The Dark Money Game, directed by Alex Gibney, is a two-part documentary series premiering on HBO and Max in mid-April 2025. Each episode spans feature-length runtime, with Ohio Confidential probing a high-stakes corporate bribery case in the Buckeye State and Wealth of the Wicked tracing decades of hidden political donations.
Gibney positions his camera at the intersection of law, money, and power, inviting viewers to witness how undisclosed campaign contributions have reshaped U.S. governance since the 2010 Citizens United decision. The first film follows a power company’s clandestine $61 million funnel to sway Ohio legislators, while the second zooms out to chart the rise of super PACs and religious lobbying that culminated in a Supreme Court reshaping, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Throughout, the series maintains an investigatory tone, alternating between a hard-boiled detective voiceover and a straightforward expository style. By exposing corridors of influence where wallets speak louder than ballots, The Dark Money Game underscores why every viewer should care: if money can tip the balance of democracy, the consequences ripple beyond statehouses into the very fabric of civic life.
Structure and Content Breakdown
In Ohio Confidential, Gibney zeroes in on a corporate bribery scandal: a $61 million contribution from a power company aimed at securing a bailout for a failing nuclear plant. The film opens with a lobbyist’s death, setting a tense tone.
Michael Imperioli’s noir-style voiceover outlines how a nonprofit front funneled money into Ohio politics. Reenactments—close-ups of ice cubes tumbling in a glass while FBI wiretap audio plays—fill archival gaps. Key figures emerge: the Ohio Speaker of the House accused of taking bribes and the undercover FBI informant whose wire work reveals hidden meetings in bars.
Midway, recorded conversations transition from casual bar talk to explicit quid pro quo negotiations. As arrests approach, Gibney slows pacing to explore the informant’s personal toll, including a mention of suicide. The climax shows how prosecutors, largely by chance, piece together evidence to indict the speaker, exposing systemic cracks that allowed the scheme to flourish.
Wealth of the Wicked broadens the lens, tracing campaign-finance law from the 1975 Federal Election Commission to the 2010 Citizens United decision. Gibney’s straightforward narration covers the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 and its undoing. Interviews with Jane Mayer, Russ Feingold, James Bopp, Robert Schenck, and Federalist Society experts illustrate how 501(c)(4) groups and super PACs blurred lines between donations and bribery.
Archival footage of Supreme Court hearings and animated graphics map dark-money flows, culminating in the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The episode ends by showing how modern rulings legalize “gratuities” to justices and shield presidential actions, revealing money’s deep roots in governance.
Production and Storytelling Techniques
Gibney relies on contrasting narration styles to distinguish each episode’s mood. In Ohio Confidential, Michael Imperioli’s hard-boiled delivery evokes a pulp thriller, though it sometimes clashes with Gibney’s own on-camera commentary. The result feels uneven—an intentional tension between stylized crime tale and sober investigation. By contrast, Wealth of the Wicked adopts a measured expository tone, akin to a lecture track, offering clarity but at the expense of urgency.
Reenactments in the first episode—shots of ice clinking in glasses, close-ups of exchanged envelopes—illustrate wiretap moments when archival footage is scarce. These sequences occasionally drift into camp, their aesthetic suggesting noir pastiche rather than gritty realism.
Conversely, the second episode leans heavily on archival resources: broadcast clips of Supreme Court hearings, news reports, and simple infographics outlining money flows. The visual shift underscores each film’s scope: one grapples with individual motivations; the other surveys systemic forces.
Interview segments are framed with minimal distraction—medium-close shots of experts against bookshelves or office walls. When figures like Leonard Leo or Mitch McConnell decline to appear, the film intercuts critics’ commentary, which risks tilting toward bias but keeps the narrative moving.
Editing choices vary: Ohio Confidential employs brisk cuts during wiretap scenes, then drifts into slower reflections; Wealth of the Wicked maintains a steady tempo, though repeated explanations of Citizens United facts sometimes slow momentum. Sparse background music—tension-building strings in episode one, subdued orchestral swells in episode two—anchors mood without overwhelming.
Themes, Significance, and Intended Impact
At its core, The Dark Money Game interrogates how concealed funding warps democracy. By chronicling the $61 million scandal in Ohio and the broader rise of super PACs, the series illustrates how financial secrecy incentivizes alliances between corporate interests and lawmakers. Interviews reveal a court willing to treat donations to justices as “gratuities,” eroding accountability. The message: when money moves unseen, even presidential actions can dodge scrutiny.
The erosion of checks and balances unfolds through both episodes. Ohio Confidential shows law enforcement stumbling into corruption by chance, implying oversight failures. In Wealth of the Wicked, years of reform efforts—McCain-Feingold, FEC regulations—are unraveled by Citizens United. This tracing of legal lineage underscores that dark-money networks evolved through loopholes and ideological lobbying, not overnight.
Human cost emerges in the informant’s despair and the moral quandaries faced by figures like Robert Schenck. These moments ground systemic analysis in personal sacrifice. Yet Gibney offers scant optimism; viewers glimpse a landscape where billions tilt scales. That feels reflective of April 2025’s political climate, marked by high-profile court ethics debates and fresh concerns over secret donations.
Positioned among recent long-form investigative docs, The Dark Money Game exemplifies a trend toward multi-part examinations of systemic issues. Its urgency lies in exposing problems without prescribing easy fixes, inviting viewers to consider citizen engagement and transparency in a moment when money often speaks louder than votes.
The Dark Money Game is available for streaming on Max.
Full Credits
Director: Alex Gibney
Writers: Alex Gibney, Jane Mayer
Producers and Executive Producers: Alex Gibney, Trevor Davidoski, John Jordan; Executive Producers: Richard Perello, Nancy Abraham, Lisa Heller, Sara Rodriguez
Cast: Jane Mayer, Laura A. Bischoff, Russ Feingold, James Bopp, Robert Schenck, David M. McIntosh, Jonathan Riehl
The Review
The Dark Money Game
The Dark Money Game is a sobering, meticulously researched exposé that effectively unpacks the hidden mechanisms reshaping American democracy. While its two-part structure sometimes feels uneven—one half taking on a pulp-noir affect and the other a classroom-lecture tone—both episodes deliver essential insights into how undisclosed funding distorts political accountability. Gibney’s sharp editing of interviews and archival clips keeps viewers alert, even as complex legal histories threaten to bog down momentum. Ultimately, the series exposes systemic failures without sugarcoating, leaving a lasting impression that the democratic experiment depends on confronting concealed money flows head-on.
PROS
- Comprehensive investigation linking local scandal to national policy.
- Clear use of archival footage and expert interviews to illustrate complex legal evolution.
- Moments of vivid storytelling (wiretap reenactments, informant’s personal toll).
- Timely relevance to ongoing debates over campaign finance and Supreme Court ethics.
CONS
- Tonal inconsistency between noir-style narration and expository lecture.
- Repetition of key facts across both episodes drags pacing.
- Reenactments occasionally feel stylized rather than authentic.
- Sparse calls to action leave viewers with urgency but limited guidance.