• 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

hanger4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is false. "Dark money" groups and Super PACs simply cannot directly or indirectly contribute to PACs, who then contribute to candidates directly, or make contributions directly to candidates.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit.
Click to expand...

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php

Political Action Committee (PAC) — A popular term for a political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party committee per calendar year.
Click to expand...

So you're just wrong. Of if I'm missing something, cite your sources because I don't believe you can launder secret, anonymous donations (i.e. "dark money") into a campaign that coordinates with the candidate.
 
Jetboogieman said:
This is why campaign finance reform is the single best way to improve politics.

The amount of money in politics is just wrong and while both sides may participate in this legalized corruption, no one appears to be more in the name of “pro-business” more destructive to the lives of their citizens then Republicans, the American approach to healthcare is just one example of how.
Click to expand...

Campaign ads aren't free and restricting campaign advertising and fundraising would violate the 1st Amendment.

That damned Constitution gets in the way, every time!
 
jnug said:
Well I would have to check the numbers but considering Donald got about $300M worth of free advertising because MSM just could not get enough of his whacko rallies, the numbers quoted do make some sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're going for here.
 
Mr Person said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would not presume to speak for American, only for myself, Mr Person. I am not trying to engage in any form of double standard with which to condemn Democrats. While I do think it is important to point out utter and rank hypocrisy, I think it is better to just say this: People spending millions of dollars for campaign advertisements while not disclosing donors is of no concern to me. It is of no concern to me when Democrats do it. It is of no concern to me when Republicans do it. I have no cause to believe campaign finance is some horrible injustice within our society, or even a minor injustice.

What I do not care for is empty moralistic mantras constantly made by many Democrats, wringing their hands about the evils of money in our politics, and how the Democratic voters are its eternal victims. It rather reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's observation of white liberal's statements of white privilege and the oppression of minorities being used as a form of power assertion to perpetuate holding onto power rather than empowering minorities. Now, I do not believe in white privilege as it is conceived of by most on the left, but it is an interesting observation nonetheless:



In my opinion, it is all so much self-serving poppycock. I take issue with it for the same reason that I take issue when Democratic candidates and their partisans preemptively complain about the evils of gerrymandering and voter suppression right up until they win the elections. Or when Donald Trump suggested he would not accept the result of the 2016 election if he lost because he believed the system was rigged against him. I see it as a sanctimonious power-play made to preemptively rationalize potential loss, while casting doubt on the legitimacy of both the election system and any victory made by the opposition.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
I would not presume to speak for American, only for myself, Mr Person. I am not trying to engage in any form of double standard with which to condemn Democrats. While I do think it is important to point out utter and rank hypocrisy, I think it is better to just say this: People spending millions of dollars for campaign advertisements while not disclosing donors is of no concern to me. It is of no concern to me when Democrats do it. It is of no concern to me when Republicans do it. I have no cause to believe campaign finance is some horrible injustice within our society, or even a minor injustice.

What I do not care for is empty moralistic mantras constantly made by many Democrats, wringing their hands about the evils of money in our politics, and how the Democratic voters are its eternal victims. It rather reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's observation of white liberal's statements of white privilege and the oppression of minorities being used as a form of power assertion to perpetuate holding onto power rather than empowering minorities. Now, I do not believe in white privilege as it is conceived of by most on the left, but it is an interesting observation nonetheless:
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but no. Just no.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy in opposing Citizens United and money in politics - that is working to get it out of politics for everyone - while doing what is allowable under the law so that one can actually compete against a Republican in an election.


Your position is an unfair means of trying to trap Democrats into one of two positions., whether you meant it that way or haven't fully thought through the consequences of what you aim at. If everyone does what you demand, one of two things must happen to Dems:

1. They jump through your hoops so that you don't label them a hypocrites - that is, turn down all this unrestricted money people want to give them - but in doing so lock themselves out of government forever because they cannot afford to run a single ad;

2. Tear up their principles and start praising unrestricted money in politics so that you don't label them hypocrites, whereupon you can attack them again for having been wrong. Even without the attack, you still win, because now nobody is even trying to say anything about unrestricted money in politics. So...you got your way, by calling Democrats a bad thing.



It is a perfect example of applying a double-standard while complaining about a double-standard, and the unfair gambit is to force people who disagree with unrestricted money in politics into a lose-lose situation. They have to agree to tear up their principles, or they have to stand on them and had you unanimous control. NOPE.

There is nothing hypocritical, no matter what a conservative might say, about opposing unrestricted money in politics while working to put some restrictions on it, but if one fails to get the restrictions to do what is allowable under the law.

It is no more hypocritical than saying we should all pay higher tax rates so we're not borrowing a trillion year, but then still taking advantage of any deductions one is allowed under the law. (And yes, that's another common triple-standard attack on 'the left' around here: oh, you don't think tax cuts were good? Well just send more money in voluntarily or else you're a hypocrite herr herr DERP)


I've simply had it with that flavor of ****. If someone thinks honestly about the consequences of what is demanded, it becomes obvious what the game is.

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Excuse me, but no. Just no.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy in opposing Citizens United and money in politics - that is working to get it out of politics for everyone - while doing what is allowable under the law so that one can actually compete against a Republican in an election.


Your position is an unfair means of trying to trap Democrats into one of two positions., whether you meant it that way or haven't fully thought through the consequences of what you aim at. If everyone does what you demand, one of two things must happen to Dems:

1. They jump through your hoops so that you don't label them a hypocrites - that is, turn down all this unrestricted money people want to give them - but in doing so lock themselves out of government forever because they cannot afford to run a single ad;

2. Tear up their principles and start praising unrestricted money in politics so that you don't label them hypocrites, whereupon you can attack them again for having been wrong. Even without the attack, you still win, because now nobody is even trying to say anything about unrestricted money in politics. So...you got your way, by calling Democrats a bad thing.



It is a perfect example of applying a double-standard while complaining about a double-standard, and the unfair gambit is to force people who disagree with unrestricted money in politics into a lose-lose situation. They have to agree to tear up their principles, or they have to stand on them and had you unanimous control. NOPE.

There is nothing hypocritical, no matter what a conservative might say, about opposing unrestricted money in politics while working to put some restrictions on it, but if one fails to get the restrictions to do what is allowable under the law.

It is no more hypocritical than saying we should all pay higher tax rates so we're not borrowing a trillion year, but then still taking advantage of any deductions one is allowed under the law. (And yes, that's another common triple-standard attack on 'the left' around here: oh, you don't think tax cuts were good? Well just send more money in voluntarily or else you're a hypocrite herr herr DERP)


I'm simply had it with that flavor of ****. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Before you start leveling accusations with the royal "you," I must ask that you do not misunderstand me, Mr Person. If you are going to attack my position, I welcome it, but it is not my position that certain Democrats are being hypocritical (at least not in this instance) just because they were the beneficiaries of so-called "Dark Money" in their political campaigns. As others here have pointed out, they could not really refuse it if they wanted to.

My position is simply this: I believe people should be free to spend as much money as they wish to spend, whenever they wish to spend it, in order to campaign and get the candidate of their choice elected to office, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent. If you want to make an argument as to why such expenditures in politics is a bad thing (beyond matters of outright bribery, of course) I am happy to hear those arguments. But I believe advocacy for political candidates and causes (which requires money, naturally) is a form of speech worthy of protection.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Before you start leveling accusations with the royal "you," I must ask that you do not misunderstand me, Mr Person. If you are going to attack my position, I welcome it, but it is not my position that certain Democrats are being hypocritical (at least not in this instance) just because they were the beneficiaries of so-called "Dark Money" in their political campaigns. As others here have pointed out, they could not really refuse it if they wanted to.

My position is simply this: I believe people should be free to spend as much money as they wish to spend, whenever they wish to spend it, in order to campaign and get the candidate of their choice elected to office, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent. If you want to make an argument as to why such expenditures in politics is a bad thing (beyond matters of outright bribery, of course) I am happy to hear those arguments. But I believe advocacy for political candidates and causes (which requires money, naturally) is a form of speech worthy of protection.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question as far as I'm concerned with the bolded. What your distinction does is hinge the decision about campaign spending on the IMO functionally non-existent, or functionally irrelevant, distinction between "outright" bribery and "de facto" bribery, or on the other side we could cal it extortion.

Why do we really care about the difference between, 1) "Here's $10,000 in cash, for your vote on HR 87" versus, 2) "Here's $1 million in campaign contributions for your votes on every bill important to me for the next cycle. And if you cross me, I'll dump $5 million into your next primary opponent, and against you in the general."

What do Congressman (and state and local legislators, where the impact of big money is likely FAR more problematic) want if not money and power. Why is bribing them with money a problem but not bribing them with the chance to retain the power they so covet?

Furthermore, I don't see the sacredness (if that's the right term) of speech that takes the form of money. Sure, Buffett should be able to speak, write, give lectures, show up on TV, publish in the BRK annual report, whatever political commentary he wants, support who he wants. But we're not limiting that and campaign finance restrictions would touch none of that. What we're saying is Buffett's ability to dump a $billion into politics, $2 million in ads, in 500 races if he wants is sacrosanct. Why? Some guy working at Walmart can spend $0 to get HIS political priorities to the public eyes and ears. Why isn't it a legitimate democratic function to limit that "speech" because of the distorting effect it HAS on the airing of political opinions - only those with huge amounts to spend can afford to have their voices aired.

Buffett isn't being disadvantaged versus the bottom 99.9%, he's just having his 'right' to political speech put on the same playing field as the rest of us.

I'd compare it to travel by private Lear jet. We all have the same "right" to that travel, but when the "right" is EFFECTIVELY reserved in large part to the wealthiest, then it's a meaningless "right" for the bottom 99.9%. Just seems like a legitimate exercise in a democratic republic to limit "speech" defined by dollars, if we so desire, or not if we desire.
 
Felis Leo said:
Before you start leveling accusations with the royal "you," I must ask that you do not misunderstand me, Mr Person. If you are going to attack my position, I welcome it, but it is not my position that certain Democrats are being hypocritical (at least not in this instance) just because they were the beneficiaries of so-called "Dark Money" in their political campaigns. As others here have pointed out, they could not really refuse it if they wanted to.

My position is simply this: I believe people should be free to spend as much money as they wish to spend, whenever they wish to spend it, in order to campaign and get the candidate of their choice elected to office, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent. If you want to make an argument as to why such expenditures in politics is a bad thing (beyond matters of outright bribery, of course) I am happy to hear those arguments. But I believe advocacy for political candidates and causes (which requires money, naturally) is a form of speech worthy of protection.
Click to expand...

I remind you that what you said and what I responded to, was this:

Felis Leo said:
I am not trying to engage in any form of double standard with which to condemn Democrats. While I do think it is important to point out utter and rank hypocrisy, I think it is better to just say this: People spending millions of dollars for campaign advertisements while not disclosing donors is of no concern to me. It is of no concern to me when Democrats do it. It is of no concern to me when Republicans do it. I have no cause to believe campaign finance is some horrible injustice within our society, or even a minor injustice.
Click to expand...
Felis Leo said:

What I do not care for is empty moralistic mantras constantly made by many Democrats, wringing their hands about the evils of money in our politics, and how the Democratic voters are its eternal victims. It rather reminds me of Slavoj Zizek's observation of white liberal's statements of white privilege and the oppression of minorities being used as a form of power assertion to perpetuate holding onto power rather than empowering minorities. Now, I do not believe in white privilege as it is conceived of by most on the left, but it is an interesting observation nonetheless:

Click to expand...


You didn't address what I said. That is the real "self-serving poppycock". it is for the reasons I layed out, which you simply ignored to repeat yourself on the broader subject of thinking money = speech. But it's not reasoned argument if you're just going to call Democrats names and then ignore the response.

The problem is that if we were to assume you were right that Democrats are being hypocrites right now, Democrats would have only two ways of satisfying you:


1. Continuing to rail against all this money in politics and taking your "high road" by rejecting it. Meanwhile, the GOP would keep raking in all the money it wanted. This would mean the Democrats would lock themselves out of power, to show you that they aren't "hypocrites."


2. Saying they were wrong, embracing unlimited money in politics, and continuing to take it.

Your position about democrats being "hypocrites" is fundamentally unfair because it leaves the Democrats no way to exist while also being against unlimited politics in money. It's set up so that it's a win-win for you and a lose-lose for them. Nobody can be allowed to be against all this money in politics AND be an actual politician, if you had your way.


It is also, simply put, silly. It really has the exact same structure as people accusing Democrats of being hypocrites because they think we should have higher tax rates and close loopholes, while themselves taking advantage of the tax laws they're trying to change. No. It's just a cheap jab.
 
Felis Leo said:
My position is simply this: I believe people should be free to spend as much money as they wish to spend, whenever they wish to spend it, in order to campaign and get the candidate of their choice elected to office, whether Republican, Democrat, or independent. If you want to make an argument as to why such expenditures in politics is a bad thing (beyond matters of outright bribery, of course) I am happy to hear those arguments. But I believe advocacy for political candidates and causes (which requires money, naturally) is a form of speech worthy of protection.
Click to expand...

And that’s a different subject than whether Democrats are hypocrites for doing the necessary to survive in government while trying to change the law applied to everyone such that neither they NOR the other side could get . If we're going to have reasoned debate, you have to actually address that.

It is completely unreasonable and pointedly unfair to insist that people who want different policy goals than you must live their lives as if the policy goals they want were actually in place, thereby giving an unfair advantage to the people you support, while also trying to change the law applicable to everyone. You're calling them "hypocrites" for not personally handicapping themselves.



But as to money-as-speech.

This isn't just about dark money anyway. The thread is, but I never limited my point to dark money. It's about all the money in politics, something Dems have been trying to change the law about. Or were, until Citizens United but now can't really do much of anything anyway.

The notion that money is literally speech is absurd. It is not speech. It is money. You can do all sorts of things with money that you can't do with speech. And one of those things, is drowning out people without all that money such that they have no meaningful participation in American Democracy.

A good analogy is this. You can stand on the street corner and give a speech. Someone can stand across and give their speech. But nobody can walk right up to you, get in your face, and blare directly in your ears with a microphone so as to drown your speech out utterly. Massive, especially when unequal, money in politics allows that to happen: the candidate with a huge amount more can drown out the other via money, just as if they'd walked up with an amp or megaphone and drowned you out so people could only hear them. It just wouldn't be criminal, as the scenario might be.....but that's because analogies are by definition imperfect. The logical structure is what matters.

Nevermind that the more money in politics, the more corruption, and the more a narrower class of the richest (typically entities, like corporations, and their CEOs/board members) control just about everything. It's a poison. The result it works is opposite to the entire reason of protecting speech in the first place, which is that the best idea is supposed to win and people can speak out against government without fear of reprisal.

Money-as-speech instead means the richest win, not on merit but simply because they can afford to bury you in noise.

Speech doesn't let anyone hijack democracy. Money does.
 
sangha said:
Correct


Incorrect
Click to expand...

Then what's wrong with "dark momey" ?? If it's not donated to the candidate but to the candidates PAC (a distinction without a difference) what's the problem ??
 
hanger4 said:
Then what's wrong with "dark momey" ?? If it's not donated to the candidate but to the candidates PAC (a distinction without a difference) what's the problem ??
Click to expand...

It is not donated to the candidates pac.
 
JasperL said:
That is false. "Dark money" groups and Super PACs simply cannot directly or indirectly contribute to PACs, who then contribute to candidates directly, or make contributions directly to candidates.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php



https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php



So you're just wrong. Of if I'm missing something, cite your sources because I don't believe you can launder secret, anonymous donations (i.e. "dark money") into a campaign that coordinates with the candidate.
Click to expand...

Yes, you missed something, my post made no mention of Super PAC's just Political Action Committees (PAC's).
 
hanger4 said:
Yes, you missed something, my post made no mention of Super PAC's just Political Action Committees (PAC's).
Click to expand...

Right, PACs that have strict limits on contributions and who can contribute, disclose their donors, and cannot accept money from Super PACS or any other recipient of 'dark money.'

If the money is "dark" (I.e. unlimited and identity of donor kept secret) there is no direct or indirect mechanism for a candidate to accept or decline it because by law it must be spent independent of the campaign and the candidate. If you disagree, give me a cite to the law or a discussion of the law.
 
hanger4 said:
Then what's wrong with "dark momey" ?? If it's not donated to the candidate but to the candidates PAC (a distinction without a difference) what's the problem ??
Click to expand...

Dark money cannot be contributed to a candidate's PAC.
 
hanger4 said:
*These organizations may engage in political lobbying and political campaign activities. This includes donations to political committees*

https://ballotpedia.org/501(c)(4)
Click to expand...

OK, so you're being outright dishonest. For some reason you clipped and didn't include the bolded.

This includes donations to political committees that support or oppose ballot measures, bond issues, recalls or referenda.
Click to expand...

In other words, they can make to donations to other stuff, but not candidates or their campaigns or their PACs. See also here: https://www.bolderadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The_Connection_Ch1_paywall.pdf

1. Corporate Contributions to Federal Candidates Are Prohibited

Even after Citizens United, the FECA prohibits corporations, including nonprofit
corporations, from making contributions with general treasury funds to support the
election or defeat of a federal candidate. Contributions include direct and indirect payments
(including distributions, loans, advances, deposits, or gifts) of money, services, or anything of
value that go to benefit any candidate, political committee, or party organization.

Under this general rule, a nonprofit corporation such as a 501(c)(4) may not:

- contribute directly to a federal candidate, a Federal PAC, or a political party; or
- make in-kind contributions to a federal candidate, political party, or Federal PAC by
providing goods or services at no charge or at less than fair market value, including, but
not limited to, mailing, membership, or donor lists; paid staff; travel and living expenses;
or radio or television ads that are coordinated with the candidate or candidate’s
campaign. (For a more detailed discussion of coordination see Chapter I, § F.)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom