Another Election Cycle, Another "Dark Money" Windfall

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

Originally Posted by bobabode

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.

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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.[B] Bob, go jump off a bridge...

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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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).

...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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

...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.

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).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

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?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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?

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.