Judge Rules Dark Money 501(c)4 PAC's Can No Longer Keep Their Donors Anonymous

[skews13]

"This ruling looks like a major game changer,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “Based on this ruling , the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections.”

CREW sued the FEC after Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, a 501(c) 4 offshoot of the former Bush aide's Crossroads super PAC, failed to disclose the names of contributors behind its $6 million effort to defeat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in his 2012 race. A representative for Crossroads GPS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Judge's ruling invalidates FEC regulation allowing anonymous donations to 'dark money' groups

 

[WillowTree]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

 

[mikegriffith1]

I think the identity of all donors to PACs should be public information. This will enable people to better judge the information that a PAC is putting out.

 

[skews13]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

The Citizens United ruling says money is speech. It does not say that speech can be kept secret.

This is what the IRS investigations into 501(c) 4 PAC's was about during the Obama administration.

This isn't going to go away. Citizens United, as well as 501(c) 4 PAC's even being allowed to exist, will be under attack relentlessly, until they are eventually abolished. It could take years, but that doesn't matter. They are going away, and it's just a matter of when not if.

 

[WillowTree]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

The Citizens United ruling says money is speech. It does not say that speech can be kept secret.

This is what the IRS investigations into 501(c) 4 PAC's was about during the Obama administration.

This isn't going to go away. Citizens United, as well as 501(c) 4 PAC's even being allowed to exist, will be under attack relentlessly, until they are eventually abolished. It could take years, but that doesn't matter. They are going away, and it's just a matter of when not if.

Yeah yeah yeah..

 

[shockedcanadian]

"This ruling looks like a major game changer,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “Based on this ruling , the public should know a whole lot more about who is giving money for the purpose of influencing an election, and it will be much harder for donors to anonymously contribute to groups that advertise in elections.”

CREW sued the FEC after Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, a 501(c) 4 offshoot of the former Bush aide's Crossroads super PAC, failed to disclose the names of contributors behind its $6 million effort to defeat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) in his 2012 race. A representative for Crossroads GPS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Judge's ruling invalidates FEC regulation allowing anonymous donations to 'dark money' groups

Socialist governments of the world are right now running in circles wondering how they can get rid of the paper trail.

This needs to be applied to "Foundations" as well and other vehicles of indirect donations and support.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

The Citizens United ruling says money is speech. It does not say that speech can be kept secret.

This is what the IRS investigations into 501(c) 4 PAC's was about during the Obama administration.

This isn't going to go away. Citizens United, as well as 501(c) 4 PAC's even being allowed to exist, will be under attack relentlessly, until they are eventually abolished. It could take years, but that doesn't matter. They are going away, and it's just a matter of when not if.

But donations most certainly are a form of political speech. So why would you want the government to start regulating political speech? Citizens United was a great decision for First Amendment rights. As long as donors' identities are made public, they should be able to give as much money as they want to any political organization they support.

You know, you guys talk about "freedom" and "choice" but you always come down on the side of restricting freedom and choice.

 

[Disir]

I think it would be a great move to see who is on those donor lists.

 

[skews13]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

The Citizens United ruling says money is speech. It does not say that speech can be kept secret.

This is what the IRS investigations into 501(c) 4 PAC's was about during the Obama administration.

This isn't going to go away. Citizens United, as well as 501(c) 4 PAC's even being allowed to exist, will be under attack relentlessly, until they are eventually abolished. It could take years, but that doesn't matter. They are going away, and it's just a matter of when not if.

But donations most certainly are a form of political speech. So why would you want the government to start regulating political speech? Citizens United was a great decision for First Amendment rights. As long as donors' identities are made public, they should be able to give as much money as they want to any political organization they support.

You know, you guys talk about "freedom" and "choice" but you always come down on the side of restricting freedom and choice.

I don't disagree with you here. If you want to donate large sums of money to political candidates, fine, it's your money. You just don't get to hide behind the scenes.

But bribery is still bribery also. Bribing a candidate for quid pro quo, is not free speech, and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

 

[Disir]

and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

They won't be doing any real time for that.

 

[WillowTree]

I think any group that receives federal funding should not be able to contribute to any political party. Such as Planned Parenthood! Agreed?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Off to the Supreme Court! I would ignore that libtard judge and run the donor list through the shredder like Hillary did!

The Citizens United ruling says money is speech. It does not say that speech can be kept secret.

This is what the IRS investigations into 501(c) 4 PAC's was about during the Obama administration.

This isn't going to go away. Citizens United, as well as 501(c) 4 PAC's even being allowed to exist, will be under attack relentlessly, until they are eventually abolished. It could take years, but that doesn't matter. They are going away, and it's just a matter of when not if.

Maybe so but you won't see it in your life time



Gorsuch and Kavanaugh



.

 

[depotoo]

Yeah, where the govt agencies and their employees have contributed to different candidates could get real interesting...

 

[easyt65]

Cockroaches hate the light....

 

[skews13]

and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

They won't be doing any real time for that.

Then that hurts all of us. On both sides.

This should be a non partisan issue. Lets make it clear. If you want to donate money, you do so up front, with no right to secrecy. If you give money to any politician that returns the favor for gain, it is a felony, and both should go to prison.

 

[Disir]

and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

They won't be doing any real time for that.

Then that hurts all of us. On both sides.

This should be a non partisan issue. Lets make it clear. If you want to donate money, you do so up front, with no right to secrecy. If you give money to any politician that returns the favor for gain, it is a felony, and both should go to prison.

Should. That would be the operative word. This would be the elite squad and not a part of the unwashed masses.

 

[WillowTree]

and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

They won't be doing any real time for that.

Then that hurts all of us. On both sides.

This should be a non partisan issue. Lets make it clear. If you want to donate money, you do so up front, with no right to secrecy. If you give money to any politician that returns the favor for gain, it is a felony, and both should go to prison.

Well sweetie, the unions have been doing that for decades, where have ewe been?

 

[Edgetho]

I think the identity of all donors to PACs should be public information. This will enable people to better judge the information that a PAC is putting out.

dimocrap scum in 1866 Tennessee felt the same way.

That's why they organized the KKK, so they could hang the Republicans trying to help Blacks become self-sustaining and truly Free by voting.

And THAT is why the KKK was organized, dimocrap scum. To murder and intimidate Republicans. Not to attack Blacks. dimocrap scum in the Deep south hated Republicans. Hated them.

Because we freed the Black Man. Now, dimocrap scum have managed to enslave Blacks once again in the Inner Cities and with their control of the 'educational' establishment.

But dimocrap scum are too stupid to know that considering their average 7th Grade education.

This scrunt was part of the Lying Cocksucker's DC Circuit Court-Packing attack on America and she/it will be over-turned posthaste.

Count on it

 

[Disir]

I think any group that receives federal funding should not be able to contribute to any political party. Such as Planned Parenthood! Agreed?

And all charities, especially those associated with churches...........

 

[skews13]

and there needs to be a very clear line that cannot be crossed, that carries very heavy criminal penalties if it is crossed.

They won't be doing any real time for that.

Then that hurts all of us. On both sides.

This should be a non partisan issue. Lets make it clear. If you want to donate money, you do so up front, with no right to secrecy. If you give money to any politician that returns the favor for gain, it is a felony, and both should go to prison.

Well sweetie, the unions have been doing that for decades, where have ewe been?

And the rich and well connected have been doing it a lot longer, but that isn't the topic here.

Dark money in the sums being donated aren't coming from unions, and Citizens United wasn't a decision in favor of unions.

The overwhelming billions of donated PAC money comes from corporations that want quid pro quo to prevent the right of workers to organize.

Ironic isn't it. Corporations argue money donated to tax exempt PAC's, is freedom of speech, and they are entitled to it, to deny the same Constitutionally protected speech of workers to organize.

Of course it isn't any secret who unions donate their money to, so the judges ruling is pointed directly at rich Republican donors, and specifically one of Karl Rove's PAC's.

If these 501(c)4's are so legit, why is it they are the ones hiding in the shadows?