Another Election Cycle, Another "Dark Money" Windfall
 

It's always fun living in a "battleground state" during election year.

Untraceable cash spills into Michigan governor's race

Three of the leading candidates to be Michigan's next chief executive have benefited from large sums of cash that can't be easily followed to their original sources because of federal laws allowing not-for-profit organizations to influence elections outside of the state's campaign finance law.

Former state Sen. Gretchen Whitmer's campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor has been aided by $550,000 in concealed donations from two entities that don't appear to exist in public records.

Attorney General Bill Schuette's bid for the Republican nomination in next Tuesday's primary also has been boosted by $1.2 million in untraceable donations flowing from two so-called "dark money" front organizations that can legally conceal the identities of their donors.

And Lt. Gov. Brian Calley got $1.3 million of free advertising through a TV commercial promoting his work with Gov. Rick Snyder turning around Michigan's economy that was paid for by a Snyder-led group that doesn't have to disclose its funding sources.

I HATE this. Yet we're stupid enough to ask politicians to pass laws that would cut off their access to this kind of money? It'll never happen. If you really want to know what's wrong with our election system, its this.

Two words - Citizens United.

This is on your party and your Dear Leader:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Treasury Department decision to safeguard the identities of so-called “dark money” donors to politically active nonprofit groups spawned warnings on Tuesday that the policy could inadvertently aid foreign actors, including Russia.

The Trump administration’s Treasury said on Monday it will no longer require certain tax-exempt groups to disclose the identities of their donors to the Internal Revenue Service.

The move was hailed by Republican lawmakers as a win for free speech. The conservative political group FreedomWorks urged Congress to enact legislation that would codify the policy change to prevent its reversal by a future administration.

Democrats criticized the change as a setback for election transparency at a time of high tension over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1K727L

Way to be disingenuous! I know CU and Trump are two favorite whines. But this kind of crap has been going on for years. And the Dems can "criticize", but the hypocritical bastards are back deep in this kind of fundraising too.

Nope. The Dems strongly opposed the Citizens United ruling that the GOP held so dear, but once it became the law of the land, they used it rather than unilaterally disarming. The link I provided showed how Republicans continue to try to stack the deck to ensure "dark" (and Russian) money keeps coming into their coffers via organizations like the NRA. Try to keep up with the facts before posting or I'll continue to beat you like a rented mule.

Whell: 0
Humanity: Infinity

Trump sure is lucky to have so many impressionable, ill-informed supporters like Whell. Pretty soon, Whell is going to start spewing QAnon nonsense, though his economic arguments already makes about as much sense as Hillary's child-porn operation in the basement of a pizzeria without a basement.

I can't tell whether you are simply full of shit or ignorant in the extreme or both.

As Finn showed you, the 'Citizen's United' SCOTUS decision opened the floodgates of 'Dark Money' on the political scene. I suggest you read Jane Mayer's book with that title if you really are interested in the who, what and wherefors of this subject, my mulish friend.

He argues in bad faith, because he likes to fight. I'd say stupid no, disingenuous yes.

What a bunch of stuck-talk-track parrots some of you are. And Finn, the only thing that you beat like a rented mule is your little joy stick. Bob, go jump off a bridge.

You guys are totally wrong about the Citizens United case, and/or you're trying to re-write history.

You so often forget that the history of the Citizens United case in 2008 begins with the use of advertising for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie during the Bush 2004 campaign. This advertising prompted Citizens United in June of 2004 to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that advertisements for Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, in part because the film was produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities including Lionsgate - Harvey Weinstien et. al. - and appeared to violate FEC regs because the ads "clearly identified candidate for federal office" and were run " within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election."

And you know what? The FEC ruled AGAINST Citizens United, and they were absolutely RIGHT to allow the use of advertising for Moore's film in that manner. Opposition to Moore's advertisements were an attempt to stifle free speech, primarily political speech. In advance of the FEC's decision, Republican FEC commissioner Michael E. Toner said:

"In looking at the statute, the legislative history and the case law, I don't think there's any doubt that independent filmmakers cannot be restricted," Toner said. "To consider otherwise would place the activities of independent filmmakers at considerable risk and raise serious constitutional issues."

And Toner was absolutely right about that in 2004.

But when Citizen's United decided to follow Moore's example in 2008 and advertised for the documentary "Hillary: The Movie" movie during the 2008 campaign, the FEC reversed course and attempted to prohibit Citizens United from advertising for the film. In the decision that was finally issued by SCOTUS, it was everyone's favorite moderate - Justice Kennedy - who wrote the opinion for the majority. His opinion has plenty of echos of the FEC's decision to allow Moore's advertisements for his movie in 2004:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Specifically about state or federal laws prohibiting corporate campaign expenditures, government had no place in limiting these because "There is no such thing as too much speech." And the SCOTUS was just as right about this as the FEC was in 2004 when it ruled against Citizens United.

So, the Citizens United case was about freedom of speech and the First Amendment, just like the FEC's decision about Moore's film was. It also didn't create any "new" sources of funding, but it did allow for acceleration of some of that type of advertising and who was paying for it.

SuperPACs, which are probably a bigger concern from the article I posted, got more out of the Speechnow.org v. FEC case in 2009 than they did out of the Citizens United case.

This message has been a public service. Thank you.

I see you conveniently overlooked the article I linked to about ongoing administration and Republican efforts to keep dark money flowing into GOP coffers (like Russian money to the NRA).

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Treasury Department decision to safeguard the identities of so-called “dark money” donors to politically active nonprofit groups spawned warnings on Tuesday that the policy could inadvertently aid foreign actors, including Russia.

The Trump administration’s Treasury said on Monday it will no longer require certain tax-exempt groups to disclose the identities of their donors to the Internal Revenue Service.

The move was hailed by Republican lawmakers as a win for free speech. The conservative political group FreedomWorks urged Congress to enact legislation that would codify the policy change to prevent its reversal by a future administration.

Democrats criticized the change as a setback for election transparency at a time of high tension over Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

President Donald Trump on Monday came under fierce criticism from lawmakers - from both parties - for failing to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin over his nation’s meddling during a summit meeting in Helsinki between the two leaders.

The Treasury’s policy change was unveiled just hours after federal investigators announced conspiracy charges against a Russian woman with ties to the National Rifle Association, a nonprofit group whose donors would be protected by the change.

The bottom line is that Republicans want to keep Russian (and other illicit) money flowing into their coffers. No amount of obfuscation by you will change that simple fact.

^^^ "...the policy could inadvertently aid foreign actors?" Outrageous bias in reporting! What makes them think it would be inadvertent?

...as if Dems aren't doing the same damn thing. In fact you pointed out earlier that the Dems chose not to "unilaterally disarm". You have pockets of folks on both sides of the aisle who want to stop this too, though their efforts are sadly kept pretty far under the radar.

Have fun with trying to somehow make this a partisan issue. It ain't.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ctions-n849391

WASHINGTON — Democrats love decrying "dark money" — political contributions for which the source of funds is a mystery. But that isn't stopping them from accepting "dark money" themselves or making it difficult to determine the original underwriter of a political donation, as a recent Southern contest vividly illustrates.

McCain is pretty much the only Republican who's against dark money filling GOP coffers. Meanwhile, Trump cultists such as you criticize him as a traitor to the conservative cause (while you simultaneously praise the real traitor, your Dear Leader).

McCain was an ass before there Trump ever tried to run for office.

You keep trying to make this a partisan issue. Hillary out-raised Trump by almost a 2 - 1 ratio and still lost. I suspect that's what you're most pissed about: that no matter how much the Dems fund-raise, the mature non-whack jobs are the ones that are more likely to vote. That pretty much means that a significant chunk of the Dem base is likely to stay at home on election day. :rolleyes:

WTF does this have to do with your lame effort to refute my assertion that it is the GOP and Trump who are behind keeping dark money flowing into their coffers from shady sources, including Russia?:confused:

Sure hope our boy Whell doesn't have a dog to go home and kick. Deep rooted anger issues there.

Still trying to make this a partisan issue, huh? Good luck with that.

This thread was originally about dark money funding of both the Dem and Repub governors campaign here in MI. But in your world, its all about the GOP....and of course in your world there's a Russian hiding under every bed.

By the way, didn't the Podesta group do a bunch of lobbying and legal work for Russian oligarchs too?

Nah, can't talk about that. I doesn't fit the narrative.:rolleyes:

Keep those blinders screwed down real tight, Mike. :rolleyes:

I'm completely OK with Podesta being held accountable for any crimes he committed, though I have no idea what that has to do with the GOP fighting to keep dark money alive.:confused:

This thread needstobe closed sinceithasturnedintoanalphabet soup.

The only thing that's dark in this post are the lesions on your brain.

Before you hijacked it, this thread was about the MI governor's race and the dark money that is flowing into the campaigns of both the leading Dem and Repub gubernatorial candidates. Twice I've rejected your premise that the "dark money" issue is a partisan issue, but every time you've steered the subject right back to "Repubs" and even "Russians". And yet you get your little nickers in a knot when I throw out Podesta's consulting? LOL!

Finn - this is a state race. Efforts on the Federal level to control campaign spending wouldn't necessarily trickle down to state laws. State campaign finance laws in MI, like most other states, haven't changed in years (I think 1977 in our state's case). So, your attempts to talk about with's happening at he national level aren't really relevant in this thread. But hey, don't let that stop you from deflecting.....of whatever the hell you think you're doing. :rolleyes:

Those aren't lesions. They're implants. I can use them to read minds. In your case, unfortunately, I get nothing... :p

It seems you failed to read the very first paragraph of the link you provided in the OP.

Three of the leading candidates to be Michigan's next chief executive have benefited from large sums of cash that can't be easily followed to their original sources because of federal laws allowing not-for-profit organizations to influence elections outside of the state's campaign finance law.

And as I have said (along with providing a link to support my assertion), the laws allowing non-profits to do this with "dark money" are a Republican initiative/priority.

Always amusing that Whell thinks he can control the narrative. Virtually every thread he has started he quickly show just how delusional his fact free rants are. Just like his mentors, Donny, Limblow and InsHannity.

I think he gets fed nonsense by talk radio and/or Fox News, believes it, and then repeats their factually-challenged rants here. I've caught him numerous times repeating an argument that Limbaugh first put forth that day (I listen to Limbaugh on the way from the gym every day to see what kind of lies people like Whell will parrot that day) when Whell repeats it within 1-2 hours. Like other delusional Rush listeners, he actually believes he's getting the inside skinny rather than half-true propaganda/projections.

Which has not one F'ing thing to do with Citizens United, but that didn't stop you from bringing it up. :rolleyes:

You're right. As much as you guys deflect and change the topic, its really hard to follow all the BS you throw around. :rolleyes:

It’s called a Democracy, Whell. Something you and Donny obviously have zero respect for.

I mentioned CU, but linked specifically to and discussed the "dark money" regulations that the Trump administration just relaxed to the delight of the GOP and consternation of Democrats. In any event, this dark money phenomena is something the Democrats want to get rid of and the Republicans want to keep around, even enhance. I know you have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that the GOP and Trump aren't completely ethical and honest. Maybe Mueller will help set you straight.:rolleyes:

You're projecting again Mike.

The Dems want to "get rid of" it to the extent that they can try to use it as a campaign issue....while they're busy capitalizing on the influx of dark money to their coffers. Don't believe me, though. You revered John McCain on this topic in a prior post in this thread. Here are his words about the Dem's efforts on the Disclose Act:

In a floor speech against the DISCLOSE Act, McCain, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which overhauled campaign finance law, said Whitehouse’s bill doesn’t cut it.

“The American people will see it for what it is – political opportunism at its best, political demagoguery at its worst,” McCain said.

Dems want this issue to the extent that they can corral free speech. But no one has the guts to do what would not curtail speech but would slow the influx of money: make every dollar contributed TAXABLE.

That'll never happen. The whole fake brouhaha about the IRS targeting conservative non-profits was about the IRS looking into (nearly) full-time political advocacy of groups that were supposedly non-profit pushing the envelope far beyond what the tax laws envisioned. The GOP will protect these groups at all costs with breathless lies and innuendo, just as they always have.

Who the hell is talking about IRS "targetting"? Dang, you just can't stay on topic, can you?

These organizations - whatever their affiliation - do not require tax exempt status. Their very existence has created a its own industry.

You're correct that the neither the GOP or the Dems would do this willingly. It would require a grass roots effort and a ballot initiative.

I don't know how you do it Finn. Whell is probably the most dishonest character I've run across in many years on the 'net.

Dude, you brought up taxes in post #32. Are you really this disconnected from reality? :confused:

Such "social welfare organizations" are required to dedicate the majority of their time to the non-profit activity and not political activity in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

A 501(c)(4) social welfare organization generally pays no taxes on its income, but may not offer its donors a tax deduction. Social welfare organizations may conduct unlimited lobbying and may engage in partisan political campaign work, but only as a secondary activity.

If an organization’s primary purpose or activity is partisan political activity, the organization does not qualify as a 501(c)(4). Partisan activity is defined as anything that tends to show support or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates.

The issue becomes how the "primary purpose" threshold is defined and enforced. The GOP wants a very liberal interpretation and have pushed the envelope on the law (that's what the whole IRS brouhaha was about), whereas the Dems want a stricter interpretation of the rule.

I'm amazed at how little you know about stuff you claim to know and care about. You're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

HAHAHAH! You made me laugh out loud...the more lame you are the louder I laugh. That was almost as funny as cancer.

My suggestion for you is that you proceed with the species transplant procedure at your earliest convenience. Its your only chance at ever becoming an actual human being.

I think I know what you mean. You're saying that in addition to always being wrong, we argue in bad faith and use stupid rhetorical tricks.

I would have zero respect for someone like that. I'd never even try to seriously discuss anything with them.

It's amazing how little you read and comprehend. As I stated above, the parties will fight endlessly about the EXISTING rules since they are written broadly and subject to interpretation. They were probably written that way quite purposefully. It will likely take a grass-roots effort to get a law on the ballot that will clarify the rules and reduce the likelihood of broad interpretations.

No, the Dems DON'T want a stricter interpretation. The Dems want to limit political speech, thus creating more talk-track-spitting half-wits like you.