentiality and reporting requirements. https://www.irs.gov

Martens, J. (2021). Funding flows in political content creation. Columbia Journalism Review. https://www.cjr.org

Smith, R. (2022). Dark money in digital media. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu