7 ms·

Dark money is such a weird phrase and a mischaracterized label. The practice is not unique to any one group or issue. "Dark money" - defined as funds raised for

by Ajay-p 2y ago

Dark money is such a weird phrase and a mischaracterized label. The practice is not unique to any one group or issue. "Dark money" - defined as funds raised for the purpose of influencing elections by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors - is used by all interest groups, good and bad.

Etheryte 2y ago
I think it's a very fitting label? Money is being funnelled for or against a cause, but there is no visibility into who's behind it, same as in being left in the dark.
abenga 2y ago
But mostly bad. People paying for good (or more specifically, something generally popular) don't need to hide what they're doing, as a general rule.
- gruez 2y ago
  >People paying for good (or more specifically, something generally popular) don't need to hide what they're doing Is there numbers on this? Because of how "dark money" is defined (ie. any sort of 501(c) nonprofit), technically any 501(c) charity (eg. even something like NAACP) is "dark money".
- Ajay-p 2y ago
  What's your definition of "good" ? In the past, the right for women to vote, to get an abortion, for gays to be married, for blacks to vote without fear of harm, were all "unpopular-to-power opinions" and deemed "bad." It only becomes "good" when you personally believe it to be.
  - abenga 2y ago
    That's why I clarified using "generally popular". I mean more like "keeping with today's mores", which is admittedly a moving target in the long term.
  - abenga 2y ago
    That's why I clarified using "generally popular". I mean more like "keeping with today's mores", which is admittedly a moving target in the long term.
    - Ajay-p 2y ago
      Ok, I understand, but the mores of the day can go in the wrong direction. We hope they are positive but there's no guarantee they will be today, or in the future. However your comment raises one major point about mores of the day: They were accepted then but found later to be awful. People can be wrong and later realize their mistake, it's not something we think about when supporting a cause; how will I be viewed in the future for this? Maybe we should.. Until then, anonymity in donating allows someone to express their opinions as they see the mores of the day to be, now, without fear of retribution, and protected for the distant future when they've realized how wrong they were and changed.
afavour 2y ago
> not required to disclose the identities of their donors This is the part that’s always bad. IMO “dark money” is the perfect term. Even if it’s in aid of a cause I agree with I still think the concept is sinister and would rather it not exist.
- Gormo 2y ago
  > This is the part that’s always bad. What's the reasoning here? How is that always bad? There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse in forcing everyone supporting any cause to publicly disclose their identity -- supporters of a given cause could be individually targeted by opponents; people could be intimidated into supporting causes they don't actually favor. There's a reason we cast secret ballots in elections, and I don't see much of a difference in the risk/reward equation when it comes to donations to nonprofits and social causes, whether political or not. And what benefit do you get from knowing the identities of everyone donating to a specific cause? Are you going to oppose something you already reject on its merits even more because someone you don't like is donating to it, or change your mind and start supporting it because someone you like does?
  - afavour 2y ago
    People being able to donate anonymously to an effort to shape public opinion feels fundamentally wrong to me. If they believe in the position being pushed they should be happy to be publicly associated with it. If they aren’t then I’m very suspicious about why. EDIT: the post I replied to was edited after my reply to add a lot of context that it now looks like I’m ignoring. Sadly I don’t have the time to address it point by point, so to clarify: this comment is a reply to the first line of the parent comment only.
    - Ajay-p 2y ago
      Depends on the position. Donating in favor of gay marriage was once seen as a very bad thing with many negative personal consequences. My parents gave money to stop Proposition 8, but I don't think they would have if they knew their names (at the time) would be made public. It's only wrong to those who disagree with the opinion being shaped.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I don't know that it must be political. What makes dark money distinct is that the source is undisclosed. Anonymous money = dark money.
nimbius 2y ago
> defined as funds raised for the purpose of influencing elections by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donor "Dark money" is the alternate term most of the beltway prefers as it keeps them safe from RICO indictments and uncomfortable attention to the hypocritic duality of a country that practically river-dances to democracy. This is just political bribery with more steps and ceremony.
throwaway13337 2y ago
Anonymity is a tool for those who execute negative externalities on society escape attribution. That is true. It's also a tool for those with unpopular-to-power opinions express them without fear of retribution in a society that insufficiently protects them. When it comes to money, though, those with more of it usually have less to fear from retribution. In this way, speech through money is a fairly dubious argument. It's, on balance, a definite corrupting force. Dark money is a good term because it implies a negative thing and that negative thing is a good guess here.
- Ajay-p 2y ago
  At one point, whether it's to give blacks the right to vote, gay marriage, abortion, or other "unpopular-to-power opinions," were financed through anonymity. You're proving my point - it's only a negative term to those who dislike the issue it is supporting.
- Gunax 2y ago
  The implications of requiring disclosure are significant. Do we really want to pass a law that says books, pamphlets, blogs, etc. cannot be published anonymously? Do we want to limit the amount of pamphlets you can print because some people can afford to print a lot? For instance, your very comment is published under a throwaway. Couldn't we say that your comment, being an attempt to influence us, shouldn't be anonymous? After all, perhaps you could stand to personally benefit in some way?
  - throwaway13337 2y ago
    The argument I made is not that anonymity cannot serve a good purpose. It can. However, anonymity has a cost proportional to its impact. That cost is that the impact of the anonymous act will have no retribution. A person is more likely to act in a negative-sum way with anonymity. Still, anonymity is essential because it protects the underpowered in their expression. We as a society have said that, on balance, anonymity with speech is good. And I think that's reasonable. With money as speech, this logic is broken. Money is the purest form of power within our society. Giving money is an expression of power. The more money, the more power to express. We then get all the negatives of anonymity with none of the benefits. What's more, as those with money can express a lot more than those without, the negatives are amplified. Another way to think of it is that freedom of expression as a sort of democratic value because it equalizes power. Speech as money removes the equality of it. To be more concrete, I believe that I can post anonymously but it would be dubious for me anonymously fund a lot of people posting here.
j45 2y ago
What would be a better word?
- mattmcknight 2y ago
  anonymous donor money
  - j45 2y ago
    Word Obsfucated? Anonymized?
legitster 2y ago
The article itself actually covers this point a bit: > Cannon said use of the phrase "dark money groups" when referring to 501(c)(4) organizations "often reveals a stunning level of ignorance." Cannon pointed to the Supreme Court's 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama, which held that the NAACP did not have to provide its membership lists to the state. The court decided that "compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute... a restraint on freedom of association."

by Ajay-p 2y ago

Etheryte 2y ago

I think it's a very fitting label? Money is being funnelled for or against a cause, but there is no visibility into who's behind it, same as in being left in the dark.

abenga 2y ago

But mostly bad. People paying for good (or more specifically, something generally popular) don't need to hide what they're doing, as a general rule.

gruez 2y ago
>People paying for good (or more specifically, something generally popular) don't need to hide what they're doing Is there numbers on this? Because of how "dark money" is defined (ie. any sort of 501(c) nonprofit), technically any 501(c) charity (eg. even something like NAACP) is "dark money".
Ajay-p 2y ago
What's your definition of "good" ? In the past, the right for women to vote, to get an abortion, for gays to be married, for blacks to vote without fear of harm, were all "unpopular-to-power opinions" and deemed "bad." It only becomes "good" when you personally believe it to be.
- abenga 2y ago
  That's why I clarified using "generally popular". I mean more like "keeping with today's mores", which is admittedly a moving target in the long term.
- abenga 2y ago
  That's why I clarified using "generally popular". I mean more like "keeping with today's mores", which is admittedly a moving target in the long term.
  - Ajay-p 2y ago
    Ok, I understand, but the mores of the day can go in the wrong direction. We hope they are positive but there's no guarantee they will be today, or in the future. However your comment raises one major point about mores of the day: They were accepted then but found later to be awful. People can be wrong and later realize their mistake, it's not something we think about when supporting a cause; how will I be viewed in the future for this? Maybe we should.. Until then, anonymity in donating allows someone to express their opinions as they see the mores of the day to be, now, without fear of retribution, and protected for the distant future when they've realized how wrong they were and changed.

afavour 2y ago

> not required to disclose the identities of their donors This is the part that’s always bad. IMO “dark money” is the perfect term. Even if it’s in aid of a cause I agree with I still think the concept is sinister and would rather it not exist.

Gormo 2y ago
> This is the part that’s always bad. What's the reasoning here? How is that always bad? There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse in forcing everyone supporting any cause to publicly disclose their identity -- supporters of a given cause could be individually targeted by opponents; people could be intimidated into supporting causes they don't actually favor. There's a reason we cast secret ballots in elections, and I don't see much of a difference in the risk/reward equation when it comes to donations to nonprofits and social causes, whether political or not. And what benefit do you get from knowing the identities of everyone donating to a specific cause? Are you going to oppose something you already reject on its merits even more because someone you don't like is donating to it, or change your mind and start supporting it because someone you like does?
- afavour 2y ago
  People being able to donate anonymously to an effort to shape public opinion feels fundamentally wrong to me. If they believe in the position being pushed they should be happy to be publicly associated with it. If they aren’t then I’m very suspicious about why. EDIT: the post I replied to was edited after my reply to add a lot of context that it now looks like I’m ignoring. Sadly I don’t have the time to address it point by point, so to clarify: this comment is a reply to the first line of the parent comment only.
  - Ajay-p 2y ago
    Depends on the position. Donating in favor of gay marriage was once seen as a very bad thing with many negative personal consequences. My parents gave money to stop Proposition 8, but I don't think they would have if they knew their names (at the time) would be made public. It's only wrong to those who disagree with the opinion being shaped.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

I don't know that it must be political. What makes dark money distinct is that the source is undisclosed. Anonymous money = dark money.

nimbius 2y ago

> defined as funds raised for the purpose of influencing elections by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose the identities of their donor "Dark money" is the alternate term most of the beltway prefers as it keeps them safe from RICO indictments and uncomfortable attention to the hypocritic duality of a country that practically river-dances to democracy. This is just political bribery with more steps and ceremony.

throwaway13337 2y ago

Anonymity is a tool for those who execute negative externalities on society escape attribution. That is true. It's also a tool for those with unpopular-to-power opinions express them without fear of retribution in a society that insufficiently protects them. When it comes to money, though, those with more of it usually have less to fear from retribution. In this way, speech through money is a fairly dubious argument. It's, on balance, a definite corrupting force. Dark money is a good term because it implies a negative thing and that negative thing is a good guess here.

Ajay-p 2y ago
At one point, whether it's to give blacks the right to vote, gay marriage, abortion, or other "unpopular-to-power opinions," were financed through anonymity. You're proving my point - it's only a negative term to those who dislike the issue it is supporting.
Gunax 2y ago
The implications of requiring disclosure are significant. Do we really want to pass a law that says books, pamphlets, blogs, etc. cannot be published anonymously? Do we want to limit the amount of pamphlets you can print because some people can afford to print a lot? For instance, your very comment is published under a throwaway. Couldn't we say that your comment, being an attempt to influence us, shouldn't be anonymous? After all, perhaps you could stand to personally benefit in some way?
- throwaway13337 2y ago
  The argument I made is not that anonymity cannot serve a good purpose. It can. However, anonymity has a cost proportional to its impact. That cost is that the impact of the anonymous act will have no retribution. A person is more likely to act in a negative-sum way with anonymity. Still, anonymity is essential because it protects the underpowered in their expression. We as a society have said that, on balance, anonymity with speech is good. And I think that's reasonable. With money as speech, this logic is broken. Money is the purest form of power within our society. Giving money is an expression of power. The more money, the more power to express. We then get all the negatives of anonymity with none of the benefits. What's more, as those with money can express a lot more than those without, the negatives are amplified. Another way to think of it is that freedom of expression as a sort of democratic value because it equalizes power. Speech as money removes the equality of it. To be more concrete, I believe that I can post anonymously but it would be dubious for me anonymously fund a lot of people posting here.

j45 2y ago

What would be a better word?

mattmcknight 2y ago
anonymous donor money
- j45 2y ago
  Word Obsfucated? Anonymized?

legitster 2y ago

The article itself actually covers this point a bit: > Cannon said use of the phrase "dark money groups" when referring to 501(c)(4) organizations "often reveals a stunning level of ignorance." Cannon pointed to the Supreme Court's 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama, which held that the NAACP did not have to provide its membership lists to the state. The court decided that "compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute... a restraint on freedom of association."