• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal 'dark money' groups outspent conservative ones in 2018 elections

I think I do have standing. Conservatives generally don't sign up for getting money out of politics; and it's really quite silly, since it isn't really possible. We consider it free speech.

The last sentence is bull. But if it weren't bull it would be yet another reason you don't have standing to whine about this. You should be celebrating Democrats 'speech' instead of making a gotcha thread, if you meant it.

I'm sure you'd love if it Democrats stood on principle and started turning away donations to show their continued opposition to Citizens United, but whatever.
 
This is going to be really complex, so try and keep up: liberals, as a general rule, tend to favor changing the rules to restrict dark money. They do not suggest nor imply any one should not follow the current rules.

Exactly. Saying that the rules should change while still continuing to follow the current rules as everyone else does is not hypocritical. It's a stupid argument that only the dim witted can't pick up on immediately.
 
The nonpartisan organization Issue One disagrees with statement. Do you have anything to disprove their claim or simply just throwing out one liners that are not accurate according to Issue One.

Where does it say that dems take dark money? Quote it

Hint: It doesnt say that
 
Where does it say that dems take dark money? Quote it

Hint: It doesnt say that


Read the op it’s quoted there. Did you even read the article?
 
The last sentence is bull. But if it weren't bull it would be yet another reason you don't have standing to whine about this. You should be celebrating Democrats 'speech' instead of making a gotcha thread, if you meant it.

I'm sure you'd love if it Democrats stood on principle and started turning away donations to show their continued opposition to Citizens United, but whatever.

*I'm sure you'd love if it Democrats stood on principle and started turning away donations to show their continued opposition to Citizens United, but whatever.*

Citizens United has nothing to do with "dark money".
 
The last sentence is bull. But if it weren't bull it would be yet another reason you don't have standing to whine about this. You should be celebrating Democrats 'speech' instead of making a gotcha thread, if you meant it.

I'm sure you'd love if it Democrats stood on principle and started turning away donations to show their continued opposition to Citizens United, but whatever.

Yeah, let's celebrate their hypocrisy.
 
Believing in principles means doing what you consider right, even if others are doing something different. You cant have it both ways.

I don’t take issue with Democrats taking more dark money than Republicans. I have an issue with Democrats taking more money then speaking out their ass about how evil it is for Republicans to take money. More Democrats pushing do as I say not as I do bull****

Neither Democrats nor Republicans "take" dark money. It's by definition independent spending that a candidate can no more refuse than you can refuse to "take" ads for prescription drugs on Fox News at night.
 
No it does not say that in the op. It says liberal groups raise dark money. It does not say the liberal groups give that money to dems

I’m trying to figure out if your serious or simply stubborn
 
Here's a list of candidates, both R and D, that took "dark money" donations;

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_cands.php

None of those candidates took any dark money. That is a list of which candidates the orgs spent their dark money on.

From your own source
https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

Outside spending — sometimes referred to as independent or non-coordinated — spending refers to political expenditures made by organizations and individuals other than the candidate campaigns themselves.
 
Here's a list of candidates, both R and D, that took "dark money" donations;

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_cands.php

Again, not a single candidate "took" any dark money donations. They aren't donations at all. Groups form independent orgs, raise money, then spend it to influence elections. The candidate is prohibited by law from involving him/herself anywhere in that process.

Obviously party insiders are involved in many of those efforts, but the point is that if Buffett decides to drop a $billion in ads to oust Trump in 2020, there is nothing, zero, any Democrat can do to stop him, and you can't credibly claim the Democratic nominee "took" donations from Buffett. They benefit from the spending, but they cannot accept or refuse a nickel in "dark money" donations. It's not how they work.
 
I’m trying to figure out if your serious or simply stubborn

OK, you're a candidate for office and Americans for Prosperity (their 'dark money' wing) wants you to win and buys $5 million in ads supporting your candidacy.

Where in that process were you as candidate consulted? How do you stop them from supporting you? If you coordinate with them, or they you, you're breaking the law.
 
True and the candidates benefited from that dark money spent in their behalf. Sounds like a super pac except pacs have to report their donors.

Close enough

IOW, I was right. No dems take any dark money
 
Standing up for what's right?

Standing up for what's right got us donald trump. It's time the dems used the same tactics the R's use. Play hard, play dirty if need be. Notice how much trump has nancy shaking in her heels? So much so she told him to shove it, you're not welcome here until the government shutdown that he caused ends. You guys just are not used to your bs tactics being parried.
 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/li...-outspent-conservative-ones-in-2018-elections


Uhhh, I thought Democrats were for getting money out of politics. :3oops:

Not quite as bad as Republicans who are facing sea changes in the US that will drive them from power, unless they can make it "White male Christian conservative property owners ONLY" for voting rights again.

I'd like to see you justify a Democratic president shutting down the government for 33 days over a "gun control deal".
 
Again, not a single candidate "took" any dark money donations. They aren't donations at all. Groups form independent orgs, raise money, then spend it to influence elections. The candidate is prohibited by law from involving him/herself anywhere in that process.

Obviously party insiders are involved in many of those efforts, but the point is that if Buffett decides to drop a $billion in ads to oust Trump in 2020, there is nothing, zero, any Democrat can do to stop him, and you can't credibly claim the Democratic nominee "took" donations from Buffett. They benefit from the spending, but they cannot accept or refuse a nickel in "dark money" donations. It's not how they work.

501(c)(4)'s and (6)'s are dark money and not tax-deductible for the individual or corporation making the donation. These organizations are allowed to donate to political committees to the benefit of candidates.
 
501(c)(4)'s and (6)'s are dark money and not tax-deductible for the individual or corporation making the donation. These organizations are allowed to donate to political committees to the benefit of candidates.

And those "political committees" (I guess you're talking Super PACS) are also by law "independent" of the candidate or his or her official campaign, and cannot coordinate with the candidate.

In that case the 'dark money' groups are just a way to launder the contributions to a Super PAC that does disclose donors. Some of them are very explicit about this - donate to us, we'll keep your name secret, then our money goes to this Super PAC with the expertise to spend it wisely. Still independent, still nothing to do with the candidate, at least on paper.
 
I'm sure you lot would love it if the Dems kept falling on their swords. Enough of that. You fight dirty every single time. You deserve every last bit you get from now on. And since you always fight dirty, you don't have standing to whine about it.

:shrug:

I think I do have standing. Conservatives generally don't sign up for getting money out of politics; and it's really quite silly, since it isn't really possible. We consider it free speech.

The last sentence is bull. But if it weren't bull it would be yet another reason you don't have standing to whine about this. You should be celebrating Democrats 'speech' instead of making a gotcha thread, if you meant it.

I'm sure you'd love if it Democrats stood on principle and started turning away donations to show their continued opposition to Citizens United, but whatever.

Yeah, let's celebrate their hypocrisy.

I'm well aware that if I keep replying, you'll just keep making defiant sounds at me, so as to signal to yourself that you "won" something with this thread. You'll do that despite the fact that it's going exactly the same place every American thread goes: nothing but down.





Why do so many conservatives always play this triple-standard game? You want to do all the bad things while simultaneously attacking Democrats for doing bad things and on top complaining about democrats being hypocrites for doing the bad things.

Are you really unable to understand that if your game were fair and true, you'd be equally condemning yourself?

(OF course, it's not. It's just more dirty tricks from the right. You can stuff those. Whine all you want. I'd like it if the Dems stuck it to you ten times over in each of the ways you've tried to screw liberals.)





principles.... :lamo
 
Close enough

IOW, I was right. No dems take any dark money

By your logic Repubs don't either, so dark money doesn't seem to be a problem.
 
And those "political committees" (I guess you're talking Super PACS) are also by law "independent" of the candidate or his or her official campaign, and cannot coordinate with the candidate.

In that case the 'dark money' groups are just a way to launder the contributions to a Super PAC that does disclose donors. Some of them are very explicit about this - donate to us, we'll keep your name secret, then our money goes to this Super PAC with the expertise to spend it wisely. Still independent, still nothing to do with the candidate, at least on paper.

PACs can work in direct coordination with a candidate, but donations to PACs and PACs to candidates are limited by law. 501(c)(4)'s and (6)'s dark money, can contribute the limit to a PAC and a candidates PAC. So yes, candidates can benefit directly from dark money.

Super PACs can not coordinate with a campaign, but can spend and receive unlimited amounts. And "dark money" is contributed to them also.

Keep in mind "dark money" has been around since 1976.
 
Back
Top Bottom