Why would the GOP be against disclosure of anonymous political donors?

A

archives

Verified User
"Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors"

"Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block the consideration of a bill to promptly require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose the identities of donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle."

"The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), has been a top Democratic priority since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United in 2010 that enabled corporations and other outside special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections."

"Whitehouse noted in a press release issued ahead of the vote that political spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors increased from $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. In addition, political spending by billionaires has increased from $17 million in the 2008 election to $1.2 billion in 2020."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...requiring-dark-money-groups-to-reveal-donors/

Question raised is why? Nearly daily we hear someone on the right say individuals as George Soros are funding Democrats, so why would the GOP be opposed of open disclosure?

Pretty obvious politicians and judges can be bought today, especially considering the billions of dollars being secretly funding into elections, so why would anyone resist an effort to find out who buys who, particularly considering the probable involvement of foreign nations covertly contributing to politicians?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
With the way the full power of the state has been weaponized against MAGA?

R U KIDDING?
Click to expand...

If the full power of the State had been weaponized MAGA wouldn't even exist, rather what is happening, those entities responsible for enforcing law have been legally investigating potential violations of those laws, in other words, their job

And that still doesn't explain why anyone would oppose disclosure of anonymous donations to politicians, well, unless they don't want others to know who or what business/country is donating money. Besides, I always thought transparency was something to be attained, not avoided, especially when it came to politics
 
archives said:
"Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors"
...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...requiring-dark-money-groups-to-reveal-donors/

Question raised is why? Nearly daily we hear someone on the right say individuals as George Soros are funding Democrats, so why would the GOP be opposed of open disclosure?

Pretty obvious politicians and judges can be bought today, especially considering the billions of dollars being secretly funding into elections, so why would anyone resist an effort to find out who buys who, particularly considering the probable involvement of foreign nations covertly contributing to politicians?
Click to expand...

Because they are using Trump's favorite two tactics: gaslighting and projection - if the secret came out on who was giving money to whom, a lot of Americans would become really, really pissed off.

Kinda like if Trump's tax returns were published showing all of his investments in Russia and North Korea. LOL
 
archives said:
"Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors"

"Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block the consideration of a bill to promptly require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose the identities of donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle."

"The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), has been a top Democratic priority since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United in 2010 that enabled corporations and other outside special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections."

"Whitehouse noted in a press release issued ahead of the vote that political spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors increased from $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. In addition, political spending by billionaires has increased from $17 million in the 2008 election to $1.2 billion in 2020."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...requiring-dark-money-groups-to-reveal-donors/

Question raised is why? Nearly daily we hear someone on the right say individuals as George Soros are funding Democrats, so why would the GOP be opposed of open disclosure?

Pretty obvious politicians and judges can be bought today, especially considering the billions of dollars being secretly funding into elections, so why would anyone resist an effort to find out who buys who, particularly considering the probable involvement of foreign nations covertly contributing to politicians?
Click to expand...

Some people do not want to contribute if it is public because it could hurt their business, personal life, etc. Look how much hate exists for those with different political views.
 
Flash said:
Some people do not want to contribute if it is public because it could hurt their business, personal life, etc. Look how much hate exists for those with different political views.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to give $100 to an election campaign, but wouldn't you want to know what major companies are buying the most access in DC and from whom?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's one thing to give $100 to an election campaign, but wouldn't you want to know what major companies are buying the most access in DC and from whom?
Click to expand...

If you like the way an official votes, it doesn't matter who had access to him. Having access does not mean it influenced their vote. If it did, every member would vote the way every group wanted him do and they cannot please all of them. Citizens visit Congress every day and meet their reps without having to contribute to their campaigns. That visit is usually better than money.

How often do you check the contributions received by your elected reps? Does that influence your vote?

Some states used to require you to register if you were a member of the NAACP or Communist party. The courts struck down those laws because it violated your freedom of association rights and threatened your safety and livelihood.
 
archives said:
"Republicans block bill requiring dark money groups to reveal donors"

"Senate Republicans voted Thursday to block the consideration of a bill to promptly require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose the identities of donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle."

"The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), has been a top Democratic priority since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United in 2010 that enabled corporations and other outside special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections."

"Whitehouse noted in a press release issued ahead of the vote that political spending by groups that don’t disclose their donors increased from $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. In addition, political spending by billionaires has increased from $17 million in the 2008 election to $1.2 billion in 2020."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...requiring-dark-money-groups-to-reveal-donors/

Question raised is why? Nearly daily we hear someone on the right say individuals as George Soros are funding Democrats, so why would the GOP be opposed of open disclosure?

Pretty obvious politicians and judges can be bought today, especially considering the billions of dollars being secretly funding into elections, so why would anyone resist an effort to find out who buys who, particularly considering the probable involvement of foreign nations covertly contributing to politicians?
Click to expand...

If they are "anonymous" what would they disclose? "Anonymous gave me $100"? Yeah I can see the point.
 
archives said:
And that still doesn't explain why anyone would oppose disclosure of anonymous donations to politicians, well, unless they don't want others to know who or what business/country is donating money. Besides, I always thought transparency was something to be attained, not avoided, especially when it came to politics
Click to expand...

If my vote is by secret ballot why do I have to reveal my campaign contribution? Doesn't that likely tell you who I voted for?
 
Flash said:
Some people do not want to contribute if it is public because it could hurt their business, personal life, etc. Look how much hate exists for those with different political views.
Click to expand...

Editorial from the WSJ. They address the point you bring up.



The Stifle Speech Act of 2022

Democrats roll out the Disclose Act to intimidate donors.


It wouldn’t be an election cycle without a bill to limit political speech, and Democrats are right on time. On Monday New York Sen. Chuck Schumer brought back the Disclose Act to rid campaigns of the “evil scourge of dark money.”

The bill is sponsored by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, which gives away that this is about squelching political opponents. It would require groups that talk about political issues to disclose donors who contribute more than $10,000 in a two-year cycle. Any group that does issue advocacy and mentions a candidate would be covered, and that would include any mention of a federal judicial nominee.

In remarks Tuesday supporting the bill, President Biden called out a mysterious “conservative activist who spent . . . decades working to put enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade” and now has $1.6 billion to “restrict more freedoms.”

Mr. Biden is referring to Leonard Leo, former executive vice president of the Federalist Society who now runs the Marble Freedom Trust, which funds conservative groups. The donation was from Chicago businessman Barre Seid, but neither Mr. Leo nor the donation are secret. Conservative activism on judicial issues is no different than that of George Soros and any number of figures on the left who spend lavishly to influence politics.

The left-wing counterpart to Mr. Leo’s group is Arabella Advisors, which funds among many other groups Demand Justice, which lobbies for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court. Funny, Mr. Biden didn’t mention that.

Including judicial nominees in the Disclose Act is a favor to progressive groups like Ruth Sent Us and others for which donor intimidation is a political strategy. They scour donor lists for names and then broadcast them to social-media lists that make them political targets. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned after he was attacked for donating in support of a ban on same-sex marriage. The goal is to intimidate individuals and businesses from donating to conservative causes.

Using donor information for political intimidation isn’t new. In the Jim Crow South in the 1950s, Alabama’s attorney general sought the names of NAACP supporters. The civil-rights group declined to provide them and prevailed at the Supreme Court, which wrote that “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute . . . a restraint on freedom of association” (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958).

ACLU senior legislative counsels Kate Ruane and Sonia Gill argued in the Washington Post last year that the disclosure of donors who give $10,000 to issues during an election cycle would “directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about” by “imposing onerous disclosure requirements on nonprofits committed to advancing those causes.”

Fewer people will participate in politics if the cost is protesters outside your home or being smeared on social media. For trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the $10,000 amount will mean disclosure of many members that pay annual dues. For others the stakes could be even higher. Asking a 501(c)4 group that does political advocacy on China to disclose its donors puts the lives of donors and family members in China at risk.

The good news is that Senate Republicans blocked the Disclose Act from moving to a vote on Thursday. But Democrats will keep trying because limiting political speech has become a core principle of the party.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-st...-whitehouse-11663774572?mod=opinion_lead_pos4
 
cawacko said:
Editorial from the WSJ. They address the point you bring up.

The Stifle Speech Act of 2022

Democrats roll out the Disclose Act to intimidate donors.


It wouldn’t be an election cycle without a bill to limit political speech, and Democrats are right on time. On Monday New York Sen. Chuck Schumer brought back the Disclose Act to rid campaigns of the “evil scourge of dark money.”
Click to expand...

If Schumer thinks the money is an "evil scourge" he should refuse to accept it; or, if he does, he should disclose who contributed the money to him.
 
Flash said:
If you like the way an official votes, it doesn't matter who had access to him. Having access does not mean it influenced their vote. If it did, every member would vote the way every group wanted him do and they cannot please all of them. Citizens visit Congress every day and meet their reps without having to contribute to their campaigns. That visit is usually better than money.

How often do you check the contributions received by your elected reps? Does that influence your vote?

Some states used to require you to register if you were a member of the NAACP or Communist party. The courts struck down those laws because it violated your freedom of association rights and threatened your safety and livelihood.
Click to expand...

Still; why would one company give a million bucks to one candidate and not another? Call me paranoid, but it seems odd to me.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
With the way the full power of the state has been weaponized against MAGA?

R U KIDDING?
Click to expand...

If you actually believed in a “deep state” you would want to know who’s funding it huh


Then they could be outed and thwarted



But we all know even you know it’s a bunch of bullshit
 
Flash said:
If my vote is by secret ballot why do I have to reveal my campaign contribution? Doesn't that likely tell you who I voted for?
Click to expand...

At a certain point, yes. Giving a person $100 is one thing. A million people giving $10 is one thing.

You may think differently but, IMO, a multinational company giving a US office holder a million dollars should be a matter of record.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Still; why would one company give a million bucks to one candidate and not another? Call me paranoid, but it seems odd to me.
Click to expand...

Because you think that candidate is more likely to support your political views or has supported them in the past. You probably vote more Democrat than Republican because you prefer their policies.

I think the individual campaign contribution limit is about $2,900.
 
Flash said:
Because you think that candidate is more likely to support your political views or has supported them in the past. You probably vote more Democrat than Republican because you prefer their policies.

I think the individual campaign contribution limit is about $2,900.
Click to expand...

Citizens United changed landscape. While individual contributions are limited to an extent, dark money pours into elections swaying views...mostly with bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top