6 ms·

Major Tea Party Group Was Backed by Billionaire Donors, Hacked Documents Reveal

63 points by jbegley 5y ago

belltaco 5y ago
We need to have laws that large funders of so called grassroots efforts have to be disclosed. The Arizona audit fought tooth and nail in court to hide it's funding and lost. Turns out Overstock ex-CEO contributed $3.25 million. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/29/these-trump-backing-groups-are-largely-funding-the-arizona-audit/?sh=237ef33a28ae https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/29/thes...
- threatofrain 5y ago
  It is a bit disturbing that an organization (Cyber Ninjas) allegedly dedicated to election transparency and public confidence should express so much embarrassment over how it works with $$$, and work so hard to keep its affairs opaque. It is also bizarre that the GOP would choose a no-reputation firm without any prior experience in elections to administer the process.
  - kordlessagain 5y ago
    It strikes me there is a correlation with intelligence occurring.
  - gumby 5y ago
    > It is also bizarre that the GOP would choose a no-reputation firm without any prior experience in elections to administer the process. Not really. Nobody with any experience would touch the job and risk their reputation. The GOP had to go with what they could get.
    - sumthinprofound 5y ago
      > The GOP had to go with what they could get. While it certainly remains to be seen, my (conspiracy?) theory is that a percentage of the payment to Cyber Ninjas will make it's way back to the GOP in the form of campaign contributions.
      - gumby 5y ago
        Probably a requirement at the top of the RFQ
- 99_00 5y ago
  >We need to have laws that large funders of so called grassroots efforts have to be disclosed. Why?
  - seanicus 5y ago
    If ANTIFA or the 3%'ers were backed by a company with strong links to China or Russia, wouldn't you want to know?
    - 99_00 5y ago
      The danger I want to avoid is private citizens being targeted for supporting unpopular causes they, in good faith, believe in. Politically targeted violence in America is now a reality and police and prosecutors look the other way depending on the politics of their masters.
      - jinpa_zangpo 5y ago
        If you make a donation to a political candidate, that is public information today.
        99_00 5y ago
        Yes. https://twitter.com/castro4congress/status/1158576680182718464 https://twitter.com/castro4congress/status/11585766801827184...
      - pmdulaney 5y ago
        It seems that the Supreme Court agrees with you: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-guts-a-state-law-requiring-nonprofits-to-name-their-rich-donor https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-... So did Ruth Bader Ginsburg: https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-and-the-value-of-anonymity-11602797350 https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-and-the-value-...
      - eschaton 5y ago
        Politically targeted violence has been a reality in North America for hundreds of years, mostly enabled the past 150+ years in the US by organizations that exist to keep their members anonymous. The Proud Boys and 3%ers and Oath Keepers that try to remain anonymous are following the KKK playbook.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I think scotus rulings prevent this, short of a new amendment... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  - belltaco 5y ago
    I don't think they do. That case is about whether certain political donations should be allowed or not. There is nothing about the decision restricting forced disclosure of such donations.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      In a strict legal sense you're correct. But I think in practice there are a lot of "loop holes". A few are: * donors are not anonymous but pacs aren't required to reveal them until the quarter after their donation, often after the end of the campaign. Even then a donor can create an anonymous llc and funnel the money through it to hide their identity. * "Super PACs" are meant to be issue based. But your "issue" can simply be "elect candidate X". * Super PACs can't coordinate with candidates. Unless they do it through the media. And SPAC staff can and do routinely meet with candidates to... Not coordinate. The SPAC to elect Mitt Romney was controlled by his family lawyer for instance. They mett regularly to... Not coordinate. This is the system Citizens United and a few other cases give us. I'm far from an expert. Maybe I've listen to too many conspiracy theories? I'd be happy to be corrected. But right now it seems pretty easy to anonymously drive a campaign and spend as much money as you like doing it. Ironically not even the candidate you support NEEDS to know who you are. Maybe Congress can find ways to make some of this work in practice without a major change to the 1st? I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Sup... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-super-pac-18m https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-su... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future
- smitty1e 5y ago
  Laws are fine, assuming they are fairly, firmly, amd impartially applied. The (apparently) recent drift of the executive into selective enforcement has been most worrisome. Perhaps 'twas ever thus, and there is just more information about this passive tyranny in circulation now.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
What a shocking revelation! /s For real though, how is this surprising or even newsworthy? Look behind any large political movement and you'll see rich people funding them. And, as loathe as people are to hear the term "both sides", it's not like this is some sinister thing that only applies to the Tea Party folks.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  In the US, it's probably slightly tilted towards conservative support. But just because the traditional conservative party platform supports low business taxes and light regulation. Which are effectively the only things that truly matter to corporations (in an accounting sense).
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I challenge that assumption because it really seems like major US companies have embraced progressive causes wholeheartedly. I can really only think of a handful of traditionally 'conservative' companies like Hobby Lobby and Interstate Battery. But I don't have to look very far to find a fortune 500 company donating to some progressive cause. Even McDonald's CEO has endeavored to make themselves a "Modern and Progressive Burger Company": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flirting-with-kale-on-the-menu-to-keep-up-with-modern-times/2015/06/17/85a48f4e-1515-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flirting-with-kale-o...
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Follow the money. They'll loudly support wherever public sentiment is, for PR purposes. They'll make a show of donating equally to both parties (or neither), to claim neutrality. But ultimately, people and businesses invest money into politics because they expect a return. The government taking less of your money (or the government giving you money in the form of business) are that return. And there are way too many dark routes to funnel money into politics without leaving a trail or disclosure.
    - fakedang 5y ago
barbacoa 5y ago
I used to work with someone who was part of a "local grassroots" chapter of a political party. Every few weeks they would all be loaded onto a bus and sent to wherever they were told to go protest whatever issue the national news was obsessing over that moment. This was during weekdays and they were being paid for taking unpaid time off work. I have always been curious what nefarious billionaire was funding it.
throwawaysea 5y ago
It's unclear why this is significant. Just as it is on the right, many "grassroots" organizations on the left are funded by outside interests that are not fully "organic". For example Open Society Foundations (OSF), which was founded by billionaire George Soros, has provided funding for groups that participated in protests and riots throughout 2020 (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/riot-act/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/riot-act/). Other groups linked to Soros/OSF also organize bail funds for those accused of criminal acts during protests, even very recently with events on the Israel/Palestine issue (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/28/radical-soros-backed-group-supporting-legal-bail-fund-for-violent-pro-palestinian-activists/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/28/radical-soros-...). This is a fairly normal practice and it's a bit tired to see news sites point fingers at whichever side they aren't biased towards.
helloworld11 5y ago
I don't see the big news here unless one is strictly going by ideological fixation. A political organization can have both grassroots elements and be funded by wealthy patrons. There are MANY democrat, progressive organizations in the U.S and elsewhere that regularly receive funding and support from billionaires of similar political persuasion, which is perfectly fine and good. But oh the horror! If it happens to be a conservative group and some billionaire funded part of it, then its a deep dark conspiracy all of a sudden. Talk about constructing politically tainted narrative. Are conservative-type groups somehow less morally clean for receiving support from wealthy patrons than progressive groups for receiving support from wealthy patrons of their own? Does being a billionaire who feels an affinity for conservative or free market causes make that person nefarious because they decide to financially support them? Why except for reasons of purely political emotional dislike does it not apply equally when any number of billionaire pro-democrat types regularly fund projects and groups that share their affinities?
- brnt 5y ago
  if you would research this a bit more, you will find that the dollar number favour a particular side.
- didibus 5y ago
  I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them. They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques. This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is. So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class. This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening. Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.
brnt 5y ago
If you are interested in this history in its larger context, give Jane Mayer's Black Money a shot. It's extremely well researched, despite the lack of much of a paper trail.
atoav 5y ago
Divide and conquer.

63 points by jbegley 5y ago

We need to have laws that large funders of so called grassroots efforts have to be disclosed. The Arizona audit fought tooth and nail in court to hide it's funding and lost. Turns out Overstock ex-CEO contributed $3.25 million. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/29/these-trump-backing-groups-are-largely-funding-the-arizona-audit/?sh=237ef33a28ae https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/29/thes...

threatofrain 5y ago
It is a bit disturbing that an organization (Cyber Ninjas) allegedly dedicated to election transparency and public confidence should express so much embarrassment over how it works with $$$, and work so hard to keep its affairs opaque. It is also bizarre that the GOP would choose a no-reputation firm without any prior experience in elections to administer the process.
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  It strikes me there is a correlation with intelligence occurring.
- gumby 5y ago
  > It is also bizarre that the GOP would choose a no-reputation firm without any prior experience in elections to administer the process. Not really. Nobody with any experience would touch the job and risk their reputation. The GOP had to go with what they could get.
  - sumthinprofound 5y ago
    > The GOP had to go with what they could get. While it certainly remains to be seen, my (conspiracy?) theory is that a percentage of the payment to Cyber Ninjas will make it's way back to the GOP in the form of campaign contributions.
    - gumby 5y ago
      Probably a requirement at the top of the RFQ
99_00 5y ago
>We need to have laws that large funders of so called grassroots efforts have to be disclosed. Why?
- seanicus 5y ago
  If ANTIFA or the 3%'ers were backed by a company with strong links to China or Russia, wouldn't you want to know?
  - 99_00 5y ago
    The danger I want to avoid is private citizens being targeted for supporting unpopular causes they, in good faith, believe in. Politically targeted violence in America is now a reality and police and prosecutors look the other way depending on the politics of their masters.
    - jinpa_zangpo 5y ago
      If you make a donation to a political candidate, that is public information today.
      - 99_00 5y ago
        Yes. https://twitter.com/castro4congress/status/1158576680182718464 https://twitter.com/castro4congress/status/11585766801827184...
    - pmdulaney 5y ago
      It seems that the Supreme Court agrees with you: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-guts-a-state-law-requiring-nonprofits-to-name-their-rich-donor https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-... So did Ruth Bader Ginsburg: https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-and-the-value-of-anonymity-11602797350 https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-and-the-value-...
    - eschaton 5y ago
      Politically targeted violence has been a reality in North America for hundreds of years, mostly enabled the past 150+ years in the US by organizations that exist to keep their members anonymous. The Proud Boys and 3%ers and Oath Keepers that try to remain anonymous are following the KKK playbook.
LatteLazy 5y ago
I think scotus rulings prevent this, short of a new amendment... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- belltaco 5y ago
  I don't think they do. That case is about whether certain political donations should be allowed or not. There is nothing about the decision restricting forced disclosure of such donations.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    In a strict legal sense you're correct. But I think in practice there are a lot of "loop holes". A few are: * donors are not anonymous but pacs aren't required to reveal them until the quarter after their donation, often after the end of the campaign. Even then a donor can create an anonymous llc and funnel the money through it to hide their identity. * "Super PACs" are meant to be issue based. But your "issue" can simply be "elect candidate X". * Super PACs can't coordinate with candidates. Unless they do it through the media. And SPAC staff can and do routinely meet with candidates to... Not coordinate. The SPAC to elect Mitt Romney was controlled by his family lawyer for instance. They mett regularly to... Not coordinate. This is the system Citizens United and a few other cases give us. I'm far from an expert. Maybe I've listen to too many conspiracy theories? I'd be happy to be corrected. But right now it seems pretty easy to anonymously drive a campaign and spend as much money as you like doing it. Ironically not even the candidate you support NEEDS to know who you are. Maybe Congress can find ways to make some of this work in practice without a major change to the 1st? I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Sup... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-super-pac-18m https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-su... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restore_Our_Future
smitty1e 5y ago
Laws are fine, assuming they are fairly, firmly, amd impartially applied. The (apparently) recent drift of the executive into selective enforcement has been most worrisome. Perhaps 'twas ever thus, and there is just more information about this passive tyranny in circulation now.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

What a shocking revelation! /s For real though, how is this surprising or even newsworthy? Look behind any large political movement and you'll see rich people funding them. And, as loathe as people are to hear the term "both sides", it's not like this is some sinister thing that only applies to the Tea Party folks.

ethbr0 5y ago
In the US, it's probably slightly tilted towards conservative support. But just because the traditional conservative party platform supports low business taxes and light regulation. Which are effectively the only things that truly matter to corporations (in an accounting sense).
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I challenge that assumption because it really seems like major US companies have embraced progressive causes wholeheartedly. I can really only think of a handful of traditionally 'conservative' companies like Hobby Lobby and Interstate Battery. But I don't have to look very far to find a fortune 500 company donating to some progressive cause. Even McDonald's CEO has endeavored to make themselves a "Modern and Progressive Burger Company": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flirting-with-kale-on-the-menu-to-keep-up-with-modern-times/2015/06/17/85a48f4e-1515-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flirting-with-kale-o...
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Follow the money. They'll loudly support wherever public sentiment is, for PR purposes. They'll make a show of donating equally to both parties (or neither), to claim neutrality. But ultimately, people and businesses invest money into politics because they expect a return. The government taking less of your money (or the government giving you money in the form of business) are that return. And there are way too many dark routes to funnel money into politics without leaving a trail or disclosure.
  - fakedang 5y ago

barbacoa 5y ago

I used to work with someone who was part of a "local grassroots" chapter of a political party. Every few weeks they would all be loaded onto a bus and sent to wherever they were told to go protest whatever issue the national news was obsessing over that moment. This was during weekdays and they were being paid for taking unpaid time off work. I have always been curious what nefarious billionaire was funding it.

throwawaysea 5y ago

It's unclear why this is significant. Just as it is on the right, many "grassroots" organizations on the left are funded by outside interests that are not fully "organic". For example Open Society Foundations (OSF), which was founded by billionaire George Soros, has provided funding for groups that participated in protests and riots throughout 2020 (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/riot-act/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/riot-act/). Other groups linked to Soros/OSF also organize bail funds for those accused of criminal acts during protests, even very recently with events on the Israel/Palestine issue (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/28/radical-soros-backed-group-supporting-legal-bail-fund-for-violent-pro-palestinian-activists/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/05/28/radical-soros-...). This is a fairly normal practice and it's a bit tired to see news sites point fingers at whichever side they aren't biased towards.

helloworld11 5y ago

I don't see the big news here unless one is strictly going by ideological fixation. A political organization can have both grassroots elements and be funded by wealthy patrons. There are MANY democrat, progressive organizations in the U.S and elsewhere that regularly receive funding and support from billionaires of similar political persuasion, which is perfectly fine and good. But oh the horror! If it happens to be a conservative group and some billionaire funded part of it, then its a deep dark conspiracy all of a sudden. Talk about constructing politically tainted narrative. Are conservative-type groups somehow less morally clean for receiving support from wealthy patrons than progressive groups for receiving support from wealthy patrons of their own? Does being a billionaire who feels an affinity for conservative or free market causes make that person nefarious because they decide to financially support them? Why except for reasons of purely political emotional dislike does it not apply equally when any number of billionaire pro-democrat types regularly fund projects and groups that share their affinities?

brnt 5y ago
if you would research this a bit more, you will find that the dollar number favour a particular side.
didibus 5y ago
I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them. They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques. This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is. So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class. This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening. Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.

brnt 5y ago

If you are interested in this history in its larger context, give Jane Mayer's Black Money a shot. It's extremely well researched, despite the lack of much of a paper trail.

atoav 5y ago

Divide and conquer.