5 ms·

I.R.S. Will No Longer Force Kochs and Other Groups to Disclose Donors

31 points by clumsysmurf 8y ago

s73v3r_ 8y ago
This is a terrible, terrible decision. Knowing who's behind these groups is one of the only rays of sunshine that can be used to show a group's real motives. Not being able to tell where the money comes is going to make dark money have even more of an impact in our elections, and give the very wealthy even more control.
- crb002 8y ago
  The only issue I see is money laundering. Under the First Amendment I could care less if Warren Buffett slaps a few billion down on a campaign. What I do care about is quid pro quo using donations to launder money into the coffers of purported campaign contractors.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    What you care about, and what the public has a right to know, don't have to be the same.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    See, I completely disagree. I don't believe the first amendment means that money is speech, nor that a rich person is entitled to more speech than anyone else.
TAForObvReasons 8y ago
> “Americans shouldn’t be required to send the I.R.S. information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the I.R.S. simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in a statement on Monday evening. In light of the Trump Foundation charity shenanigans, is this even remotely true?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Hell, in light of the factory that the NRA was caught colluding with a Russian National, it's very much not true.
cascom 8y ago
It seems from the public’s perspective, the only piece of information that will no longer available is how many donors there are and at what amount. The public was never getting a donor list except in unauthorized disclosures. The article also does not state why the IRS would need to know who the donor is? Can someone shed some light here?
Simulacra 8y ago
I think the title is a little loaded. I give to a lot of groups, I don’t want my name on a list that the government or the public can get their hands on. Imagine if during the civil rights era, people who gave money to anti-segregation organizations risk having their names made public just because they donated? Pick a cause. Donor information should be confidential because it’s no one‘s business where the money is going. Whether you’re warren Buffett, Michael Moore or anybody
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I strongly disagree that it's no one's business where that money is going. That money is used to influence public policy, which can have a very real effect on me and my life. I think it should be very public knowledge that, a group that is advocating against climate change, for instance, be required to disclose that all of it's major donors are members of the oil and gas industry. I think this idea of unlimited dark money coming into our elections to influence policy is absolutely terrifying, and without knowing who is giving the money, combating the influence of these groups is much, much more difficult.
  - Simulacra 8y ago
    Every time you give to MoveOn.org or similar organizations, that money is doing the exact same thing. Let's turn this around for a moment. That donation you gave to the ACLU, or Black Lives Matter... If it's public, or in a way that can be made public, then as an employer I can use that to disqualify you from a job. As an apartment complex, I can find subtle ways to dissuade you from living there, such as a higher rent, or other fees. I can use my political bias against you, just because you gave to a group I don't like. If I can do that, why can't you do that to me? By keeping donor information private, no one can weaponize that information, and no one can use it to discriminate. Do we really want people harassing one another in public, or worse, for whom they give to? Who I support, who I give money to, is no ones business but mine, and the organization I give it to, because at the end of the day I don't want you to harass me, and come after me because you disagree.
    - 8y ago
Bucephalus355 8y ago
By investing even more money in politics, rich people are making it so dysfunctional that the system will all come crashing down. At this point, we’re so close that whatever moderate reform could be pushed through would just allow the current system to limp along as is for decades. Therefore, I like that we are accelerating the decline by opening the money gates up even more:

31 points by clumsysmurf 8y ago

This is a terrible, terrible decision. Knowing who's behind these groups is one of the only rays of sunshine that can be used to show a group's real motives. Not being able to tell where the money comes is going to make dark money have even more of an impact in our elections, and give the very wealthy even more control.

crb002 8y ago
The only issue I see is money laundering. Under the First Amendment I could care less if Warren Buffett slaps a few billion down on a campaign. What I do care about is quid pro quo using donations to launder money into the coffers of purported campaign contractors.
- acct1771 8y ago
  What you care about, and what the public has a right to know, don't have to be the same.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  See, I completely disagree. I don't believe the first amendment means that money is speech, nor that a rich person is entitled to more speech than anyone else.

TAForObvReasons 8y ago

> “Americans shouldn’t be required to send the I.R.S. information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the I.R.S. simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in a statement on Monday evening. In light of the Trump Foundation charity shenanigans, is this even remotely true?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Hell, in light of the factory that the NRA was caught colluding with a Russian National, it's very much not true.

cascom 8y ago

It seems from the public’s perspective, the only piece of information that will no longer available is how many donors there are and at what amount. The public was never getting a donor list except in unauthorized disclosures. The article also does not state why the IRS would need to know who the donor is? Can someone shed some light here?

Simulacra 8y ago

I think the title is a little loaded. I give to a lot of groups, I don’t want my name on a list that the government or the public can get their hands on. Imagine if during the civil rights era, people who gave money to anti-segregation organizations risk having their names made public just because they donated? Pick a cause. Donor information should be confidential because it’s no one‘s business where the money is going. Whether you’re warren Buffett, Michael Moore or anybody

s73v3r_ 8y ago
I strongly disagree that it's no one's business where that money is going. That money is used to influence public policy, which can have a very real effect on me and my life. I think it should be very public knowledge that, a group that is advocating against climate change, for instance, be required to disclose that all of it's major donors are members of the oil and gas industry. I think this idea of unlimited dark money coming into our elections to influence policy is absolutely terrifying, and without knowing who is giving the money, combating the influence of these groups is much, much more difficult.
- Simulacra 8y ago
  Every time you give to MoveOn.org or similar organizations, that money is doing the exact same thing. Let's turn this around for a moment. That donation you gave to the ACLU, or Black Lives Matter... If it's public, or in a way that can be made public, then as an employer I can use that to disqualify you from a job. As an apartment complex, I can find subtle ways to dissuade you from living there, such as a higher rent, or other fees. I can use my political bias against you, just because you gave to a group I don't like. If I can do that, why can't you do that to me? By keeping donor information private, no one can weaponize that information, and no one can use it to discriminate. Do we really want people harassing one another in public, or worse, for whom they give to? Who I support, who I give money to, is no ones business but mine, and the organization I give it to, because at the end of the day I don't want you to harass me, and come after me because you disagree.
  - 8y ago

Bucephalus355 8y ago

By investing even more money in politics, rich people are making it so dysfunctional that the system will all come crashing down. At this point, we’re so close that whatever moderate reform could be pushed through would just allow the current system to limp along as is for decades. Therefore, I like that we are accelerating the decline by opening the money gates up even more: