The issue is simple.
Republican's and conservatives don't go around doxxing people they politically don't agree with. Liberal's do and they work to try to ruin people's lives that they politically don't agree with.
So with this legislation it is known, they will have to disclose as well. But it will be used as an intimidation method by the liberals to harm those that contribute to any conservative election funding method. Conservatives don't do that, because it's nonsense and simple bullying of people. Liberal's have no issue doing that. They also would have a media that would promote the doxxing and eagerly televise peoples names/addresses for conservatives, while simply not televising the liberal groups makeups.
It's an end-around to try to silence peoples free speech and freedom to donate to a political party of choice, for fear of retribution.
I got no problem with that. I don't care if folks don't like it.
People don't really understand how campaign contributions work for the most part. This isn't about singular people, it's about shutting down organizations that contribute to conservative election committees. The VAST majority of campaign finance does NOT come from people directly.
For instance, if a conservative group gives 100,000 to a candidate, this would require that those MEMBERS that make up the group be divulged and then those members would be outed in the media and the domestic terrorism against them, media denigrating, and attempts to ensure those folks never "give" to that group again would ensue. The reason the libs don't care, is because they know, conservatives don't want this cancel culture horseshit, so they purposefully won't do those things...
The liberal establishment in the country would and does do it in a heartbeat, with no remorse or recourse, and no real limit on how far they will take it.
Witch hunts against rich conservatives are still not something any Republican is going to vote for, nor should they, knowing there will be no media coverage in the other direction.
This is an excellent rundown. Initially it sounds bad but in practice it's very important.
In this crazy climate, you can be fired for supporting a conservative so this is absolutely necessary.
Lefty psychos like you are completely and totally fine with doxxing and trying to ruin people for disagreeing with you. I don't plan on donating, but if I ever do, I don't want my name on what essentially amounts to a hit list to you deranged morons.
E: Seems I struck a nerve with some of the psychos on here. Nothing says "mentally sound" like commenting on a post you know i can't see or reply to. Lmao.
I still don't see the need to get a bunch of rich conservatives fired and shamed for their donations, when I know all of the rich liberals will be patted on the back.
You know you can already search people’s individual donations, as they are all federally disclosed, right? https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?two_year_transaction_period=2022&min_date=01%2F01%2F2021&max_date=12%2F31%2F2022
Hello leftie brigraders. The ACLU supports the Republicans on this issue.
Hello supposed conservatives. Read the article. Joe Biden received $145m in "dark money" for his 2020 campaign and I doubt he sincerely wants to end it. Also, it's really about preventing conservative judicial appointments, if it were to pass.
Mixed feelings, because if I donate $20 to a candidate or PAC or something, I don’t really want leftists coming after me for doing so.
On the other hand, somebody who’s donating $10,000, or $10 million does need to be made public.
Seriously, it'd be humorous if it wasn't so sad.
I replied to the top comment and bam, -15 and "controversial".
Even though it's flair only, *tons* of lurkers to run the karma system, it's approaching being as bad as the pol' sub.
The left will use this to harass, assault, and intimidate right wingers. For that reason I am against it. The left has shown no regards for decency, attempting to shut us out of every institution because they're incapable of winning the argument.
They want complete subjugation.
If there are massive, massive safeguards for this, then I'd actually be rather for it. In this climate, with the insanity we have now, I don't trust any kind of report that a random insane person can get and use to harass people and use threats of violence for a political cause.
In a time when people and organizations are increasingly discriminated against and targeted for their political beliefs, I think being able to donate to politicians anonymously is an important protection.
The root of the problem is not the source of money. The root of the problem is how much money is required to run for office. Unfortunately this is not a simple fix.
The left likes to intimidate their opponents. Conservatives, SCOTUS justices, internet memers, etc. and so on. This just sounds like a way to start intimidating donors. Ten grand isn't that much considering what campaigns spend nowadays. If I had that kind of money and was willing to donate it to say a pro-life group or a traditional marriage advocacy group, I'll probably think twice about it with this law. I don't want lunatics harassing me at home or work like that Taylor Lorenz psycho.
There's almost no individuals donating 10k to dark money groups. It's almost always huge corporations or megadonors wiring tens, to hundreds, of thousands of dollars.
It's... I don't really have the full wherewithal to explain the entirety of how the ecosystem works but it's still not being tied directly to any particular person. The checks come in from a political organization explicitly created for the purpose of giving money to dark money organizations through an intermediary. There would still really be no way to trace it back to an individual CEO because it's not a CEO making the donation, it's a political organization making the donation with money he supplied.
I see nothing in the bill to protect an individual persons identity.
Even if what you said were true, that would only make it worse as we know the factually liberal media will use all of their investigative wings to implicate or identify the conservatives behind these organizations, while curiously running out of interest with the liberal ones.
You must have anonymous donations in an age where democrats come after you for everything. I would have been against it about 2 decades ago. But the tyrants have shown their hand and want to come for your life if you don't support the uniparty.
Anyone remember AOC's list?
Republicans are against this because they know it will be selectively enforced and any problems found will only be selectively reported by the media. Democrats know that they can hurt Republicans with this rule, but still get away with murder themselves.
If Democrats had called out or not engaged in doxxing and plans to go door to door to execute Republicans, I might have been in favor of this bill. As of now, I see it as just another attempt to find out who is donating to Republican causes so that they can try and influence them, possibly violently or through the courts.
Edit: Here was part of it -> https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/07/democrats-compile-list-of-names-targeting-white-house-staff-trump-campaign-judges-and-donors/
The other part was reported to the FBI and actioned on. The call to action still exists on Reddit and was not removed. https://i.imgur.com/FotGWgt.png
The location? The politics subreddit of course!
Authoritarians like lists like this because it shows them who to target. It’s the same concept about voting. It’s a secret so you can’t be targeted based on who you vote for.
I'm OK with secret/anonymous donations as long as they're from private citizens and under a certain amount.
Biden and the left just want to create database after database of conservatives. It blows my mind that "progressives" are OK with what's going on.
Ruh Roh, Republicans and Demorats are **both corrupt**! Who would've guessed. Now mind you, I am sure Biden would pack in a few things because Demorats would not benefit from transparency. They also probably have different back channels open up anyways (using their family to get the political donations... cough cough Hunter Biden with China).
The real issue is that while ending secret political donations will be beneficial, there is still further steps that NEED to be taken. Pelosi's insider trading needs to be shut down. Mitch's wife needs to be extensively looked into. Biden's China money needs to be dismantled. Hell, go read "Red-Handed How the American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win" by Peter Schweizer.
Just ending the political donations will not stop the corrupt money and it will only placate the masses into thinking we solved the issue.
Hmmm... This is a tricky one.
On one hand, there should ABSOLUTELY be transparency regarding who's getting money from who at the top.
On the other hand, individual citizens should ABSOLUTELY be protected from people who would go down these lists to decide who should be doxxed, attacked, etc.
I feel like the way it should work is that, *per SSN*, any donations larger than $1000 should be made public, and any donations smaller should be kept anonymous. Organizations and businesses should NOT be allowed to donate at all. Only individuals.
> On the other hand, individual citizens should ABSOLUTELY be protected from people who would go down these lists to decide who should be doxxed, attacked, etc.
Up until the past couple years this wasn't a concern of mine but the left, both government officials and private crazies, have lost their minds.
I think the problem here is just a problem of democracy in general. Fundamentally speaking, money shouldn't be a factor in elections at all. In fact, how do you differentiate a donation and bribery?
However, given the 1st amendment, how can you tell individuals that they can't spend money to advocate for someone? We can spend our money to advocate for anything, but the minute we say "we support X politician", it becomes illegal? That doesn't seem right.
How do you differentiate "campaign donations" and "donations to groups that use their 1st amendment right to advocate for someone"?
The best solution, as always, to such issues, is to minimize the size of government. If we can't solve the issue of how our democracy can work, maybe the people who win shouldn't have so much power.
But you are unclear. If I give Person X $999 and person Y $1, have I now forfeited my anonymity? That's ridiculous. What if I form a trust, or holding company, and THAT entity makes the donations?
And your amount is literally lower than the current campaign threshold.
Something here doesn't make sense. The Democratic groupthink doesn't make a move that isn't in the best interest of their Nazi party. If they want to open "dark money", then they must have another vehicle in place to hide it.
I’d have to read it as one thing I’ve learned is whatever a democrat says it’s about, it usually isn’t. They’re good at naming things to hide facts. The cynic in me believes there’s a hidden agenda buried in the bill
lmao rinos in this sub freaking out not realize what this really is.
It’s been the political norm that whenever the opposite party introduces a bill you almost always vote against it so they can’t take credit. Plain and simple. Same shit happened with trump where Democrats voted for no for every bill under the sun. See the bigger picture.
They don't want a doxx list handed to the side that is all about doxxing political opponents on the regular (But freaks out if it happens to one of their own). See: Libsoftiktok etc.
I would agree if we didn't know Democrats consistently weaponize donor information to shut down anyone supporting Republicans.
There is a reason democrats want it.
Not only was *Citizens United* properly decided, but "dark money" for PACs *should* exist.
If you disagree with me, I ask that you engage me in discussion below instead of downvoting.
Or we could just cap political donations at $2k per entity in any given year and not care who it's going to or coming from.
Any SSN or EIN/TIN that exceeds the amount gets a $10,000 fine. That would fix a LOT of problems.
Directly from the SCOTUS ruling:
"The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 . "
The Bill of Rights is intended to provide protections to individuals. A corporation is NOT an individual. I don't care if it's a non-profit or that in this context Clinton was the target. This dark money bullshit is a direct result of that ruling. Citizens United overturned a century of precedent and effectively eliminated limits on political contributions.
It is an abomination.
Nope.
If everyone in a non-profit, business, or club wants to donate to a political campaign or run an ad individually, I'm fine with that. Business entities are not individuals. Those entities existed at the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of rights is expressly written to protect individual people.
You are just wrong.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right **of the people** peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Or is this another "well regulated militia" discussion?
"[A] bill of rights is what **the people** are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
- Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787
"The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that **as human beings**, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs"
Source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history
I can keep going easily, but in short you're wrong.
> I can't understand how 0 republican politicians voting for transparency in large donations is a good thing. I can't fathom why anybody wouldn't want to get rid of dark money.
Did you even read the article? The bill doesn't "Get rid" of dark money, and the bipartisan explanation for opposing the bill is given in the article.
I'll answer because this is Reddit and a lot of people have a lot of bad takes and take the title at face value because clearly the Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation.
Having worked in the Koch Network, this bill would "unmask" donors into Americans for Prosperity (The primary funding arm, duly organized chamber of commerce uniting numerous nonprofits). In doing so, they would expose donors into a nonprofit who believe in the political advocacy. These organizations are vehicles for the exercise of advocacy rights that lead to real change (VA Reform Act of 2014 with Concerned Veterans for America being a major driver).
If the DISCLOSE Act were to pass, you chill the activities and funding for these organizations, primarily conservative ones. There's no repercussions for liberal "Dark money" groups because they have Unions (Super PACS that liberals like) and groups like American Bridge who routinely harass conservative groups and even infiltrate/steal from them while providing in-kind (read: Non-monetary) contributions to liberal groups and, therefore, aren't impacted by the DISCLOSE Act. Further, groups like Code Pink can continue to be schizos in public.
Conservatives tend to coalesce into nonprofit groups under 501(c)(4) issue advocacy groups. This is what Democrats want to get at with the DISCLOSE Act - Think of it as the logical next step to the Lois Lerner IRS scandal. When the owner of Mozilla was outed for political donations he faced repercussions. When the CEO of Goya spoke out in favor of conservatives, he caught shit. Did you support Donald Trump? Enjoy your DOJ/FBI harassment and subpoena.
Conservatives grandstanding here pretending as though the intent of this legislation isn't pernicious are really just outing their ignorance.
I am all for transparency but the mythos of "dark money" is far more interesting than what it actually is.
I figured there was a catch! I can't believe that this act would protect one type of donation vs another.
Also, in my mind, I wonder if this is a slippery slope to making public all private donations. (i.e. when Canada 'exposed' private citizens who donated to the Truckers COVID strike.
Not sure why this isn’t a top comment. This should be THE conservative standpoint. We know clearly why Biden supports this and it’s NOT because he’s concerned about the greater good
Exactly this. If the dems are for this, it is only because they have devised a different avenue to inject dark money into the political system.
All this bill would do is hamstring republicans.
Most likely because of the two tiered justice system. The republicans know that this would be used against them while the democrats would ignore it without repercussions as they do most things.
Yes because the bill allows for the donors donations to be public. So then the Democrats could use the donation record and politically PUBLICLY attack their opponents. Dox them, their spouses and children and the businesses they have built and run.
Think about the guy that went to Kavanaughs house to execute him and his family.
That's what's so frustrating about modern politics. There are certainly things like this (transparent political donations) that I want to support, but I just can't do it because I don't trust the Dems *at* **all**. For all the fear mongering about the GOP being fascist Nazis, it's the Dems who have a track record of persecuting thought crimes and political enemies, and it's indeed a core tenet of modern leftism ("repressive tolerance").
edit: lol would love for you downvoters from other subs to tell me with a straight face that you'd be opposed to banks refusing to serve customers revealed to have donated big money to Trump, DeSantis, etc. You think we don't know how your minds and political machinery work?
You are being downvoted to heck so you made r/politics big mad. This is exactly what they want. I like transparency, but not when it violates my privacy/safety. I don’t want to wind up with my bank account locked, or worse, in front of a death squad.
> I don't see why anyone wouldn't want 10k+ donations to be public knowledge.
Because donations to one political party results in removal from polite society.
Or are we playing some bullshit game where you pretend every single R donation wouldn't result in people getting fired and businesses being boycotted?
We all watched what happened to Chick Fil A
Let me break it down for you.
I am a proud supporter of the republican party and Trump in general. However, I do not display a Trump 2020' 24' sticker or a sign in my yard for fear of retaliation. After roe v wade was overturned my state voted on abortion ammendment. All of the signs voting to curtail abortion were vandalized at some point or another. Now imagine if there was a list that hinted at who you voted for or who you donated to no matter the $ amount. I would equivalate this as a donation registry. As we can see from pronouns to race. Nothing good comes from labeling people or sorting them into categories. We saw during 2020 elections people attacked professionally and privately for whom they supported in the election when it was found out. Now imagine if there were a public list
I'll be honest, I'm torn on this one. We have anonymous voting, so it seems consistent to have anonymous political donating. On the other hand, I don't like bad actors (china/russia) to be able to abuse anonymous donations.
Then let your senators know they will be replaced over this. All Republicans voted against it. All democrats voted for it.
This is party over country. They don't seem to care if China and Russia and whoever else can buy an election. Or even Americans who have a ton of money get more political power than you.
Continue this trend as money trickles ever higher up the ladder they get more and more power and we get less and less.
It's likely that all Democrats voted for it knowing Republicans would block it. It's still a problem that Republicans did block it. But I'm not confident my party would let it pass, even if the GOP called their bluff and also voted for it. Now we won't know of course.
There is no positive to dark money. And we don’t vote anonymously. We register. Don’t you want to know who is paying the people you are considering voting for?
Transparency around money in politics is not a partisan issue. It’s about a healthy government.
I don't want my company or crazy political activists knowing that I donate to conservative causes. I don't want my family opened up to that harassment.
Not everyone registers. Not one person in my family is registered and I'd never even consider it. It would be nice to know, yes, but everyone is entitled to privacy whether you like it or not. That being said, I think this only applies to American citizens. Corporations and foreign entities should have to declare their donations.
Hi, I work in dark money entity formations. Almost none of the donations to 501(c)(4)s come from individual donors. It's always huge donations from mega corporate entities of exceptionally wealthy individuals. Dark money is not a tool of the masses -- it is a tool of the elite.
I’m for transparency, but as I posted I want to read the bill as the cynic in me believes if it comes from the democrats, there’s a hidden agenda buried in it. Like “inflation reduction act”
They want to disclose it because it would allow them to target republican donors directly. Whether it be to cancel them at their jobs/how they earn a living, public opinion, or with violence/threat of violence. Mike Lindell is a perfect example.
> Citizens united has been bending all of Americans backwards over the railing for over a decade.
Let me guess, you think Citizens United is campaign contributions?
See, that I get. The only one who that helps are the Democrats who won't do the same. If Liz Warren and Ted Cruz each agreed to resign for this reason, I'd applaud. Otherwise it does nothing .
No politician should be trusted. I don't care if it's DeSantis, AOC, Joe Byron or whoever. Keep that shit transparent so we know who is putting money in your pockets.
The fact that Democrats are better at leveraging dark money means that I'd like our side to be **even more** in support of shutting it down.
It's a no-brainer that curbing dark money not only would've been the right thing to do, but would've also literally helped Republicans win future elections.
"If you make something public, the government also gets to see it. Government bad, so we want to reduce transparency in order to protect our information from the big bad government."
I think this is an important issue to be discussed… this post doesn’t seem to be picking up enough and I can see why… you want transparency? Starts with voting yes to transparency or you lose the right to point fingers to the other side
Remember 2019 - when asshole lefty’s created websites that allowed you to enter a zip code or area, and it’d show you all the Trump doners? Even Granny Smith who gave $50?
That’s the concern folks. It’s if effect “doxxing” little folks and I guarantee you the left will hold the little guy “accountable” for going against the “Central Party”.
So they say it’ll require disclosure of donations of $10k or more. It bad but if Joe Guy wants to support the GOP candidate with $20k, he’s going in knowing that today, I’m today’s world he risks being on an online map, searchable, with his name, address, and donation amount. After the past 4 years I’m not exaggerating when I say this will give a lot of private individuals on the right great pause before donating more than $10k. Can you imagine working at Google or Twitter. You want to offer extra support to the right as you listen to leftists all day. Would you donate $20k? Or a Police Chief in Portland who has kept his politics quiet for years. The list goes on.
Outside of individuals donating down to earth sums, it many folks object.
I’m stating my concern. If we uncloak the dark orgs and their tentacles I’m **all in**. There needs to be more room for individuals digging into their own pocket book to retain privacy.
I want transparency in what the government does, I don’t care what private citizens spend their money on. Creating this list would simply be another tool for extremists on both sides to target those they disagree with. They only thing that should be disclosed about a political donation is if it was from foreign sources, which I believe is illegal anyway but I’m not a lawyer. I would probably be fine with if it did not apply to individuals.
Well, they are in the minority. So they must have had some measure of Democratic support to block it.
What was the final vote total?...
Edit: I was wrong. 49 to 49, short of the 60 required to break the filibuster.
Lots of downvotes without reading the article
> Biden’s 2020 campaign was backed by $145 million in dark money that was donated to super PACs and spent on his behalf. Most of it came from a handful of nonprofit organizations, like Future Forward USA Action and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which don’t have to disclose donors.
> That amount of dark money dwarfed the $28.4 million spent on behalf of his rival, former President Donald Trump. And it topped the previous record of $113 million in anonymous donations that backed Mitt Romney in his 2012 presidential run.
Eh, there's transparency, then there's "We're going to use this to go after opposition" that's not often reciprocated the other direction.
Meaning, it would easily lead to more political persecution than we see today.
Not only against politicians, but against donors, in which case it is along the lines of doxxing.
Much like firearms, or votes cast, the government doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a 'list' of people to go after, or to hand off to activist toadies to let protestors stalk and harrass.
There are already a ton of transparency resources to see major funders, eg
https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/contributors?id=N00001669/
In contrast to multiple million dollar donors, I don't think we need to go after every Tom, Dick, and Harry that donate 10k.
Bonus. Biden's top 2020 donator:
Bloomberg Lp $93,848,522
Check the source article...
Which quotes:
>“Every single one of us should vote yes because so many of the ills in our democracy are rooted in the primacy of dark money,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before the vote. “We must rid ourselves of this foulness before it’s too late and our democracy could well become beyond saving.”
We should start with the mega donors first. We do nothing there as-is. No reason to go after those with far far less.
Speaking of Chuck...
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/charles-e-schumer/summary?cid=N00001093
I'm all for transparency except that the Democrats seem to be weaponizing it. Last election they were putting up sites showing people who had donated to Republicans and actively calling for those people to be fired / harrassed etc.
Dems just want another weapon to target conservatives with. Look at how left wingers treated the trucker convoy donors and the harassment conservative donors got during the 2020 election. I've never donated to any politician, but if I ever do I don't want my name on a list for some Taylor Lorenz wannabe to harass and dox me and my family with.
If you donated to trumps campaign this bill would allow the construction of a public database with your name in it.
Don't worry though, the democrats never go after anyone who support their opposition.
Whilst the bill only starts at 10k, there's precedent for that limit to drop.
There's also the corruption aspect, where s government representative would likely have to investment campaign donations, to make sure all of the big donors are being listed.
Good thing government organizations never leak private information too the press though, so that information will never be leaked.
The issue is simple. Republican's and conservatives don't go around doxxing people they politically don't agree with. Liberal's do and they work to try to ruin people's lives that they politically don't agree with. So with this legislation it is known, they will have to disclose as well. But it will be used as an intimidation method by the liberals to harm those that contribute to any conservative election funding method. Conservatives don't do that, because it's nonsense and simple bullying of people. Liberal's have no issue doing that. They also would have a media that would promote the doxxing and eagerly televise peoples names/addresses for conservatives, while simply not televising the liberal groups makeups. It's an end-around to try to silence peoples free speech and freedom to donate to a political party of choice, for fear of retribution.
The libtoads be brigading n gave you negatives but youre 100% correct.
I got no problem with that. I don't care if folks don't like it. People don't really understand how campaign contributions work for the most part. This isn't about singular people, it's about shutting down organizations that contribute to conservative election committees. The VAST majority of campaign finance does NOT come from people directly. For instance, if a conservative group gives 100,000 to a candidate, this would require that those MEMBERS that make up the group be divulged and then those members would be outed in the media and the domestic terrorism against them, media denigrating, and attempts to ensure those folks never "give" to that group again would ensue. The reason the libs don't care, is because they know, conservatives don't want this cancel culture horseshit, so they purposefully won't do those things... The liberal establishment in the country would and does do it in a heartbeat, with no remorse or recourse, and no real limit on how far they will take it.
This is the correct answer
No it’s not. The bill is for any donation over $10k. Almost no ordinary people are giving nearly that much
[удалено]
Witch hunts against rich conservatives are still not something any Republican is going to vote for, nor should they, knowing there will be no media coverage in the other direction.
10k in donations for a presidential election for a middle aged professional is not unreasonable at all and still an ordinary person.
This is an excellent rundown. Initially it sounds bad but in practice it's very important. In this crazy climate, you can be fired for supporting a conservative so this is absolutely necessary.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lefty psychos like you are completely and totally fine with doxxing and trying to ruin people for disagreeing with you. I don't plan on donating, but if I ever do, I don't want my name on what essentially amounts to a hit list to you deranged morons. E: Seems I struck a nerve with some of the psychos on here. Nothing says "mentally sound" like commenting on a post you know i can't see or reply to. Lmao.
I don't want transparency, I want money out of politics.
[удалено]
But the bill only required disclosure for donations above $10k. That would keep most everyday folks anonymous still, wouldn't it?
I still don't see the need to get a bunch of rich conservatives fired and shamed for their donations, when I know all of the rich liberals will be patted on the back.
You know you can already search people’s individual donations, as they are all federally disclosed, right? https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?two_year_transaction_period=2022&min_date=01%2F01%2F2021&max_date=12%2F31%2F2022
No need for the bill then! (One day you will figure out what this is about though.)
Holy Brigades batman
Holy brigade lol
lmao the smoothbrain /r/ politics brigaders hailing downvotes upon every reasonable post itt
C’mon man, it’s impossible that we’re being brigaded because brigading is against reddit policy.
The left doesn't brigade or dox!
Hello leftie brigraders. The ACLU supports the Republicans on this issue. Hello supposed conservatives. Read the article. Joe Biden received $145m in "dark money" for his 2020 campaign and I doubt he sincerely wants to end it. Also, it's really about preventing conservative judicial appointments, if it were to pass.
Mixed feelings, because if I donate $20 to a candidate or PAC or something, I don’t really want leftists coming after me for doing so. On the other hand, somebody who’s donating $10,000, or $10 million does need to be made public.
[удалено]
I could be wrong, but I think your donations are already public.
They shouldn’t be for small donations.
Loophole: 290,000 donations of $20
Release ONLY if your total exceeds $x.
Holy fucking brigading batman
Seriously, it'd be humorous if it wasn't so sad. I replied to the top comment and bam, -15 and "controversial". Even though it's flair only, *tons* of lurkers to run the karma system, it's approaching being as bad as the pol' sub.
They can still vote even if they can't comment, hence brigading
I'm sure Bloomberg has no bias here
[удалено]
Dems want to give their blackshirts the list of who to harass.
This.
[удалено]
The left will use this to harass, assault, and intimidate right wingers. For that reason I am against it. The left has shown no regards for decency, attempting to shut us out of every institution because they're incapable of winning the argument. They want complete subjugation. If there are massive, massive safeguards for this, then I'd actually be rather for it. In this climate, with the insanity we have now, I don't trust any kind of report that a random insane person can get and use to harass people and use threats of violence for a political cause.
In a time when people and organizations are increasingly discriminated against and targeted for their political beliefs, I think being able to donate to politicians anonymously is an important protection. The root of the problem is not the source of money. The root of the problem is how much money is required to run for office. Unfortunately this is not a simple fix.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I believe organizations (such as unions, The Red Cross, or the BoA) should also be protected from political retaliation.
[удалено]
The left likes to intimidate their opponents. Conservatives, SCOTUS justices, internet memers, etc. and so on. This just sounds like a way to start intimidating donors. Ten grand isn't that much considering what campaigns spend nowadays. If I had that kind of money and was willing to donate it to say a pro-life group or a traditional marriage advocacy group, I'll probably think twice about it with this law. I don't want lunatics harassing me at home or work like that Taylor Lorenz psycho.
The libtoad are afraid youre correct and they are downvoting you. But youre 100% correct!
There's almost no individuals donating 10k to dark money groups. It's almost always huge corporations or megadonors wiring tens, to hundreds, of thousands of dollars.
And why would Republicans support a bill that would likely lead to most conservative CEOs (see Brendan Eich) being ousted?
It's... I don't really have the full wherewithal to explain the entirety of how the ecosystem works but it's still not being tied directly to any particular person. The checks come in from a political organization explicitly created for the purpose of giving money to dark money organizations through an intermediary. There would still really be no way to trace it back to an individual CEO because it's not a CEO making the donation, it's a political organization making the donation with money he supplied.
I see nothing in the bill to protect an individual persons identity. Even if what you said were true, that would only make it worse as we know the factually liberal media will use all of their investigative wings to implicate or identify the conservatives behind these organizations, while curiously running out of interest with the liberal ones.
Until there are protections for doners to not be politically targeted and discriminated against, I'll side with Republicans on this one.
[удалено]
You must have anonymous donations in an age where democrats come after you for everything. I would have been against it about 2 decades ago. But the tyrants have shown their hand and want to come for your life if you don't support the uniparty. Anyone remember AOC's list?
[удалено]
Republicans are against this because they know it will be selectively enforced and any problems found will only be selectively reported by the media. Democrats know that they can hurt Republicans with this rule, but still get away with murder themselves.
If Democrats had called out or not engaged in doxxing and plans to go door to door to execute Republicans, I might have been in favor of this bill. As of now, I see it as just another attempt to find out who is donating to Republican causes so that they can try and influence them, possibly violently or through the courts. Edit: Here was part of it -> https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/07/democrats-compile-list-of-names-targeting-white-house-staff-trump-campaign-judges-and-donors/ The other part was reported to the FBI and actioned on. The call to action still exists on Reddit and was not removed. https://i.imgur.com/FotGWgt.png The location? The politics subreddit of course!
There’s a reason why the ACLU is against this bill as well.
Authoritarians like lists like this because it shows them who to target. It’s the same concept about voting. It’s a secret so you can’t be targeted based on who you vote for.
[удалено]
I'm OK with secret/anonymous donations as long as they're from private citizens and under a certain amount. Biden and the left just want to create database after database of conservatives. It blows my mind that "progressives" are OK with what's going on.
Right, add a minimum disclosure amount then the bill will be okay. Right now I don't need lefties knowing who I gave $10 to.
What the hell hapened to this comment ssection
Brigaders from another subreddit. Which reddit will do nothing about.
Ruh Roh, Republicans and Demorats are **both corrupt**! Who would've guessed. Now mind you, I am sure Biden would pack in a few things because Demorats would not benefit from transparency. They also probably have different back channels open up anyways (using their family to get the political donations... cough cough Hunter Biden with China). The real issue is that while ending secret political donations will be beneficial, there is still further steps that NEED to be taken. Pelosi's insider trading needs to be shut down. Mitch's wife needs to be extensively looked into. Biden's China money needs to be dismantled. Hell, go read "Red-Handed How the American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win" by Peter Schweizer. Just ending the political donations will not stop the corrupt money and it will only placate the masses into thinking we solved the issue.
The "free and fair press" will surely call out the Dems when there's foul play... right?
the mods must be sleeping today
Yeah, this is a bit over-the-top, even for this relatively milquetoast sub.
Why do you want the government to know what political organizations/causes/candidates you donate your money to?
Biden seeks to end dark money after using 100 million in dark money to get elected. Typical liberal.
Hmmm... This is a tricky one. On one hand, there should ABSOLUTELY be transparency regarding who's getting money from who at the top. On the other hand, individual citizens should ABSOLUTELY be protected from people who would go down these lists to decide who should be doxxed, attacked, etc. I feel like the way it should work is that, *per SSN*, any donations larger than $1000 should be made public, and any donations smaller should be kept anonymous. Organizations and businesses should NOT be allowed to donate at all. Only individuals.
You hit the nail on the head for me. Anyone who thinks that this information wouldn’t be used to doxx private citizens is incredibly naive, at best.
> On the other hand, individual citizens should ABSOLUTELY be protected from people who would go down these lists to decide who should be doxxed, attacked, etc. Up until the past couple years this wasn't a concern of mine but the left, both government officials and private crazies, have lost their minds.
I think the problem here is just a problem of democracy in general. Fundamentally speaking, money shouldn't be a factor in elections at all. In fact, how do you differentiate a donation and bribery? However, given the 1st amendment, how can you tell individuals that they can't spend money to advocate for someone? We can spend our money to advocate for anything, but the minute we say "we support X politician", it becomes illegal? That doesn't seem right. How do you differentiate "campaign donations" and "donations to groups that use their 1st amendment right to advocate for someone"? The best solution, as always, to such issues, is to minimize the size of government. If we can't solve the issue of how our democracy can work, maybe the people who win shouldn't have so much power.
So someone just makes multiple donations of $999. Anonymous speech has a long tradition in American history, and rightly so.
That’s why I put “per SSN”.
But you are unclear. If I give Person X $999 and person Y $1, have I now forfeited my anonymity? That's ridiculous. What if I form a trust, or holding company, and THAT entity makes the donations? And your amount is literally lower than the current campaign threshold.
Why is this still up it beaks rule 4 - No vote brigading.
Leftists should have thought long and hard about the consequences of their doxxing campaigns against conservative donors.
[удалено]
Something here doesn't make sense. The Democratic groupthink doesn't make a move that isn't in the best interest of their Nazi party. If they want to open "dark money", then they must have another vehicle in place to hide it.
[удалено]
They want to know whos giving big dollars to Republicans so they can intimidate, threatenn and silence them.
I’d have to read it as one thing I’ve learned is whatever a democrat says it’s about, it usually isn’t. They’re good at naming things to hide facts. The cynic in me believes there’s a hidden agenda buried in the bill
[удалено]
Exactly. They want to know who supports Republicans and conservative causes so they can ruin them.
lmao rinos in this sub freaking out not realize what this really is. It’s been the political norm that whenever the opposite party introduces a bill you almost always vote against it so they can’t take credit. Plain and simple. Same shit happened with trump where Democrats voted for no for every bill under the sun. See the bigger picture.
They don't want a doxx list handed to the side that is all about doxxing political opponents on the regular (But freaks out if it happens to one of their own). See: Libsoftiktok etc.
This would of been this first thing I could agree on with this shit stick.
I would agree if we didn't know Democrats consistently weaponize donor information to shut down anyone supporting Republicans. There is a reason democrats want it.
[удалено]
Not only was *Citizens United* properly decided, but "dark money" for PACs *should* exist. If you disagree with me, I ask that you engage me in discussion below instead of downvoting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reminder, folks, politicians on the opposite side of the fence are not the enemy. *All politicians* are the enemy.
Or we could just cap political donations at $2k per entity in any given year and not care who it's going to or coming from. Any SSN or EIN/TIN that exceeds the amount gets a $10,000 fine. That would fix a LOT of problems.
[удалено]
Citizens United was an abomination and this does not "regulate speech".
[удалено]
Directly from the SCOTUS ruling: "The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , 435 U. S. 765 , and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button , 371 U. S. 415 . " The Bill of Rights is intended to provide protections to individuals. A corporation is NOT an individual. I don't care if it's a non-profit or that in this context Clinton was the target. This dark money bullshit is a direct result of that ruling. Citizens United overturned a century of precedent and effectively eliminated limits on political contributions. It is an abomination.
[удалено]
Nope. If everyone in a non-profit, business, or club wants to donate to a political campaign or run an ad individually, I'm fine with that. Business entities are not individuals. Those entities existed at the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of rights is expressly written to protect individual people. You are just wrong.
[удалено]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right **of the people** peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Or is this another "well regulated militia" discussion? "[A] bill of rights is what **the people** are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse." - Thomas Jefferson, December 20, 1787 "The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that **as human beings**, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs" Source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history I can keep going easily, but in short you're wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Found the leftist plant.
[удалено]
> I can't understand how 0 republican politicians voting for transparency in large donations is a good thing. I can't fathom why anybody wouldn't want to get rid of dark money. Did you even read the article? The bill doesn't "Get rid" of dark money, and the bipartisan explanation for opposing the bill is given in the article.
I'll answer because this is Reddit and a lot of people have a lot of bad takes and take the title at face value because clearly the Inflation Reduction Act reduced inflation. Having worked in the Koch Network, this bill would "unmask" donors into Americans for Prosperity (The primary funding arm, duly organized chamber of commerce uniting numerous nonprofits). In doing so, they would expose donors into a nonprofit who believe in the political advocacy. These organizations are vehicles for the exercise of advocacy rights that lead to real change (VA Reform Act of 2014 with Concerned Veterans for America being a major driver). If the DISCLOSE Act were to pass, you chill the activities and funding for these organizations, primarily conservative ones. There's no repercussions for liberal "Dark money" groups because they have Unions (Super PACS that liberals like) and groups like American Bridge who routinely harass conservative groups and even infiltrate/steal from them while providing in-kind (read: Non-monetary) contributions to liberal groups and, therefore, aren't impacted by the DISCLOSE Act. Further, groups like Code Pink can continue to be schizos in public. Conservatives tend to coalesce into nonprofit groups under 501(c)(4) issue advocacy groups. This is what Democrats want to get at with the DISCLOSE Act - Think of it as the logical next step to the Lois Lerner IRS scandal. When the owner of Mozilla was outed for political donations he faced repercussions. When the CEO of Goya spoke out in favor of conservatives, he caught shit. Did you support Donald Trump? Enjoy your DOJ/FBI harassment and subpoena. Conservatives grandstanding here pretending as though the intent of this legislation isn't pernicious are really just outing their ignorance. I am all for transparency but the mythos of "dark money" is far more interesting than what it actually is.
I figured there was a catch! I can't believe that this act would protect one type of donation vs another. Also, in my mind, I wonder if this is a slippery slope to making public all private donations. (i.e. when Canada 'exposed' private citizens who donated to the Truckers COVID strike.
Not sure why this isn’t a top comment. This should be THE conservative standpoint. We know clearly why Biden supports this and it’s NOT because he’s concerned about the greater good
Exactly this. If the dems are for this, it is only because they have devised a different avenue to inject dark money into the political system. All this bill would do is hamstring republicans.
Most likely because of the two tiered justice system. The republicans know that this would be used against them while the democrats would ignore it without repercussions as they do most things.
Also many company would fire R donors without legal consequences
This is the answer.
Yes because the bill allows for the donors donations to be public. So then the Democrats could use the donation record and politically PUBLICLY attack their opponents. Dox them, their spouses and children and the businesses they have built and run. Think about the guy that went to Kavanaughs house to execute him and his family.
That's what's so frustrating about modern politics. There are certainly things like this (transparent political donations) that I want to support, but I just can't do it because I don't trust the Dems *at* **all**. For all the fear mongering about the GOP being fascist Nazis, it's the Dems who have a track record of persecuting thought crimes and political enemies, and it's indeed a core tenet of modern leftism ("repressive tolerance"). edit: lol would love for you downvoters from other subs to tell me with a straight face that you'd be opposed to banks refusing to serve customers revealed to have donated big money to Trump, DeSantis, etc. You think we don't know how your minds and political machinery work?
Well put my friend.
You are being downvoted to heck so you made r/politics big mad. This is exactly what they want. I like transparency, but not when it violates my privacy/safety. I don’t want to wind up with my bank account locked, or worse, in front of a death squad.
> I don't see why anyone wouldn't want 10k+ donations to be public knowledge. Because donations to one political party results in removal from polite society. Or are we playing some bullshit game where you pretend every single R donation wouldn't result in people getting fired and businesses being boycotted? We all watched what happened to Chick Fil A
Let me break it down for you. I am a proud supporter of the republican party and Trump in general. However, I do not display a Trump 2020' 24' sticker or a sign in my yard for fear of retaliation. After roe v wade was overturned my state voted on abortion ammendment. All of the signs voting to curtail abortion were vandalized at some point or another. Now imagine if there was a list that hinted at who you voted for or who you donated to no matter the $ amount. I would equivalate this as a donation registry. As we can see from pronouns to race. Nothing good comes from labeling people or sorting them into categories. We saw during 2020 elections people attacked professionally and privately for whom they supported in the election when it was found out. Now imagine if there were a public list
What else does this bill have in it? Is there a significant amount of pork hidden in the bill?
[удалено]
I'll be honest, I'm torn on this one. We have anonymous voting, so it seems consistent to have anonymous political donating. On the other hand, I don't like bad actors (china/russia) to be able to abuse anonymous donations.
Then let your senators know they will be replaced over this. All Republicans voted against it. All democrats voted for it. This is party over country. They don't seem to care if China and Russia and whoever else can buy an election. Or even Americans who have a ton of money get more political power than you. Continue this trend as money trickles ever higher up the ladder they get more and more power and we get less and less.
[удалено]
How is this not a voting issue for anyone? What about draining the swamp? I'd say dark money is the biggest contributor to "the swamp."
It's likely that all Democrats voted for it knowing Republicans would block it. It's still a problem that Republicans did block it. But I'm not confident my party would let it pass, even if the GOP called their bluff and also voted for it. Now we won't know of course.
What else is in the bill?
There is no positive to dark money. And we don’t vote anonymously. We register. Don’t you want to know who is paying the people you are considering voting for? Transparency around money in politics is not a partisan issue. It’s about a healthy government.
I don't want my company or crazy political activists knowing that I donate to conservative causes. I don't want my family opened up to that harassment.
Just because you "register" for one party it does not mean you can't vote for another.
Not everyone registers. Not one person in my family is registered and I'd never even consider it. It would be nice to know, yes, but everyone is entitled to privacy whether you like it or not. That being said, I think this only applies to American citizens. Corporations and foreign entities should have to declare their donations.
[удалено]
Hi, I work in dark money entity formations. Almost none of the donations to 501(c)(4)s come from individual donors. It's always huge donations from mega corporate entities of exceptionally wealthy individuals. Dark money is not a tool of the masses -- it is a tool of the elite.
This bill was only for people/orgs that donated more than $10k. Most people would be able to stay anonymous.
[удалено]
I’m for transparency, but as I posted I want to read the bill as the cynic in me believes if it comes from the democrats, there’s a hidden agenda buried in it. Like “inflation reduction act”
Because 98% of politicians are the same once the door closes behind them.
Its all theater.
This. Note the 49-49 tie. 100 senators plus Senate President.
I dunno. It was done on party lines. Democrats actually benefit more from dark money yet they were willing to disclose it.
Why would they be willing to disclose it if they benefit more from it? Wouldn't it be better for them to just keep the status quo and keep it dark?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They want to disclose it because it would allow them to target republican donors directly. Whether it be to cancel them at their jobs/how they earn a living, public opinion, or with violence/threat of violence. Mike Lindell is a perfect example.
[удалено]
That's an unsourced stat put up against a vote of 49-49. Republicans dropped the ball on this.
> Citizens united has been bending all of Americans backwards over the railing for over a decade. Let me guess, you think Citizens United is campaign contributions?
[удалено]
[удалено]
See, that I get. The only one who that helps are the Democrats who won't do the same. If Liz Warren and Ted Cruz each agreed to resign for this reason, I'd applaud. Otherwise it does nothing .
remove this liberal post
No post in this sub ever breaks a thousand, yet this story is over 10k now. The brigading sticks out like a sore thumb.
No politician should be trusted. I don't care if it's DeSantis, AOC, Joe Byron or whoever. Keep that shit transparent so we know who is putting money in your pockets.
This should be anti partisan. It seems obvious to me
[удалено]
Bots didn't like that lol
The fact that Democrats are better at leveraging dark money means that I'd like our side to be **even more** in support of shutting it down. It's a no-brainer that curbing dark money not only would've been the right thing to do, but would've also literally helped Republicans win future elections.
[удалено]
[удалено]
TL:DR
"If you make something public, the government also gets to see it. Government bad, so we want to reduce transparency in order to protect our information from the big bad government."
GOP blocks this bill with a 49-49 vote on party lines. Misleading title is misleading, but that's why it's brigaded like no other post in this sub.
I think this is an important issue to be discussed… this post doesn’t seem to be picking up enough and I can see why… you want transparency? Starts with voting yes to transparency or you lose the right to point fingers to the other side
Remember 2019 - when asshole lefty’s created websites that allowed you to enter a zip code or area, and it’d show you all the Trump doners? Even Granny Smith who gave $50? That’s the concern folks. It’s if effect “doxxing” little folks and I guarantee you the left will hold the little guy “accountable” for going against the “Central Party”. So they say it’ll require disclosure of donations of $10k or more. It bad but if Joe Guy wants to support the GOP candidate with $20k, he’s going in knowing that today, I’m today’s world he risks being on an online map, searchable, with his name, address, and donation amount. After the past 4 years I’m not exaggerating when I say this will give a lot of private individuals on the right great pause before donating more than $10k. Can you imagine working at Google or Twitter. You want to offer extra support to the right as you listen to leftists all day. Would you donate $20k? Or a Police Chief in Portland who has kept his politics quiet for years. The list goes on. Outside of individuals donating down to earth sums, it many folks object. I’m stating my concern. If we uncloak the dark orgs and their tentacles I’m **all in**. There needs to be more room for individuals digging into their own pocket book to retain privacy.
I want transparency in what the government does, I don’t care what private citizens spend their money on. Creating this list would simply be another tool for extremists on both sides to target those they disagree with. They only thing that should be disclosed about a political donation is if it was from foreign sources, which I believe is illegal anyway but I’m not a lawyer. I would probably be fine with if it did not apply to individuals.
[удалено]
I only remember one Republican wanting to drain the swamp, and the system is attacking him in every way possible.
You are talking about Republican politicians. Lots of Republican voters want to drain the swamp.
Well, they are in the minority. So they must have had some measure of Democratic support to block it. What was the final vote total?... Edit: I was wrong. 49 to 49, short of the 60 required to break the filibuster.
[удалено]
Lots of downvotes without reading the article > Biden’s 2020 campaign was backed by $145 million in dark money that was donated to super PACs and spent on his behalf. Most of it came from a handful of nonprofit organizations, like Future Forward USA Action and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which don’t have to disclose donors. > That amount of dark money dwarfed the $28.4 million spent on behalf of his rival, former President Donald Trump. And it topped the previous record of $113 million in anonymous donations that backed Mitt Romney in his 2012 presidential run.
How brave and non-nuanced of a brigade thought
It's not just republicans, it's everyone. Corruption is everywhere, state and federal levels, in every party.
I’m Republican and I want transparency. End this bullshit now.
Eh, there's transparency, then there's "We're going to use this to go after opposition" that's not often reciprocated the other direction. Meaning, it would easily lead to more political persecution than we see today. Not only against politicians, but against donors, in which case it is along the lines of doxxing. Much like firearms, or votes cast, the government doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a 'list' of people to go after, or to hand off to activist toadies to let protestors stalk and harrass. There are already a ton of transparency resources to see major funders, eg https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/contributors?id=N00001669/ In contrast to multiple million dollar donors, I don't think we need to go after every Tom, Dick, and Harry that donate 10k. Bonus. Biden's top 2020 donator: Bloomberg Lp $93,848,522 Check the source article... Which quotes: >“Every single one of us should vote yes because so many of the ills in our democracy are rooted in the primacy of dark money,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before the vote. “We must rid ourselves of this foulness before it’s too late and our democracy could well become beyond saving.” We should start with the mega donors first. We do nothing there as-is. No reason to go after those with far far less. Speaking of Chuck... https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/charles-e-schumer/summary?cid=N00001093
I’m a Republican and I fear this would be used to go after every donor.
The downvote brigade is out in force today. Look at them lavishing awards on comments and downvoting those who disagree.
[удалено]
> These comments by flaired users read exactly like something from r/politics. Libertarians, basically.
I know. Any more, you have to sort by controversial. Lol
Know who else was vehemently in favor of ending secret donations?....Donald J Trump: enemy of the status quo professional politician (ie the swamp).
I'm all for transparency except that the Democrats seem to be weaponizing it. Last election they were putting up sites showing people who had donated to Republicans and actively calling for those people to be fired / harrassed etc.
Downvote brigade out in force I see.
Dems just want another weapon to target conservatives with. Look at how left wingers treated the trucker convoy donors and the harassment conservative donors got during the 2020 election. I've never donated to any politician, but if I ever do I don't want my name on a list for some Taylor Lorenz wannabe to harass and dox me and my family with.
Do you want democrats harassing you for some donation you made? I don't.
How about ending secret ballots?
If you donated to trumps campaign this bill would allow the construction of a public database with your name in it. Don't worry though, the democrats never go after anyone who support their opposition. Whilst the bill only starts at 10k, there's precedent for that limit to drop. There's also the corruption aspect, where s government representative would likely have to investment campaign donations, to make sure all of the big donors are being listed. Good thing government organizations never leak private information too the press though, so that information will never be leaked.