Reply With Quote
Just imagine if this was Patrick Jackson, husband of Justice Ketanji, and, say, George Soros. Rightwingers would be losing their minds.
amazing what $1.6b in dark money can do in just a few years. Ginni Thomas was involved at the ground floor.
The movement’s triumphs are now visible but its engine remains hidden: A billion-dollar network of groups, most of which are registered as tax-exempt charities or social welfare organizations. Taking advantage of gaps in disclosure laws, they shield the iden ies of most of their donors and some of the recipients of the funds. Among those who’ve been paid by the groups are leading thinkers and individuals with close personal ties to Leo — including a whopping $7 million to a group run by a close friend and his wife. They also include a for-profit business for which Leo himself is chairman and which received tens of millions of dollars from his nonprofit network.Leo’s role as the central figure in this movement has long been known, culminating in his acquisition last year of what many believe to be the largest political donation in history. Few are aware of the extent to which the movement’s baby steps were taken in concert with Ginni Thomas.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...nited-00108082
Two months before the Citizens United decision, but after the justices had signaled their intentions by requesting new arguments, attorney Cleta Mitc — laterto play a role in Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 elections — filed papers for Ginni Thomas to create a nonprofit group of a type that ultimately benefited from the decision. Leo was one of two directors listed on a separate application to conduct business in the state of Virginia. Thomas was president. She signed it on New Year’s Eve of 2009, and Crow provided much of the initial cash. A key Leo aide, Sarah Field, would come aboard to help Thomas manage the group, which they called Liberty Central.
After Liberty Central went public, it provoked an outcry over a Supreme Court justice’s wife promoting causes like overturning Obamacare that were before her husband’s court. Leo and Thomas changed gears. His network reactivated a dormant group, the Judicial Education Project, which would go on to become a major supplier of amicus briefs before the nation’s highest court. She created a for-profit consulting business using a similar name — Liberty Consulting — that enabled her to perform consulting work for conservative activist groups.
The Judicial Education Project supplied some of her business: Do ents indicate Leo ordered at least one recipient of his groups’ funds, Kellyanne Conway, to make payments to Ginni Thomas for unspecified work, according to a Washington Post story earlier this year.
Just imagine if this was Patrick Jackson, husband of Justice Ketanji, and, say, George Soros. Rightwingers would be losing their minds.
How about that. Ginny Thomas was receiving dark money from group thar supported Citizens United ruling.
Thomas did not credit Crow, Leo or the Citizens United decision for her new grassroots initiative. That year, she was paid $120,500 from Liberty Central, according to tax records.
claimed to work 60 hours a week for that $$$$.
https://www.politico.com/ginni-thoma...itizens-united
there used to be last month limits.
2010 take.
...and still is, thirteen years later.
Supreme Court Also Cucking MAGAs
New York ammunition background check to take effect tomorrow
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday rejected a gun shop-owning couple seeking to block New York's background check law for ammunition purchases one day before it goes into effect.
In a paperless order, Sotomayor rejected an application for a stay of several measures under the Empire State's Concealed Carry Improvement Act, which was signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) last July in response to Justice Clarence Thomas's 6-3 decision striking the state's century-old restrictive gun permit regime.
Wrong thread?
now you can flood the zone with bull .
is bull and ed up.
Conservatives pushing against campaign reform are losing sleep as muh guns was part of their agenda and they got cucked.
Expect more push back from the MAGAs on other issues because they see walls closing in (e.g., MM).
Topically disjunct, I don't accept your attempt to link the theme you picked, jmo.
So, IYO, you believe that representatives of the gun lobby were not in with Citizen United?
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
Germane, but seems a reach. I see separate tracks here.
In tactical sense, sure they are different. But strategically, it is the same fight and nice to see the Supreme Court justices say that 2A lobby is not all powerful.
Where there is money to be made, you will find shady deals involving politicians/judges and businessmen.
In this case, the gun lobby will most likely increase campaign funds to the politicians in their back pockets because of muh 2A business.
Sure, corporations will find ways around better campaign laws too but at least it will not be as brazen.
Treating political donations like charitable gifts.
What's the good government rationale for cloaking the iden ies of political megadonors trying to change the system to suit their jnterests and subsidizing their gifts?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...rst-legal-cpi/“Created in 2012, the Bradley Impact Fund is a donor-advised fund (DAF) “aligned” with the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has a long history of conservative influence and, of late, has become a source of money for organizations pushing Republicans to change election laws. Donor-advised funds, such as the Bradley Impact Fund, collect donations from various contributors and then make often untraceable gifts to other organizations. An increasingly popular charity tool—receiving a quarter of all individual giving in the United States—DAFs offer donors ‘multiple layers of anonymity,’ explains Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of the investigative watchdog Do ented. DAFs operate like private foundations but are classified as public charities. This allows the funds to give money without the same transparency requirements. And the donors, who can recommend where their contributions should go, are still awarded the publicly subsidized tax breaks associated with charitable giving.”
Russia & America, Winester; 6 of 1>>>half dozen of the other---AKA---whatever it takes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
