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.