4 ms·

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 d

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

4 ms·

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 d

by 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