4 ms·

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 fun

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.

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.