Reply With Quote
a searchable ST thread elucidates this, if you care to search it.
I didn't expect boutons to answer substantively. As for you, Citizens United didn't cover anonymity, in fact, expressly left that open... but perhaps you can show otherwise . . .
a searchable ST thread elucidates this, if you care to search it.
Sock Puppets don't use search.
So do corporations have to disclose where their campaign donations are going?
boutons being so under you're skin that you're defending the bull citizens united ruling
It's not just about hating on the Koch brothers, RG....what Citizen's United and other judicial and legislative rulings have done is given unfair speech to corporations usurping, many believe, the voice and the will of the people, and undermining our Republic....we've already shown that the US is in fact now an Oligarchy..the Koch brothers spend 100's of millions of dollars to influence political discourse and effect the outcome of local, state, and federal elections...they deserve to be exposed, forget the M$M business as usual model of these guys leading things in anonymity...if your gonna spend tons of money to influence elections in the US your life, private and otherwise, should become open to scrutiny...
Not to mention, Soros is extremely transparent with where his campaign finance goes because he has nothing to hide. The Kochs disguise their political contributions via intermediaries as much as possible and try to claim they had nothing to do with the creation of the tea party.
. Did you even sniff my link on page one?
I'll pull a Teysha and respond with an ad-hominem without reading it:
Soros spends dark money, denies his links?
Steyer seems to be equally open
Yup. Steyer was on Bill Maher last night publicly announcing where his money was going.
I'll pull a Teysha and respond with an ad-hominem without reading it:
It doesn't say what you want it to.
Ummmm....dark money and links are mutually exclusive by definition.
Opensecrets should be on the progressive rss feed, Dok. I'll let you fumble around until you can figure out why.
Dark Money Group Sues IRS Over Targeting, Disclosure
A conservative nonprofit sued the Internal Revenue Service Monday because the agency targeted it for extra scrutiny and disclosed the group's application for tax-exempt status to ProPublica.
The group, Freedom Path, was launched by backers of Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and ran ads supporting Hatch and other Republicans in 2012.
Freedom Path is one of dozens of social welfare nonprofits, also known as "dark money" groups, that have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars from anonymous sources into direct election ads and indirect ads that criticize or praise certain candidates since the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling in 2010.
The groups are allowed to spend money on election activity, as long as they promise that social welfare, and not politics, is their primary purpose. The nonprofits don't have to report their donors, raising concerns about possible corruption.
Freedom Path's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Dallas and sparked in part by IRS revelations last year that it targeted conservative nonprofit applications for a harder look, claims that the group suffered damages from responding to the IRS requests for more information on its application to be recognized as a tax-exempt social welfare nonprofit.
Freedom Path, formed in 2011, was one of many conservative groups with applications flagged by the IRS, using key words like "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or phrases like "limited government." Since the IRS' May 2013 admission that it targeted the groups, several Tea Party groups have also filed lawsuits that some experts have given little chance of prevailing.
In its lawsuit, filed against the IRS and agency officials, Freedom Path also said it was damaged by the IRS releasing its pending application to ProPublica.
http://www.propublica.org/article/da...ailynewsletter
'Money is Not Speech': Retired Justice Stevens Slams Dark Money Rulings
Published on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 by Common Dreams
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
More:"Money is not speech."
That was the argument presented by former Supreme Court Justice John Stevens as he attacked the high court's recent ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which crippled campaign finance limits, during his testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on Wednesday.
"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same cons utional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."
The retired justice made a rare appearance before Congress to champion a proposed cons utional amendment, put forth by Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.), that would grant Congress the authority to regulate campaign finance, limiting the ability of super PACs to impact elections.
During the hearing, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that the Senate would vote on the amendment later this year. The law would reportedly roll back the McCutcheon ruling, as well as other landmark campaign finance decisions recently issued by the Supreme Court, including Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo—which have all contributed to the explosion of donations by undisclosed, deep-pocketed groups, or 'dark money.'
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/30-7
I agree 100%
why the voyeurism? private lives are private. I don't GAF what the Kock Bros, or any public figure, does at home, in the bedroom, in the bathtub.
Except for when it's Donald Sterling correct?
The Koch brothers are assholes who go around funding ins utions to push their own private form of fascism, but they're hardly alone. Soros does it from the left. Most all rich people do it too but a bit more secretly through their non-profit foundations, think tanks, etc. The Kochs and Soros are just more overtly political about it.
Sterling's racism (personal stance) directly affects The Negroes on his payroll. And his racism about his real estate empire customers is well known, ie, public, going back decades.
ing a golddigger while he's married is none of anybody's business but his.
His racism was shared in the privacy of his own home, you can't have it both ways. The only person's payroll affected by skin color on the Clippers was JJ Red , whom Sterling thought he was overpaying for because of the color of his skin. It's hilarious to see you rail against the NSA yet cheer when Sterling's private conversation is recorded and released.
specifically, Soros pushes what authoritarian or fascist policies?
Where is the border between a public life and a private life?
If you want to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence others' public/private lives, I think that crosses a line into " that an informed person should know about" territory.
Difficult to define. But applying one's morality and ethics to another should not be grounds for voting against a politician whose govt policies you agree with (I love his/her policies, but he/she gay, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, atheist, same sex partner, sexually (but not forcibly) multi-partner, etc.
Private lives should remain private.
Give examples of what you mean by "influence others' public/private lives"
To be clear:
We are talking about when groups have to disclose lists of donors right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions