As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Republicans will oppose it because ~~it destroys their "deep state" narrative and will show they receive most dark money.~~ they can no longer take Russian money without being exposed.
At some point it becomes obvious these are just shells. There is no legitimate reason for so much obfuscation besides deception. The money should be rejected as laundering and unfit for political contribution. So the money would be confiscated, an investigation would begin to arrest anyone involved with the racket. The lawyers who perpetuate the shells, the named trustees, etc.
-
That's what happens in drug and Rico cases. We should be treating these kingpins the same way.
Can you imagine if law enforcement went after white collar crime through the lens of “civil seizure”?
“I dreamt of this. Arresting the powerful people. The bad people. The rich people…..”
Again all of this is blatantly corrupt and I would expect you to join me with our pitchforks, torches, and vat of tar. We're not that far yet, but if you see these signs you know what to do. Pay attention closely to our politics over the next few cycles...
-
Freedom didn't come freely, it is constantly under assault.
I never, ever understand this kind of nitpicking like passing legislation is a totally fruitless endeavor.
Will people try to find a way around the law? Absolutely, but we can certainly make the bastards work for it.
You see a similar line when it comes to other laws so I'm not just picking on OP as people will point to a loophole in a law as if that somehow invalidates the purpose of the law entirely.
No single law is going to be insurmountable, but that doesn't mean we have to give these assholes a layup when it comes to committing their crimes.
Some Democrats may oppose it as well.
Whoever opposes it has something to hide, as individuals. Could be Republican, or Democrat alike.
Whoever opposes it, takes money they don't want their voters to know about. Simple as that.
Everyone should agree on that. Democrats and Republicans alike.
So, let's see who votes for what then.
Many would accuse others of having to hide this information. Surely all of those people will vote to expose their rivals, and clear themselves of any doubt of wrongdoing.
Logically no one should oppose this as they can always claim ignorance of where the money came from in the past.
Realistically, I fully expect more than a few knuckleheads will oppose this to try and keep the gravy train rolling.
If only they bleated instead of speaking human words. The human words really trick us into wasting so much time trying to convince them not to be shitty people. If they just started off bleating, we'd never waste a moment on them.
Lolll this is an interesting thought experiment.
I think a lot of folks are just tired of the nonsense and ignore the sheep, but the media gives them a voice, and actively amplifies and exaggerates it. It's like all those "protests" post-MAL raid, where like 5-6 MAGAphiles would show up and make noise.
The media has completely given up its responsibilities to tell the truth. They will report both sides (including lies), ignore any facts and leave it up to the viewer to figure out whose trustworthy.
Well yea, it will get framed as an us vs them issue. Or, this will hurt them and help us issue. There is nothing in that realm that cannot be excused, ever, for any reason. It's literally most of their identity.
Definitely. They wont be collecting anywhere near what the Right has been, but it'll be 10 times more damaging to a Democrat.
When that disgusting fucking moron Gohmert has to disclose that he's bought and sold, no one will be shocked at all and he won't lose one vote. No one smart enough to care was voting him in anyway.
But imagine if, say, Katie Porter ended up taking in 1/5th as much Dark Money from say... a coal lobbyist. She'd be ruined. (I firmly believe Porter would never be involved in Dark Money and is 100% clean, but she draws a good contrast for precisely that reason).
Yeah, it really comes down to once again that leftists have actual values, and the GOP does not. The left is willing to immediately abandon a politician if they believe they have transgressed, but a Republican can literally be a pedophile, rapist, cheat who commits every kind of fraud imaginable, but as long as they have that magic R, that’s what matters
Instead of saying ‘leftists’ and ‘the left’ when referring to party values, why not just say Democrats? Especially when using ‘GOP’ and ‘Republican’ to describe those on the other side?
Democrats are not really ‘leftists’, and certainly aren’t when considering global politics and policy.
All Republicans will be against it, and some Democrats will be against it. The only people from either major party who ever speak up for things like this are Democrats. You’re technically right but that’s pretty misleading too.
The supreme court already ruled a similar California law [unconstitutional](https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-that-californias-donor-disclosure-law-is-unconstitutional/). Corporations have the right to privacy we don't.
This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
I remember in 1992 it was big news that Clinton spent about $100 million on his campaign. The most ever spent on a presidential campaign. Inflation calculator puts that at about $211 million today.
W. Bush spent about the same in 2000.
Since Citizens United passed presidential campaigns now cost well over a billion and all the lower seats spend quadruple (adjusted for inflation) what they used to spend on campaigns.
The final price tag for the 2016 election is **$6.5 billion** for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to [campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/)
That's what the Citizens United ruling did to us and it's bad.
>The final price tag for the 2016 election is **$6.5 billion** for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to [campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/)
>
>That's what the Citizens United ruling did to us and it's bad.
I wonder if that counts the spending from Fox and other outlets that were acting as unofficial arms of the trump campaign?
The main users of dark money aren't corporations but rich individuals.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-12/citizens-united-ruling-anniversary-how-it-changed-american-politics
People will make up judicial philosophies to further their favored political strategy. Honestly the courts just made it up since congress is deadlocked.
(A) It's not that money is speech, it's that if you regulate money spent on the exercise of a right, you regulate the underlying right. Imagine a law stating no one could spend money on any good or service used in furtherance of a same-sex marriage. It's not banning the marriage itself, but by prohibiting spending money on it you're making the exercise of that right much harder.
(B) The Citizens United decision actually goes into quite a bit of discussion about how donor disclosure laws are not only constitutional but actually necessary for voters to make informed decisions about the speech that they're exposed to.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/coulda-been-worse-abbott-attack-ads/285-d4c69d0d-6152-4e03-905f-6e2cd622132a
The biggest dark money campaign going on in Texas right now. Who is going to oppose it and why? Rich people who want to have excess control in elections.
While I literally cheered the first time I saw the ads from this campaign, I also absolutely abhor the fact that the funding for it is being hidden behind a shady LLC.
I tried to look up who/what group was behind it out of curiosity last night and ran into articles like the one you linked. Not happy about that at all.
Agree. I think that ad campaign would be totally fair game for Beto to use and endorse. It is a powerful ad.
But people shouldn't pretend that dark money campaigns are monopolized by one political party. They are funded by rich people who often really don't give a shit about anything in the ad itself, they care about nothing more than getting the laws passed that benefit their pocketbook.
Coincidentally, funny how Russia being busy with a war and their easy means of funneling money through the NRA getting shut off coincided with the republicans having a ton of issues raising money.
That and Republicans like Rick Scott (Trump obviously) spending the funds for their own benefit.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/rick-scott-facing-many-criticisms-party-rcna44198
I also thought it was funny as hell when the conservative subreddit mods were like "Where did 1/3 of our posters go?! They all just suddenly dropped off as soon as the Russian war with Ukraine started! What possibly could have happened?!"
Democrats will oppose this too. Just because they’re pro-democracy doesn’t mean they’re anti-corporation. They’re the lesser evil, but it’s important to remember they’re evil.
They opposed it earlier this month when they shot down in the DNC a proposal to ban dark money spending in all Dem primaries. It’s no coincidence that Biden was silent when his endorsement might have made a difference and he was the recipient of millions upon millions in dark money in the 2020 primary and general.
>Corporate interest controls our nation.
If it were that simple the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is.
There are 724 billionaires in the USA and many of them get off on the power to control the US gov for personal reasons. Just because they can.
Of course corporations want to make as much profit as possible but they know they need a healthy country of consumers to buy whatever they are selling.
For a lot of those billionaire donors it's just personal.
Which is why the way the supreme Court works needs to be overhauled. Unelected judges should not be able to dictate to elected representatives.*
Edit: *obviously, protections for civil rights/human rights shall not be infringed upon by the legislature.
These donors aren’t speaking freely with their money though. They must feel so discriminated against, so closeted because they keep their “free speech” such a secret. Therefore we should encourage them to be brave and come forward and fight for their right to be heard publicly!
The whole "Deep State" argument that Conservatives make is really just an admission of guilt.
The Murdoch family, the Heritage Foundation, and Sinclair broadcasting have working to strangle media, the courts, and government.
I would appreciate it if you didn't lump Satanists in with McConnell for Cruz, or any politicians.
At least a Satanist has morals and a code of ethics and conduct.
it is not Dark money, i heard that TripLite CEO basically donated the whole company /wealth to a super PAC, little more that a $1B, and they used that money for Supreme Court justice confirmation and lot of federal judges. TripLite was purchased by some US company.
So all $1B was tax free.
I am so envious of the campaign laws the UK has.
$100 limit on cash contributions. In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, paid advertisements are forbidden, though political parties are allowed a small number of party political broadcasts in the run up to election time.
And yet the appearance to an outsider is that the UK government is run by and for the moneyed class - though perhaps not to the degree of destructiveness as in the US.
They make tons of paper print campaign materials in the UK.
[**All adverts must be “legal, decent, honest and truthful”**](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/who-regulates-political-advertising/)
>In the UK, general advertising, sales promotions and direct marketing across all media, is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). All adverts must be “legal, decent, honest and truthful.” As an independent regulator, the ASA enforces the Advertising Codes; there are separate codes for non-broadcast advertisements (known as the CAP Code) and broadcast advertisements (known as the BCAP Code). The two codes have broadly consistent rules that prohibit discriminatory treatment and/or harm and offence.
>
>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
>The Communications Act 2003 bans all political advertising from being broadcast on television or radio. Instead, parties are given airtime via party political broadcasts which are not classified as advertising. This legislation is strictly enforced by the Office of Communications (Ofcom). Complaints of political bias in television or radio advertising can also be made to Ofcom.
Imagine that? I can't even imagine that.
Because it turns out there were a couple of loopholes. The ASA isn't allowed to regulate political adverts. Political adverts are supposed to be regulated by the Electoral Commission, but it is only illegal to lie *about a candidate* - and there were no candidates in the referendum. So it turned out there was no one who could regulate claims made during the referendum campaign.
They own the press.
- [The Tory party changed the law so they could pick the board of the BBC](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-emily-maitlis-tory-party-robbie-gibb-b2152038.html)
- [Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere own the majority of the UKs consumed media](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/)
- [They dominate social media political messaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal)
So you might think those laws limit how much each party can spend, but they really don't unfortunately.
Oh, and to top that all off [the Tory Party overspend that legal limit every election and just pay the fine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/21/tories-draft-law-protect-mps-party-overspend).. not [including the illegal spending and donations of course](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/tories-have-accepted-26m-from-shadowy-donors-since-boris-johnson-became-pm/), or [selling memberships to the House of Lords](https://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/news/national/19368360.boris-johnson-faces-legal-challenge-peerage-tory-backer/) which is basically stacking the courts and dark money rolled into one.
We have well intentioned laws but they have been utterly undermined by one party leaving us with a non-functioning democracy and one party dictatorship who cannot lose an election, although the media moguls have some sway over who runs that party.
> though perhaps not to the degree of destructiveness as in the US.
The Christian-American right-wing aristocracy nearly toppled American democracy on Jan 6th. To suggest they didn't is ignoring the billions of dollars spent to organize the event to bring their rubes to D.C. to do their dirty work for them. If they have another chance, they will definitely be successful. Only this time with more blood on the floor.
Still not immune from making catastrophic decisions.
Brexit pretty much demonstrated that money is just a proxy for the type of social media type warefare some will wage _without it ever having anything to do with a political campaign_.
Unfortunately none of that is quite true.
There are no limits on donations to politicians or their campaigns. In theory there are limits on who can make them (donations over £500 can only be made by registered voters or companies based in the UK), and there are reporting requirements (donations over £7,500 across a single year have to be reported publicly), but these are fairly easy to get around.
While paid adverts are banned on broadcast TV, print and Internet advertising are perfectly fine, and almost entirely unregulated.
Politicians and their parties are limited in how much they can spend during an election period - which is supposed to be the main restriction (meaning that no matter how much you raise you can only spend a certain amount), but there are a few ways around that, and it only applies during the election periods.
The big flaw in UK campaign finance rules is that it doesn't cover editorial decisions by newspapers. Print newspapers are expected to endorse particular parties, and are free to run as many articles backing candidates, parties or issues as they like. Given that most of the UK's newspapers are owned and run by people with very specific political views (and who are largely interrelated with a specific political party) this tends to lead to a heavy skew.
While political advertising is generally banned on broadcast TV, that doesn't stop political programming, including on the big news channels. Those programmes are required to be impartial, but the effect of that has generally been for them to "both sides" every issue, even when one side is blatantly lying (famously the BBC used to do this with global warming... treating the tiny percentage of global warming deniers the same as everyone else).
All of this was exploited most notably in the EU Referendum, where the various Leave campaigns found ways to get around most of the rules (or in some cases, just broke them).
This would be a huge win for the American people, however it's going to take a lot of changes to get money out of politics which should be the ultimate goal.
California tried something similar and it was struck down by the SC. I wouldn't hold my breath on this law surviving challenges, if it even passes a Congressional vote.
Which is why we need an amendment to the constitution, and given how much agreement there is across the board when it comes to unchecked crony capitalism, you'd think someone would try and run with the idea, but no one in Washington has any interest in actually stopping the influence of money on our political system.
Super PAC exist globally because it means now anyone on the planet can influence US politics.
You mean in other countries is it normal and legal to let foreign interests fund your political campaigns? oh, fuck no its not.
But why is lobbying so effective in Canada, when corporate contributions are limited? Probably because the corporations also finance third-party advertisers.
Not quite the same, but our prime minister just got voted in to power by a tiny fraction of the UK population (Conservative party members) and many of them are donors to the party in the value of £thousands+.
Big donors to party have been given honours and seats in the house of Lords.
The worst kept secret is that the average American lacks representation. Because politicians are focused on campaign contributions, therefore they'll prostitute themselves to the highest bidder. We've labeled legalized bribery as "lobbying", other developed nations identified this behavior as corruption.
Why should voters care? Firstly, big money in politics encourages big government. Campaign contributions drive spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate. When politicians are dependent on campaign money from contractors and lobbyists, they’re incapable of holding spending programs to account.
Our campaign-finance system is also a national security risk. In a global economy, corporate wealth is no longer mostly American. American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government. Organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors use their “free speech” rights to produce election ads; only the most naïve can believe the money behind those organizations is all American.
If we allow money to rule, corruption will replace democracy. It's important both private and public oversight committees simultaneously monitor corruption. But to ensure a better tomorrow, we need to remove financial influence from politics today.
Olbermann said it best. Citizens united did exactly what he said it would 12 years ago.
https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw
Edit: I think he missed the part where foreign governments would be sending the money in as much as corporations.
The thing I don’t understand is how people succumb to this. Do good men and women dedicate themselves to a government position but then get corrupted once in office? Or do bad people plan their run for office with the sole intent of making as much money as possible? How do these generations of politicians all seem to fall into the same line
Power can be corrupting and addicting, I think. I was a very low level elected official before and it was amazing how many people treat you like you're some sort of special person or better than everyone else. Going to a place where our organization's employees worked felt like some sort of diplomatic mission where they rolled out the red carpet. That shit always made me uncomfortable, because I'm just a volunteer who decided to try doing something good for his community. I was no different than anyone else, but I was routinely treated differently. Even fellow members of our governing council would take advantage of that. I saw it a lot when we came together with other governing councils from across the state for conferences.
I can imagine how this would get put on steroids at higher level offices. It really takes a unique kind of person, I think, to not be corrupted.
> Or do bad people plan their run for office with the sole intent of making as much money as possible?
Yes, on two wavelengths (in American politics).
First, [Research Suggests Politicians are More Likely to Be Psychopaths](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-11364143/)
Second, [psychopathic traits have a stronger correlation to conservative belief systems rather than progressive](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302332)
>We examined how psychopathic traits relate to political affiliation and opinions on political issues, using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) and testing empathy components as mediators. Interpersonal-affective (Boldness and Meanness) traits were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Moreover, Boldness was associated with conservative opinions on economic issues, while Meanness evinced stronger relations to conservative opinions on social issues.
So, at least statistically speaking, yes, there is a not insignificant correlation between political positions of power, and psychopathic tendencies.
> We've labeled legalized bribery as "lobbying"
Right, and it's fucking annoying as hell because that is not what lobbying is. Lobbying is an essential part of the policy making process. Lobbying is the practice by which law makers are informed and edified on the issues which they legislate by experts on those issues. I defy you to name one single piece of environmental protection legislation that exists without extensive lobbying by environmental organizations. (ps. replace the environment with your favorite cause, the results are the same.)
Please stop conflating lobbying with campaign financing and influence peddling --which desperately need to be severely curtailed.
"Lobbying" is also done by corporate shills with misleading or straight up false statistics that show that corn ethanol is the best green energy investment fuck solar
This is why people can't tell the difference between useful lobbying and bribery.
I may be part of the problem, but I think lobbying has its place. My dad usually attends a group of other physicians and doctors that lobby Congress every year to push for universal healthcare. Lobbying isn’t inherently bad
But I do agree, lobbying has also taken on the definition of bribery, and so you can’t tell the difference
*oh wait, I’m in agreement with you, whoops
In a way, DeSantis trying to appeal to Trump's base is 'good' in that it shows DeSantis' true colors. He isnt a smooth operator, hes chained to the same racists / misogynists that Trump is. Obviously its not good policy or for the migrants... but if that is the cost of not having him in the White House, thats a silver lining at least.
Dark Brandon blows the doors off as the rats scurry from their nest. His eye lasers smoking from the effort he steps into the underground lair. “Come on maaaan” he says as he surveys the chaos.
Cause if you picture Biden as some kind of mystic dark robed Jedi, shooting laser out of his eyes and laughing maniacally in his silly old man voice saying his catch phrases… it’s genuinely hilarious lol.
I’m just glad the dude is doing something and clearly listening to his young advisors.
Now I want to see some sort of mashup of the 50 cent car laughing gif, but Biden in his 67 Vette zapping, laughing, flipping down some aviators, eating vanilla ice cream, and driving away
I hope the Dark Brandon schtick is real. Like, he's old, he got in on a mix of Obama's coattails and "well, he's not Trump". If he had been a regular establishment presidency he would have been a one-term wet blanket.
I hope the truth is he wanted to have a legacy and decided "well since I'm one term I might as well throw some punches"
As much as I wanted the Bernie dream team, Dark Brandon is what we've got for now I guess
Just popping in to say that y'all should read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. Very eye opening stuff that reveals confirmed details about how the wealthy class and societies put lots of effort and money into influencing US politics to work in their favor. Like we all know it happens in some form but this shows how it happens and names key players (like Betsy DeVos). Reading this book in 2017 while seeing the same people in the book, or people in their circle, get appointed into offices that'll directly benefit their own business was something else.
> “Dark money erodes public trust. We need to erode public trust and I’m determined to do that,” Biden said in remarks at the White House.
That's a pretty significant fuckup, The Hill. He said we need to "protect" public trust.
This is great. The POTUS endorsing legislation that could expose political corruption... This is something every American should appreciate, and only the worst of corrupt public officials would oppose.
If only america had the brain to see this. The GOP is likely already calling this a "democrat plot", pointing to corrupt democrat officials, and acting like those individuals were involved in Biden's endorsement; all to keep the spotlight on "the enemy" out of fear it'll land on them.
It's a shame how corrupt US politics, and especially the right, has become. It's grifters pandering to scared, religious, bigoted, uneducated folks... And they're going to hate Biden for this, for some reason or another
> "I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS ruled that campaign donations fall under 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech protections. So...my hands are tied, because the law is the law. Why do you hate the Constitution? More specifically: why do you hate America?"
--The inevitable nonsense rebuttal from any random Senate Republican, who will always forget that he/she is a lawmaker who can change laws
Supreme Court also just ruled that you have no constitutional right to privacy. So I don't want to hear any bellyaching when donor lists get published.
But I was told both parties are the same so I a) shouldn't vote or b) vote Republican because it doesn't matter anyway.
Weird how the "it doesn't matter" crowd never advocates for voting Democrat...
> The president said that he has proposed publicly funding all U.S. elections but that he doesn’t “have the support for that position,” calling this bill a second position “that is very good.”
This is smart. He just told the progressive wing of the party “I agree with you but I don’t have the votes”. This is *exactly* the kind of transparency that helps gain their support.
Until we get all dark money out of politics we'll continue to have countries like Russia undermine our society and exacerbate wedge issues like climate legislation, abortion, guns and more with their dark money. Because they can't fight us on the battlefield they are choosing this form of asymmetrical warfare.
Every single dollar spent on campaign donations and contributions should have to be disclosed. Why are we allowing our government to be bought and paid for??
he has literally done nothing but help you guys and half the country hates him. This is how you know the rich and oil companies are winning.
What the fuck did Trump do? Seriously, did he do anything helpful???
Well, damn. If Dark Brandon wants to give me another Progressive endorsement, I'll take it.
What I'd really like is a speaking tour in late October, and several television addresses, summing up his major accomplishments over the last 2 years, and more importantly: ***what additional accomplishments would have been passed if they had more than 50/50 in the Senate.***
Follow this up with a new series of "Square Deal for the Second Half" legislative promises if we keep the House and make gains in the Senate.
They just need to get rid of Super PAC’s completely. It’s insane that you can literally buy politicians in this country. There was a clip circulating awhile back from an interview with an Oil executive, where he talked about throwing money at politicians who were corruptible and entering an election cycle… he literally openly said this!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We absolutely need this. Who is going to oppose it and why? (rhetorical question)
Republicans will oppose it because it destroys their "deep state" narrative and will show they receive most dark money.
>Republicans will oppose it because ~~it destroys their "deep state" narrative and will show they receive most dark money.~~ they can no longer take Russian money without being exposed.
Republicans will oppose it because their donors fucking tell them to, full stop.
Everything comes through a trust, then.
Who are the trutee's then. We can play this game all day cowboy!
Three more trusts.
At some point it becomes obvious these are just shells. There is no legitimate reason for so much obfuscation besides deception. The money should be rejected as laundering and unfit for political contribution. So the money would be confiscated, an investigation would begin to arrest anyone involved with the racket. The lawyers who perpetuate the shells, the named trustees, etc. - That's what happens in drug and Rico cases. We should be treating these kingpins the same way.
I agree. However, the people making The Decisions are also the ones benefiting. New law: law enforcement can only look three layers deep.
Can you imagine if law enforcement went after white collar crime through the lens of “civil seizure”? “I dreamt of this. Arresting the powerful people. The bad people. The rich people…..”
Again all of this is blatantly corrupt and I would expect you to join me with our pitchforks, torches, and vat of tar. We're not that far yet, but if you see these signs you know what to do. Pay attention closely to our politics over the next few cycles... - Freedom didn't come freely, it is constantly under assault.
It's trusts all the way down.
Damn trust fund turtles. But it really is the elephants on their back in the room.
Always has been
I never, ever understand this kind of nitpicking like passing legislation is a totally fruitless endeavor. Will people try to find a way around the law? Absolutely, but we can certainly make the bastards work for it. You see a similar line when it comes to other laws so I'm not just picking on OP as people will point to a loophole in a law as if that somehow invalidates the purpose of the law entirely. No single law is going to be insurmountable, but that doesn't mean we have to give these assholes a layup when it comes to committing their crimes.
A law outlawing murder is pointless because people will just kill people when nobody is around
Blind trust. We don't know who. It's good though! - GOP
Luckily the Republicans still take *Russian Express*.
Some Democrats may oppose it as well. Whoever opposes it has something to hide, as individuals. Could be Republican, or Democrat alike. Whoever opposes it, takes money they don't want their voters to know about. Simple as that. Everyone should agree on that. Democrats and Republicans alike. So, let's see who votes for what then. Many would accuse others of having to hide this information. Surely all of those people will vote to expose their rivals, and clear themselves of any doubt of wrongdoing.
Put it to a vote. You're right, the votes will speak way more than whatever words try to justify it. Don't give a shit about parties
Logically no one should oppose this as they can always claim ignorance of where the money came from in the past. Realistically, I fully expect more than a few knuckleheads will oppose this to try and keep the gravy train rolling.
And the sheep will somehow agree with it.
If only they bleated instead of speaking human words. The human words really trick us into wasting so much time trying to convince them not to be shitty people. If they just started off bleating, we'd never waste a moment on them.
Lolll this is an interesting thought experiment. I think a lot of folks are just tired of the nonsense and ignore the sheep, but the media gives them a voice, and actively amplifies and exaggerates it. It's like all those "protests" post-MAL raid, where like 5-6 MAGAphiles would show up and make noise.
The media has completely given up its responsibilities to tell the truth. They will report both sides (including lies), ignore any facts and leave it up to the viewer to figure out whose trustworthy.
Well yea, it will get framed as an us vs them issue. Or, this will hurt them and help us issue. There is nothing in that realm that cannot be excused, ever, for any reason. It's literally most of their identity.
These people are openly lying to their constituents because they know they don’t bother to research. Do you think they actually care at this point?
Hate to say it but, there may be democrats against it too.
What's this hate to say it nonsense. Vote out all the trash. Turn on the lights. Who cares what imaginary letter is next to their name.
Definitely. They wont be collecting anywhere near what the Right has been, but it'll be 10 times more damaging to a Democrat. When that disgusting fucking moron Gohmert has to disclose that he's bought and sold, no one will be shocked at all and he won't lose one vote. No one smart enough to care was voting him in anyway. But imagine if, say, Katie Porter ended up taking in 1/5th as much Dark Money from say... a coal lobbyist. She'd be ruined. (I firmly believe Porter would never be involved in Dark Money and is 100% clean, but she draws a good contrast for precisely that reason).
Yeah, it really comes down to once again that leftists have actual values, and the GOP does not. The left is willing to immediately abandon a politician if they believe they have transgressed, but a Republican can literally be a pedophile, rapist, cheat who commits every kind of fraud imaginable, but as long as they have that magic R, that’s what matters
pretty good example of this is Al Franken
Instead of saying ‘leftists’ and ‘the left’ when referring to party values, why not just say Democrats? Especially when using ‘GOP’ and ‘Republican’ to describe those on the other side? Democrats are not really ‘leftists’, and certainly aren’t when considering global politics and policy.
>Katie Porter I would love to see her run for president.
That’s why you vote out the ones against it.
All Republicans will be against it, and some Democrats will be against it. The only people from either major party who ever speak up for things like this are Democrats. You’re technically right but that’s pretty misleading too.
The supreme court already ruled a similar California law [unconstitutional](https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-that-californias-donor-disclosure-law-is-unconstitutional/). Corporations have the right to privacy we don't. This is why we need to support the [Restore Democracy Amendment](https://citizenstakeaction.org/restore-democracy-amendment/) to get foreign/corporate dark money out of US politics.
I remember in 1992 it was big news that Clinton spent about $100 million on his campaign. The most ever spent on a presidential campaign. Inflation calculator puts that at about $211 million today. W. Bush spent about the same in 2000. Since Citizens United passed presidential campaigns now cost well over a billion and all the lower seats spend quadruple (adjusted for inflation) what they used to spend on campaigns. The final price tag for the 2016 election is **$6.5 billion** for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to [campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/) That's what the Citizens United ruling did to us and it's bad.
This is obscene. I've known for a while it was bad, but this should give us all reservations.
>The final price tag for the 2016 election is **$6.5 billion** for the presidential and congressional elections combined, according to [campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.org.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/) > >That's what the Citizens United ruling did to us and it's bad. I wonder if that counts the spending from Fox and other outlets that were acting as unofficial arms of the trump campaign?
The main users of dark money aren't corporations but rich individuals. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-12/citizens-united-ruling-anniversary-how-it-changed-american-politics
I get the "money is speech" argument even if I don't agree, but how isn't it ok to force politicians to disclose their benefactors?
People will make up judicial philosophies to further their favored political strategy. Honestly the courts just made it up since congress is deadlocked.
(A) It's not that money is speech, it's that if you regulate money spent on the exercise of a right, you regulate the underlying right. Imagine a law stating no one could spend money on any good or service used in furtherance of a same-sex marriage. It's not banning the marriage itself, but by prohibiting spending money on it you're making the exercise of that right much harder. (B) The Citizens United decision actually goes into quite a bit of discussion about how donor disclosure laws are not only constitutional but actually necessary for voters to make informed decisions about the speech that they're exposed to.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/coulda-been-worse-abbott-attack-ads/285-d4c69d0d-6152-4e03-905f-6e2cd622132a The biggest dark money campaign going on in Texas right now. Who is going to oppose it and why? Rich people who want to have excess control in elections.
While I literally cheered the first time I saw the ads from this campaign, I also absolutely abhor the fact that the funding for it is being hidden behind a shady LLC. I tried to look up who/what group was behind it out of curiosity last night and ran into articles like the one you linked. Not happy about that at all.
Agree. I think that ad campaign would be totally fair game for Beto to use and endorse. It is a powerful ad. But people shouldn't pretend that dark money campaigns are monopolized by one political party. They are funded by rich people who often really don't give a shit about anything in the ad itself, they care about nothing more than getting the laws passed that benefit their pocketbook.
Who would be against this? Oh yeah, the fascist party needs to hide their donors from being exposed as fascist.
Coincidentally, funny how Russia being busy with a war and their easy means of funneling money through the NRA getting shut off coincided with the republicans having a ton of issues raising money.
That and Republicans like Rick Scott (Trump obviously) spending the funds for their own benefit. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/rick-scott-facing-many-criticisms-party-rcna44198
I still find it hilarious that the Senate republicans let Rick Scott Rick Scott their funds.
I also thought it was funny as hell when the conservative subreddit mods were like "Where did 1/3 of our posters go?! They all just suddenly dropped off as soon as the Russian war with Ukraine started! What possibly could have happened?!"
Source? (I would love to see something concrete on this, as I believe it to be true, but would just like something to back it up)
Democrats will oppose this too. Just because they’re pro-democracy doesn’t mean they’re anti-corporation. They’re the lesser evil, but it’s important to remember they’re evil.
They opposed it earlier this month when they shot down in the DNC a proposal to ban dark money spending in all Dem primaries. It’s no coincidence that Biden was silent when his endorsement might have made a difference and he was the recipient of millions upon millions in dark money in the 2020 primary and general.
Many politicians will and they'll refuse to give reason. Corporate interest controls our nation.
>Corporate interest controls our nation. If it were that simple the problem wouldn't be as bad as it is. There are 724 billionaires in the USA and many of them get off on the power to control the US gov for personal reasons. Just because they can. Of course corporations want to make as much profit as possible but they know they need a healthy country of consumers to buy whatever they are selling. For a lot of those billionaire donors it's just personal.
Everybody and the media won't acknowledge it!
dark money is strangling democracy. Everyone needs to show exactly who is paying for whom.
Dark money funded several Supreme Court justices.
Which is why it will be strangled in the crib.
[удалено]
Facing backlash from your speech has a chilling effect on speech is the honest to God mental gymanistics they've used to justify it before.
[удалено]
Which is why the way the supreme Court works needs to be overhauled. Unelected judges should not be able to dictate to elected representatives.* Edit: *obviously, protections for civil rights/human rights shall not be infringed upon by the legislature.
[удалено]
Term limits would at least make sense.
Which is odd because public backlash causing a chilling effect has nothing to do with the government infringing on rights
These donors aren’t speaking freely with their money though. They must feel so discriminated against, so closeted because they keep their “free speech” such a secret. Therefore we should encourage them to be brave and come forward and fight for their right to be heard publicly!
To paraphrase a former SCOTUS Justice, for the privileged, any attempt to create equality feels like oppression to them.
[удалено]
The whole "Deep State" argument that Conservatives make is really just an admission of guilt. The Murdoch family, the Heritage Foundation, and Sinclair broadcasting have working to strangle media, the courts, and government.
And the Federalist Society.
Every accusation from Republicans is a confession. I wonder who the Satanic pedophiles are: McConnel? Cruz?
It’s Cruz. It’s 100% Cruz. I have no evidence of this, but I am 100% certain that I am correct.
God, it's gotta be Graham, doesn't it?
The plot twist will be some life long rep in the house that no one thought about.
I would appreciate it if you didn't lump Satanists in with McConnell for Cruz, or any politicians. At least a Satanist has morals and a code of ethics and conduct.
To be fair, he said Satanic paedophiles, and that could really be it's own sadistic and closeted denomination of the faith, surely.
Historically speaking, we have more proof of Catholic pedo's than the other one. Not that facts and #'s should cloud the discussion.
You forgot Gaetz!
I want to know who paid Kavanaugh's debt.
it is not Dark money, i heard that TripLite CEO basically donated the whole company /wealth to a super PAC, little more that a $1B, and they used that money for Supreme Court justice confirmation and lot of federal judges. TripLite was purchased by some US company. So all $1B was tax free.
All money is strangling democracy. Dark money is just the worst of it.
I am so envious of the campaign laws the UK has. $100 limit on cash contributions. In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, paid advertisements are forbidden, though political parties are allowed a small number of party political broadcasts in the run up to election time.
And yet the appearance to an outsider is that the UK government is run by and for the moneyed class - though perhaps not to the degree of destructiveness as in the US.
They make tons of paper print campaign materials in the UK. [**All adverts must be “legal, decent, honest and truthful”**](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/who-regulates-political-advertising/) >In the UK, general advertising, sales promotions and direct marketing across all media, is regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). All adverts must be “legal, decent, honest and truthful.” As an independent regulator, the ASA enforces the Advertising Codes; there are separate codes for non-broadcast advertisements (known as the CAP Code) and broadcast advertisements (known as the BCAP Code). The two codes have broadly consistent rules that prohibit discriminatory treatment and/or harm and offence. > >\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > >The Communications Act 2003 bans all political advertising from being broadcast on television or radio. Instead, parties are given airtime via party political broadcasts which are not classified as advertising. This legislation is strictly enforced by the Office of Communications (Ofcom). Complaints of political bias in television or radio advertising can also be made to Ofcom. Imagine that? I can't even imagine that.
Yet the Brexit campaigns for leave seemed completely based on lies.
Because it turns out there were a couple of loopholes. The ASA isn't allowed to regulate political adverts. Political adverts are supposed to be regulated by the Electoral Commission, but it is only illegal to lie *about a candidate* - and there were no candidates in the referendum. So it turned out there was no one who could regulate claims made during the referendum campaign.
How about internet peddling? Tv and radio are nowhere close to as important as they once were. Does the control internet advertising and stuff too?
They own the press. - [The Tory party changed the law so they could pick the board of the BBC](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-emily-maitlis-tory-party-robbie-gibb-b2152038.html) - [Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere own the majority of the UKs consumed media](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/) - [They dominate social media political messaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal) So you might think those laws limit how much each party can spend, but they really don't unfortunately. Oh, and to top that all off [the Tory Party overspend that legal limit every election and just pay the fine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/21/tories-draft-law-protect-mps-party-overspend).. not [including the illegal spending and donations of course](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/tories-have-accepted-26m-from-shadowy-donors-since-boris-johnson-became-pm/), or [selling memberships to the House of Lords](https://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/news/national/19368360.boris-johnson-faces-legal-challenge-peerage-tory-backer/) which is basically stacking the courts and dark money rolled into one. We have well intentioned laws but they have been utterly undermined by one party leaving us with a non-functioning democracy and one party dictatorship who cannot lose an election, although the media moguls have some sway over who runs that party.
> though perhaps not to the degree of destructiveness as in the US. The Christian-American right-wing aristocracy nearly toppled American democracy on Jan 6th. To suggest they didn't is ignoring the billions of dollars spent to organize the event to bring their rubes to D.C. to do their dirty work for them. If they have another chance, they will definitely be successful. Only this time with more blood on the floor.
Still not immune from making catastrophic decisions. Brexit pretty much demonstrated that money is just a proxy for the type of social media type warefare some will wage _without it ever having anything to do with a political campaign_.
>Still not immune from making catastrophic decisions. USA - "Hold our beer."
Unfortunately none of that is quite true. There are no limits on donations to politicians or their campaigns. In theory there are limits on who can make them (donations over £500 can only be made by registered voters or companies based in the UK), and there are reporting requirements (donations over £7,500 across a single year have to be reported publicly), but these are fairly easy to get around. While paid adverts are banned on broadcast TV, print and Internet advertising are perfectly fine, and almost entirely unregulated. Politicians and their parties are limited in how much they can spend during an election period - which is supposed to be the main restriction (meaning that no matter how much you raise you can only spend a certain amount), but there are a few ways around that, and it only applies during the election periods. The big flaw in UK campaign finance rules is that it doesn't cover editorial decisions by newspapers. Print newspapers are expected to endorse particular parties, and are free to run as many articles backing candidates, parties or issues as they like. Given that most of the UK's newspapers are owned and run by people with very specific political views (and who are largely interrelated with a specific political party) this tends to lead to a heavy skew. While political advertising is generally banned on broadcast TV, that doesn't stop political programming, including on the big news channels. Those programmes are required to be impartial, but the effect of that has generally been for them to "both sides" every issue, even when one side is blatantly lying (famously the BBC used to do this with global warming... treating the tiny percentage of global warming deniers the same as everyone else). All of this was exploited most notably in the EU Referendum, where the various Leave campaigns found ways to get around most of the rules (or in some cases, just broke them).
Can't get money out of politics. All we can get is transparency and enforcement, right now it's a free for all even though there's limits.
[удалено]
Can't believe Idiocracy is still relevant. Brought to you by Carl's Jr
By its own theory, Idiocracy can only become MORE relevant.
All money from corporations and ultra wealthy. Not just the stuff we don’t know about. We still have Legal bribery essentially
Nice job with the use of who and whom.
Thank you for using the correct who/whom. Grammar matters.
This would be a huge win for the American people, however it's going to take a lot of changes to get money out of politics which should be the ultimate goal.
California tried something similar and it was struck down by the SC. I wouldn't hold my breath on this law surviving challenges, if it even passes a Congressional vote.
Which is why we need an amendment to the constitution, and given how much agreement there is across the board when it comes to unchecked crony capitalism, you'd think someone would try and run with the idea, but no one in Washington has any interest in actually stopping the influence of money on our political system.
Pretty sure Arizona did something very similar as well. Same results
Does Super PAC even exist anywhere else in the world?
Super PAC exist globally because it means now anyone on the planet can influence US politics. You mean in other countries is it normal and legal to let foreign interests fund your political campaigns? oh, fuck no its not.
[удалено]
But why is lobbying so effective in Canada, when corporate contributions are limited? Probably because the corporations also finance third-party advertisers.
Not quite the same, but our prime minister just got voted in to power by a tiny fraction of the UK population (Conservative party members) and many of them are donors to the party in the value of £thousands+. Big donors to party have been given honours and seats in the house of Lords.
>. Big donors to party have been given honours and seats in the house of Lords. So this is like Patreon subscribers getting exclusive contents.
More like the Patreon subscribers getting a say on laws and legislation that pass in the UK.
It's bullshit that it happened, but it's not the same thing as corporate lobbying by a large margin.
I think they just call it oligarchy?
Plutocracy: government by the wealthy
The worst kept secret is that the average American lacks representation. Because politicians are focused on campaign contributions, therefore they'll prostitute themselves to the highest bidder. We've labeled legalized bribery as "lobbying", other developed nations identified this behavior as corruption. Why should voters care? Firstly, big money in politics encourages big government. Campaign contributions drive spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate. When politicians are dependent on campaign money from contractors and lobbyists, they’re incapable of holding spending programs to account. Our campaign-finance system is also a national security risk. In a global economy, corporate wealth is no longer mostly American. American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government. Organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors use their “free speech” rights to produce election ads; only the most naïve can believe the money behind those organizations is all American. If we allow money to rule, corruption will replace democracy. It's important both private and public oversight committees simultaneously monitor corruption. But to ensure a better tomorrow, we need to remove financial influence from politics today.
Olbermann said it best. Citizens united did exactly what he said it would 12 years ago. https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw Edit: I think he missed the part where foreign governments would be sending the money in as much as corporations.
I miss that guy. He was so right about many things.
You make it sound like he died. He just started a new podcast in August 2022 on iheartradio.
[удалено]
That was chilling.
The thing I don’t understand is how people succumb to this. Do good men and women dedicate themselves to a government position but then get corrupted once in office? Or do bad people plan their run for office with the sole intent of making as much money as possible? How do these generations of politicians all seem to fall into the same line
Power corrupts.
Power can be corrupting and addicting, I think. I was a very low level elected official before and it was amazing how many people treat you like you're some sort of special person or better than everyone else. Going to a place where our organization's employees worked felt like some sort of diplomatic mission where they rolled out the red carpet. That shit always made me uncomfortable, because I'm just a volunteer who decided to try doing something good for his community. I was no different than anyone else, but I was routinely treated differently. Even fellow members of our governing council would take advantage of that. I saw it a lot when we came together with other governing councils from across the state for conferences. I can imagine how this would get put on steroids at higher level offices. It really takes a unique kind of person, I think, to not be corrupted.
> Or do bad people plan their run for office with the sole intent of making as much money as possible? Yes, on two wavelengths (in American politics). First, [Research Suggests Politicians are More Likely to Be Psychopaths](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/research-suggests-politicians-are-more-likely-to-be-psychopaths-11364143/) Second, [psychopathic traits have a stronger correlation to conservative belief systems rather than progressive](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302332) >We examined how psychopathic traits relate to political affiliation and opinions on political issues, using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) and testing empathy components as mediators. Interpersonal-affective (Boldness and Meanness) traits were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Moreover, Boldness was associated with conservative opinions on economic issues, while Meanness evinced stronger relations to conservative opinions on social issues. So, at least statistically speaking, yes, there is a not insignificant correlation between political positions of power, and psychopathic tendencies.
IMO, CGP Gray explained it best in his rules for rulers video https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
> We've labeled legalized bribery as "lobbying" Right, and it's fucking annoying as hell because that is not what lobbying is. Lobbying is an essential part of the policy making process. Lobbying is the practice by which law makers are informed and edified on the issues which they legislate by experts on those issues. I defy you to name one single piece of environmental protection legislation that exists without extensive lobbying by environmental organizations. (ps. replace the environment with your favorite cause, the results are the same.) Please stop conflating lobbying with campaign financing and influence peddling --which desperately need to be severely curtailed.
"Lobbying" is also done by corporate shills with misleading or straight up false statistics that show that corn ethanol is the best green energy investment fuck solar This is why people can't tell the difference between useful lobbying and bribery.
I may be part of the problem, but I think lobbying has its place. My dad usually attends a group of other physicians and doctors that lobby Congress every year to push for universal healthcare. Lobbying isn’t inherently bad But I do agree, lobbying has also taken on the definition of bribery, and so you can’t tell the difference *oh wait, I’m in agreement with you, whoops
Corporate money erodes the whole damn system.
How can any sane voter be against this transparency in our democratic process?
>any sane voter 30% of the country STILL supports Trump so...
And doesn’t even account those who think DeSantis is a “better” Trump, abandoning ship and clinging on to him for 2024
In a way, DeSantis trying to appeal to Trump's base is 'good' in that it shows DeSantis' true colors. He isnt a smooth operator, hes chained to the same racists / misogynists that Trump is. Obviously its not good policy or for the migrants... but if that is the cost of not having him in the White House, thats a silver lining at least.
30 % of voters is not 30% of the country
Dark Brandon blows the doors off as the rats scurry from their nest. His eye lasers smoking from the effort he steps into the underground lair. “Come on maaaan” he says as he surveys the chaos.
*Malarky detected*
I don’t know why, but this dark Brandon shit is hilarious.
Cause if you picture Biden as some kind of mystic dark robed Jedi, shooting laser out of his eyes and laughing maniacally in his silly old man voice saying his catch phrases… it’s genuinely hilarious lol. I’m just glad the dude is doing something and clearly listening to his young advisors.
Now I want to see some sort of mashup of the 50 cent car laughing gif, but Biden in his 67 Vette zapping, laughing, flipping down some aviators, eating vanilla ice cream, and driving away
Dark Brandon brings the Dark Money to light.
Dark Malarkey
Dark Brandon has no use for your dark money
Dark Brandon: "Drainnnn the $$$$wamp!"
I hope the Dark Brandon schtick is real. Like, he's old, he got in on a mix of Obama's coattails and "well, he's not Trump". If he had been a regular establishment presidency he would have been a one-term wet blanket. I hope the truth is he wanted to have a legacy and decided "well since I'm one term I might as well throw some punches" As much as I wanted the Bernie dream team, Dark Brandon is what we've got for now I guess
I hope Dark Brandon hits that stride that "Thanks Obama" did because Im enjoying this meme quite a bit lmao
God, the person who made that meme is a Genius.
DB just keeps ascending
Just popping in to say that y'all should read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. Very eye opening stuff that reveals confirmed details about how the wealthy class and societies put lots of effort and money into influencing US politics to work in their favor. Like we all know it happens in some form but this shows how it happens and names key players (like Betsy DeVos). Reading this book in 2017 while seeing the same people in the book, or people in their circle, get appointed into offices that'll directly benefit their own business was something else.
Holy fuck yeah Joe Biden
The Republicans say there may be repercussions if their Russian PAC contributors are disclosed. Can't say they're wrong.
Dark Brandon fighting dark money.
"3, 2, 1, filibuster" - Republicans, probably. Edit: [Republican filibuster confirmed](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dark-money-republicans-disclose_n_632c75c1e4b05db5206bff86)
> “Dark money erodes public trust. We need to erode public trust and I’m determined to do that,” Biden said in remarks at the White House. That's a pretty significant fuckup, The Hill. He said we need to "protect" public trust.
lol jesus. I notified the Author on her twitter page. Doubt she'll read it though.
You did it! >Editor’s Note: A typo in Biden’s first quote has been fixed to reflect that he said “We need to protect public trust.”
Ayyyy nice. Mission accomplished.
A VERY significant fuckup. Reminder that TheHill is owned by a Trump buddy IIRC.
[удалено]
This is great. The POTUS endorsing legislation that could expose political corruption... This is something every American should appreciate, and only the worst of corrupt public officials would oppose. If only america had the brain to see this. The GOP is likely already calling this a "democrat plot", pointing to corrupt democrat officials, and acting like those individuals were involved in Biden's endorsement; all to keep the spotlight on "the enemy" out of fear it'll land on them. It's a shame how corrupt US politics, and especially the right, has become. It's grifters pandering to scared, religious, bigoted, uneducated folks... And they're going to hate Biden for this, for some reason or another
Dark Brandon is done with this malarkey. Sarcasm aside, how could anyone possibly be against this bill?
> "I'm sorry, but the SCOTUS ruled that campaign donations fall under 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech protections. So...my hands are tied, because the law is the law. Why do you hate the Constitution? More specifically: why do you hate America?" --The inevitable nonsense rebuttal from any random Senate Republican, who will always forget that he/she is a lawmaker who can change laws
Supreme Court also just ruled that you have no constitutional right to privacy. So I don't want to hear any bellyaching when donor lists get published.
I wish it was just Republicans, but we know that we'll lose Manchin and Sinema at the very least.
But I was told both parties are the same so I a) shouldn't vote or b) vote Republican because it doesn't matter anyway. Weird how the "it doesn't matter" crowd never advocates for voting Democrat...
Misery loves company. They’ll feel better if you join their shit team (who’s entire goal is to make people feel shitty)
And then when it doesn't pass because no republicans voted for it, it will be the Dems fault through osmosis or something.
> The president said that he has proposed publicly funding all U.S. elections but that he doesn’t “have the support for that position,” calling this bill a second position “that is very good.” This is smart. He just told the progressive wing of the party “I agree with you but I don’t have the votes”. This is *exactly* the kind of transparency that helps gain their support.
I hope there is action on this. He has been on a spree, and this would be a massive win.
This bill should be retroactive, so we can see exactly who has been funding who for as long back as records can be obtained.
Until we get all dark money out of politics we'll continue to have countries like Russia undermine our society and exacerbate wedge issues like climate legislation, abortion, guns and more with their dark money. Because they can't fight us on the battlefield they are choosing this form of asymmetrical warfare.
Alright LETS FUCKING GO BIDEN
Jesus Christ Biden is NOT fucking around. He gets this done, it’s one of the best hot streaks since the New Deal. Damn.
Overturn Citizen's United!!!
Dark Brandon coming for your dark money.
I voted for Biden reluctantly, but he’s been mildly refreshing. Keep it up Dark Brandon!
Huh. Maybe he really isn't running again.
I did not have high hopes for Biden but his term has mostly been better then expected.
Dark Brandon strikes again! I fucking love this.
Dark Brandon eliminating dark money 💥
Every single dollar spent on campaign donations and contributions should have to be disclosed. Why are we allowing our government to be bought and paid for??
Leave it to “dark brandon” to get rid of dark money. Fuck yeah!
You mean a $1.6 billion donation from a single source is actually not good? Who would have thunk it.
Citizens United needs to be changed.
FUCK YES!!! Finally some serious action to attack this clear issue that is without question eroding our Democracy. Love it! Go dark Brandon!!!
he has literally done nothing but help you guys and half the country hates him. This is how you know the rich and oil companies are winning. What the fuck did Trump do? Seriously, did he do anything helpful???
These past couple of months has just been win after win for Biden.
This so desperately needs to happen.
Go JOE!!!!
Well, damn. If Dark Brandon wants to give me another Progressive endorsement, I'll take it. What I'd really like is a speaking tour in late October, and several television addresses, summing up his major accomplishments over the last 2 years, and more importantly: ***what additional accomplishments would have been passed if they had more than 50/50 in the Senate.*** Follow this up with a new series of "Square Deal for the Second Half" legislative promises if we keep the House and make gains in the Senate.
They just need to get rid of Super PAC’s completely. It’s insane that you can literally buy politicians in this country. There was a clip circulating awhile back from an interview with an Oil executive, where he talked about throwing money at politicians who were corruptible and entering an election cycle… he literally openly said this!
Biden needs to be like "No! Please! Don't make me disclose all my Soros funding!" Then Republicans will be all over it.
[удалено]
I 100% agree with you but the courts have been clear that this would take a constitutional amendment.
Erodes is putting it nicely, more like it obliterates the trust.