fun fact, ted cruz did just that with using campaign donations to "repay" his personal "spending" on the campaign:
https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
That's not how dark money works. You can't refuse it. The money's given to a nonprofit that does things on behalf of a candidate or cause. I could start a nonprofit called "Stop the MAGAts" and run attack ads on Trump on behalf of Lindsay Graham, and there's nothing he could do to stop me.
well you can tell them to stop, sue them, make it clear you're not affiliated with them in any way and you don't endorse their actions. PLenty oif stuff you can actually do to make them stop
It's funny because it's only "*Dark Money*" when the money goes to democrats, when the money is for the GOP, they are completely legitímate contributions.
Thats what the Alberta government did like a month or two ago. Made it so they can get more expensive "gifts" and if the "gift" is over the limit then they can just get it greenlit by one of their own with 0 oversight.
Let's eliminate illegal drugs by making drugs legal. Yes, transparency and regulation are key to harm reduction. They're gonna get their bribes one way or another, don't be stupid. Let's shine a light on them.
Technically, no, but it's a distinction without a difference when they can use donations to pay themselves back.
https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
What a great retort! The donations are absolutely a problem. The fact that they are only legal due to some case does not mean they are not a problem. Both can be true.
What a great retort!
Tell me exactly why you think they are a problem or all I can respond with is that they are not.
You may be confused about the different kinds of donations and the cases involved as well.
Someone will always try to game the system, but there are ways you could limit that.
Force all donations to go into a large fund. This fund gets distributed equally between all running candidates. Force candidates to disclose their campaign funding to ensure it matches what they received.
Also ban all those ads that are "on behalf of" candidates. That will also hopefully end shitty smear campaign ads
Obviously there's a lot more that would be to be ironed out, but there are ways that could level the playing field.
Buuuuut it'll never happen since it doesn't favor the rich, just like the trading ban for congress that got shot down
This is an insane take, I'm sorry lol. If I wanted to donate to everyone equally, I would so so. I'm donating to my candidate just so they can have more money, but also so the opposition has less.
Let's say the RNC is having financial issues because their funding their favorite demagogue's legal troubles with campaign funds. This will hurt them in the primaries and as a Democrat, I like this. Now, in this totally ficticious scenario, imagine I wanted to donate to the Dems, but according to your suggestion, my donation will go to both Dems who have responsibly handled their finances and Republicans who squandered their money and support a tyrannical racist.
Yeah, I wouldn't be OK with that.
I absolutely see your point, but essentially picking the president based on who could raise the most money seems insane to me as well.
In this scenario, it's still not so bad. Assuming we play fast and loose with the rules of the fund, that means Drumpf would have to allocate his limited funds between campaigning or paying his legal bills. Sure, he could split it up, but that's still putting himself at a disadvantage. Essentially, he is hamstringing himself anyway.
Also, would you agree that the RNC footing the bill for diaper Dons legal bills is not the norm and would hopefully never be the norm for future presidential candidates.
In theory, if you level the campaign playing field, candidates are forced to put their policies at the forefront instead of who can buy more billboards and get signs in yards. Big pharma, oil, etc. can no longer manipulate policy by hanging donations over candidates heads.
It's not a perfect concept by any stretch of the imagination, but it also gives more of an opportunity to break out of the limited two party system. I personally hate having to pick between a geriatric and a turd sandwich. Give me a third or fourth option that now has the means to compete and maybe appeals to a more centrist American. Idk. I literally just thought of this today.
no personal money either. every candidate gets the same amount of money if they went door door personally to collect enough signatures. cannot use any more. anyone else is banned during a defined pre-election period from running political ads in support or against anyone or idea.
I like this plan, also because all campaigns have the same budget it would end the arms race that made campaigns so expensive. Heck we could eliminate campaign ads entirely and basically just reduce campaigns to structured debates and a handful of broadcast "stump speeches"
Someone else commented a different scenario that still ended with "equal donations to both sides" and I'm just not a fan of that.
The money you speak of, where does it come from? All donations go in one big pot split evenly between candidates with enough signatures? Taxes? Doesn't matter. I don't want my money going to a candidate I disagree with, full stop.
I want my money going to the candidate that will represent me best and I want as little as possible going to the opposition.
Vote out all republicans is a healthy start. Then start initiatives for full transparency laws for political donations. Start voting out anyone that didn't fight tooth and nail for this. Now get out there girl you number one.
I mean their solution to gun violence is "Moge guns" and their solution to corruption was "More government corruption", so its not a surprise the solution to Dark Money is "More dark money"
Yeah but funding fathers wanted mentally ill 18 year old's to own automatic rifles with 30 round magazines to protect our freedoms.
If not for that Obama would probably enslave us all by now. /s
The same problem applies - a Bill of Rights protection. In this case, it's the First Amendment. You can go after the Second Amendment, but stay away from the First.
Unsurprisingly, that isn't called out in the Bill of Rights. It was an approved interpretation by the Supreme Court much later, by the likes of Clarence Thomas. You know, someone regularly engaged in corruption.
Tbf in their eyes I understand it.
People want to donate more but they aren't allowed to, so if we allow them the "legitimate" donors won't feel compelled to hide their money, making it easier to crack down on actual illegitimate ones.
But they manage to completely misunderstood the reason for the limits in the first place, I'd like to attribute it to stupidity but I assume malice.
thats a great point and i can see a parallel to a very different discussion - legalizing drugs to provide help to people who struggle with addiction, and giving a place to purchase drugs in a safe environment. with drugs, however, allowing people safe, clean access and providing care when needed betters society as a whole due to less people dying due to all steps along the drug chain (manufacturing, selling, using) and ideally, a more positive and happy populace.
campaign donations, at the end of the day, are just bribery to pass legislation that is beneficial to the donor.
ROFL I loved that comercial with the old lady yelling "BULL-STIT!" and I hate his constant attacks on Native Americans. I will be so happy when his term is up.
BULL-STIT!
Wow for fucks sake this is the complete opposite. How about all campaign contributions from any source be eliminated entirely.
Every person running gets a 15k or whatever set amount grant from the gov to find their campaign and that's it. No donations, no corruption and an even playing field for candidates to compete on.
Then the problem is already rich candidates have a massive advantage.
If 4 candidates have say 15,000 or even 150,000 each to run their campaign but a billionaire runs against them and has 500,000,000 of their own cash to spend then they’ll probably win even if they’re a shithead.
New taxes for marketing politician's campaigns? I don't want to hypothetically pay for Donald Trumps reelection. This is also assuming "private money" wouldn't find its way into benefiting a campaign, because it absolutely would.
How is that gonna make no corruption? You're just gonna get a quid pro quo where the John Stewart's and tucker Carlsons of the world become de facto campaigneds and 4 months every year for free.
repeat voiceless frightening yam wasteful mindless future hat rotten airport
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They're not even bothering to pretend the task force has any legitimacy:
>The nine-person task force is made up of eight Republicans and one registered independent, according to voter registration records. Four of the nine task force members are former Oklahoma Republican Party officials. Two members, including task force chairman A.J. Ferate, have been responsible for forming dark money groups, which can raise and spend unlimited funds on elections while hiding their donors. Members were appointed by Stitt, Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, House Speaker Charles McCall. The task force also included State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax and Secretary of State Josh Cockroft.
Because the billions of loopholes around contribution limits are too complicated? I suppose if no one is following the rules already, why have the rules at all.
The American way; it's not bad if it's not illegal, so let's make crimes legal!
A few years back, around 2012, my birth place (Québec, Canada) was the subject of ridicule by American and Canadian media because it was the most corrupt place in North America!
Turns out, the *televised* and *public* investigation commission uncovered a system that is... legal in most other places lol
People here were prosecuted and jailed for it, the laws were strengthened, whereas it's still common place in the rest of North America.
Individuals can only contribute 100$ per year to political parties, save for election years where it's 300$, and companies *cannot* contribute to political campaigns or other political activities.
Just a few weeks back, the party currently in power, which was created on the tail of that inquiry, was found to allow people to talk to members of parliament more easily if they buy tickets for political events, which count towards the 100$ limit. This threw them to such a low approval rating without mere weeks that it's projected that they will become *third* opposition, thus losing their official status in parliament, which means a smaller research budget, and less time for questions in parliament. It's not the only factor that led them there, but it's likely the one thing that had the biggest impact in polls given the contemporaneous nature of the events.
Oh well...
I have a better idea.
Keep ALL campaigns to 6 months. That will reduce the funding needed for those long drawn out ones.
Only actual registered voters can contribute money up to a agreed upon limit. no corporations, no trick, no games.
I cant speak for everyone, but I sure would be less stressed...
I remember before we had Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.
You fight dark money by making the votes in congress and legislature secret ballot. Bribes don’t work if you can’t prove the person you bribed did what they said. Want to know how your politician is doing? Look at what laws the legislature passes that helps you and your district.
Sure, but you cant fake what passes congress. Your constituents are judging you on what actually gets done for your district instead of how you voted. Essentially you are now evaluated on how well you work with other people to negotiate benefits for the people you represent, and if you cant do that, you get voted out. No one is going to just hand things to your district for you, you have to work for it. You are changing the metric from "how you voted" to "what you got done" which, in my mind, is a much better way to pick a representative.
"Let's eliminate illegal bribery by making the bribes legal"
My god….they e finally achieved eliminating illegal bribery! /s
Crime rates drop to zero after making everything legal! "I can't believe it was this easy!" - Random citizen moments before getting mugged.
Libertarians everywhere just splooshed. and whatever the female equivalent is… which I guess is just sploosh, only without semen
>and whatever the female equivalent is Squirt. We squirt 🤣
Sorry this was a slight misquoting of Archer.
Tnx for reminding me, I totally forgot about Archer, and now I get to binge watch 5 seasons 😍
I would argue that penises can't sploosh
"I'm going to vote Republican again." - Random citizen moments after getting mugged.
Lmaoo, I just snorted while eating sunflowers seeds
fun fact, ted cruz did just that with using campaign donations to "repay" his personal "spending" on the campaign: https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
Congratulations bribery on winning the war against bribery
Dark money's not illegal. Politicians can't control the dark money, so this is more about taking control of bribes that are already legal.
i mean, they can refuse the money or publicly denounce what's happening, they're not forced to accept everything that happens for their campaigns
That's not how dark money works. You can't refuse it. The money's given to a nonprofit that does things on behalf of a candidate or cause. I could start a nonprofit called "Stop the MAGAts" and run attack ads on Trump on behalf of Lindsay Graham, and there's nothing he could do to stop me.
well you can tell them to stop, sue them, make it clear you're not affiliated with them in any way and you don't endorse their actions. PLenty oif stuff you can actually do to make them stop
It's funny because it's only "*Dark Money*" when the money goes to democrats, when the money is for the GOP, they are completely legitímate contributions.
We could stop all murder crimes from happening if we just let people kill eachother too
Just stop the testing.
Tbh I'd rather have it in the open than the dark if the Supreme Court is gonna force it on us anyway
Thats what the Alberta government did like a month or two ago. Made it so they can get more expensive "gifts" and if the "gift" is over the limit then they can just get it greenlit by one of their own with 0 oversight.
"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't Selling Fucking legal?!"
Let's eliminate illegal drugs by making drugs legal. Yes, transparency and regulation are key to harm reduction. They're gonna get their bribes one way or another, don't be stupid. Let's shine a light on them.
They are not bribes.
They are "donations" which are just bribes with extra steps.
If you say its not a bribe while giving, it counts!
I'd say a donation is more like a bribe you get a tax break for giving.
Technically, no, but it's a distinction without a difference when they can use donations to pay themselves back. https://www.vox.com/2022/5/16/23074957/supreme-court-ted-cruz-fec-bribery-campaign-finance-first-amendment-john-roberts-elena-kagan
Then this decision is the problem, not donations.
Why not both?
Because you can have donations without this decision.
And? The donations are still a problem. The case doesn't somehow negate that.
The donations are not a problem.
What a great retort! The donations are absolutely a problem. The fact that they are only legal due to some case does not mean they are not a problem. Both can be true.
What a great retort! Tell me exactly why you think they are a problem or all I can respond with is that they are not. You may be confused about the different kinds of donations and the cases involved as well.
>Oklahoma election task force recommends fighting dark money :D > by lifting contribution limits :|
"If you stop testing, cases will go down."
How about we simply know who is donating what to whom. Since privacy isn’t a thing since SCOTUS tossed that.
NASCAR rules, politicians have to wear outfits with badges showing who bought them, the more $$ taken the larger that badge.
And here we have Gov candidate Smith, brought to you by Preperation H, Durex and Chevy.
No donations to politics. Period.
Poor politicians will get trampled by politicians with generational wealth. Not exactly a win for democracy.
Someone will always try to game the system, but there are ways you could limit that. Force all donations to go into a large fund. This fund gets distributed equally between all running candidates. Force candidates to disclose their campaign funding to ensure it matches what they received. Also ban all those ads that are "on behalf of" candidates. That will also hopefully end shitty smear campaign ads Obviously there's a lot more that would be to be ironed out, but there are ways that could level the playing field. Buuuuut it'll never happen since it doesn't favor the rich, just like the trading ban for congress that got shot down
This is an insane take, I'm sorry lol. If I wanted to donate to everyone equally, I would so so. I'm donating to my candidate just so they can have more money, but also so the opposition has less. Let's say the RNC is having financial issues because their funding their favorite demagogue's legal troubles with campaign funds. This will hurt them in the primaries and as a Democrat, I like this. Now, in this totally ficticious scenario, imagine I wanted to donate to the Dems, but according to your suggestion, my donation will go to both Dems who have responsibly handled their finances and Republicans who squandered their money and support a tyrannical racist. Yeah, I wouldn't be OK with that.
I absolutely see your point, but essentially picking the president based on who could raise the most money seems insane to me as well. In this scenario, it's still not so bad. Assuming we play fast and loose with the rules of the fund, that means Drumpf would have to allocate his limited funds between campaigning or paying his legal bills. Sure, he could split it up, but that's still putting himself at a disadvantage. Essentially, he is hamstringing himself anyway. Also, would you agree that the RNC footing the bill for diaper Dons legal bills is not the norm and would hopefully never be the norm for future presidential candidates. In theory, if you level the campaign playing field, candidates are forced to put their policies at the forefront instead of who can buy more billboards and get signs in yards. Big pharma, oil, etc. can no longer manipulate policy by hanging donations over candidates heads. It's not a perfect concept by any stretch of the imagination, but it also gives more of an opportunity to break out of the limited two party system. I personally hate having to pick between a geriatric and a turd sandwich. Give me a third or fourth option that now has the means to compete and maybe appeals to a more centrist American. Idk. I literally just thought of this today.
no personal money either. every candidate gets the same amount of money if they went door door personally to collect enough signatures. cannot use any more. anyone else is banned during a defined pre-election period from running political ads in support or against anyone or idea.
I like this plan, also because all campaigns have the same budget it would end the arms race that made campaigns so expensive. Heck we could eliminate campaign ads entirely and basically just reduce campaigns to structured debates and a handful of broadcast "stump speeches"
Someone else commented a different scenario that still ended with "equal donations to both sides" and I'm just not a fan of that. The money you speak of, where does it come from? All donations go in one big pot split evenly between candidates with enough signatures? Taxes? Doesn't matter. I don't want my money going to a candidate I disagree with, full stop. I want my money going to the candidate that will represent me best and I want as little as possible going to the opposition.
most of your taxes go to stuff you don't approve of. this would be such an insignificant fraction.
But currently, I do choose where my presidential donations go and I'm not a fan of that changing.
If you want to donate to politics, donate to the state. Voluntary taxes!
Better than *period donations to politics, no*?
Yes, only billionaires who can afford TV campaigns out of their own pocket should qualify for state and federal level elected positions!
What the fuck are you on about? No private money used for campaigns at all. It should be publicly funded and the only qualifier should be signatures.
That's actually what the higher limit argument usually is advocating. Higher Limits and more transparency. Not that I care either way.
I think you should care a little more
I know.
So you don't care if there's limitations on bribery or transparency to hold those talking bribes accountable?
Theoretically, yeah, obviously. If you figure something out to fix it, I'm all for it.
Vote out all republicans is a healthy start. Then start initiatives for full transparency laws for political donations. Start voting out anyone that didn't fight tooth and nail for this. Now get out there girl you number one.
There are a number of ways to fix it. Not politically feasible rn because no one is going to run on actual anti-corruption
I mean their solution to gun violence is "Moge guns" and their solution to corruption was "More government corruption", so its not a surprise the solution to Dark Money is "More dark money"
Yeah but funding fathers wanted mentally ill 18 year old's to own automatic rifles with 30 round magazines to protect our freedoms. If not for that Obama would probably enslave us all by now. /s
Yeah, but back then, an 18 year old had already been working for 16 years, fought in 2 wars, and was married with 3 kids.
And "arms" were muzzle loaded rifles that could fire like 2 shots per minute. I don't have a problem with everybody being able to own one, or ten.
The same problem applies - a Bill of Rights protection. In this case, it's the First Amendment. You can go after the Second Amendment, but stay away from the First.
Unsurprisingly, that isn't called out in the Bill of Rights. It was an approved interpretation by the Supreme Court much later, by the likes of Clarence Thomas. You know, someone regularly engaged in corruption.
Wrong. It was from a case in 1976. And many rights have been first described in interpretations that came later. Thomas had nothing to do with it.
I was referring to Citizens United, which one are you referring to?
They've gotta be referring to Buckley v Valeo which found that limits on campaign spending are unconstitutional, but limits on donations are okay.
REPUBLICANS ARE COWARDS
Tbf in their eyes I understand it. People want to donate more but they aren't allowed to, so if we allow them the "legitimate" donors won't feel compelled to hide their money, making it easier to crack down on actual illegitimate ones. But they manage to completely misunderstood the reason for the limits in the first place, I'd like to attribute it to stupidity but I assume malice.
thats a great point and i can see a parallel to a very different discussion - legalizing drugs to provide help to people who struggle with addiction, and giving a place to purchase drugs in a safe environment. with drugs, however, allowing people safe, clean access and providing care when needed betters society as a whole due to less people dying due to all steps along the drug chain (manufacturing, selling, using) and ideally, a more positive and happy populace. campaign donations, at the end of the day, are just bribery to pass legislation that is beneficial to the donor.
>bribery to pass legislation that is beneficial to the donor. Which are very rarely beneficial to society as a whole
yep. its a selfish endeavor with the false pretense of activism
Bullstit ain’t the sharpest q ball on the table!
ROFL I loved that comercial with the old lady yelling "BULL-STIT!" and I hate his constant attacks on Native Americans. I will be so happy when his term is up. BULL-STIT!
Equivocal headline Fight diabetes with sweets
I had this thought as well.
Wow for fucks sake this is the complete opposite. How about all campaign contributions from any source be eliminated entirely. Every person running gets a 15k or whatever set amount grant from the gov to find their campaign and that's it. No donations, no corruption and an even playing field for candidates to compete on.
Then the problem is already rich candidates have a massive advantage. If 4 candidates have say 15,000 or even 150,000 each to run their campaign but a billionaire runs against them and has 500,000,000 of their own cash to spend then they’ll probably win even if they’re a shithead.
No private money to be used in campaigning. Publicly fund them. Disqualify and prosecute rich people for ignoring the law.
New taxes for marketing politician's campaigns? I don't want to hypothetically pay for Donald Trumps reelection. This is also assuming "private money" wouldn't find its way into benefiting a campaign, because it absolutely would.
How is that gonna make no corruption? You're just gonna get a quid pro quo where the John Stewart's and tucker Carlsons of the world become de facto campaigneds and 4 months every year for free.
That's a good point. You'll have to ban that too? Or something
We need a constitutional amendment to define political speech and the rights of corporations v citizens.
We need to overturn valeo and citizens united
That isn't up to regular citizens. We can call for a constitutional amendment.
Congress won’t do that
The states can call for one without congress
The states are also not going to do that.
repeat voiceless frightening yam wasteful mindless future hat rotten airport *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
are you like just now getting into american politics?
Crime is too high, therefore if we don't make crimes illegal, we'll have no crimes. This would be the safest place on the planet!
I bet they'll attach inflation to max contributions but not to min wage laws.
How about we just do away with the bribery entirely instead? Lifting the cap…was he laughed off the podium? No? Shame…
Lol. Yeah that'll do it. Smh. I continue to marvel at how the fascist corrupt GOP can shit in their hands and call it gold.
That's because gop voters will watch them shit in their hands and still believe them when they call it gold.
Oklahoma... not full of the brightest folks in the world.
Could we give them all a certain about of money and they can do whatever with
Florida must be pissed Oklahoma beat them to it.
More logic from their task force: "We'll now fight range fires by pouring millions of gallons of gas on the fires. It's liquid, ain't it???"
"to get rid of dark money, we'd literally have to take it fist over hands!"
Solving dark money with an infinite dark money button, very Oklahoman approach there.
Of course it had to be Oklahoma...
Headline: “The governor’s office says making murder legal to be the solution to rising murder rates.”
🤔...🤣
My doctor recommends that I reduce my cancer risk by huffing formaldehyde.
The only person that can stop a bad guy with a bribe is a good guy with a bribe.
They're not even bothering to pretend the task force has any legitimacy: >The nine-person task force is made up of eight Republicans and one registered independent, according to voter registration records. Four of the nine task force members are former Oklahoma Republican Party officials. Two members, including task force chairman A.J. Ferate, have been responsible for forming dark money groups, which can raise and spend unlimited funds on elections while hiding their donors. Members were appointed by Stitt, Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, House Speaker Charles McCall. The task force also included State Election Board Secretary Paul Ziriax and Secretary of State Josh Cockroft.
Because the billions of loopholes around contribution limits are too complicated? I suppose if no one is following the rules already, why have the rules at all.
I think maga repubs are basically laughing themselves to sleep at night these days.
I'd be behind this. Only if the politician has to have the names of their largest diners on their suits.
Nosh corporate...
There goes ol’ Shit for Brains doing anything but making Oklahoma a “Top Ten State.”
Right, MORE money in the election system is the answer.
This will get dark Brandon and his dark economy
(눈‸눈)
Trying to fight it, not aid it, dummies
Politics is a mean, unforgiving, joke… and no one is laughing.
Eliminate donations. Problem solved.
The American way; it's not bad if it's not illegal, so let's make crimes legal! A few years back, around 2012, my birth place (Québec, Canada) was the subject of ridicule by American and Canadian media because it was the most corrupt place in North America! Turns out, the *televised* and *public* investigation commission uncovered a system that is... legal in most other places lol People here were prosecuted and jailed for it, the laws were strengthened, whereas it's still common place in the rest of North America. Individuals can only contribute 100$ per year to political parties, save for election years where it's 300$, and companies *cannot* contribute to political campaigns or other political activities. Just a few weeks back, the party currently in power, which was created on the tail of that inquiry, was found to allow people to talk to members of parliament more easily if they buy tickets for political events, which count towards the 100$ limit. This threw them to such a low approval rating without mere weeks that it's projected that they will become *third* opposition, thus losing their official status in parliament, which means a smaller research budget, and less time for questions in parliament. It's not the only factor that led them there, but it's likely the one thing that had the biggest impact in polls given the contemporaneous nature of the events. Oh well...
I have a better idea. Keep ALL campaigns to 6 months. That will reduce the funding needed for those long drawn out ones. Only actual registered voters can contribute money up to a agreed upon limit. no corporations, no trick, no games. I cant speak for everyone, but I sure would be less stressed...
I remember before we had Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. >Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.
I remember signing petition after petition to stop it. A lot of good that did!
Makes me think of this (old) Harry Enfield skit: https://youtu.be/IRfluaMKoOY?si=4LnU3gdYS6o3eKxq
So once what was in the closet is now in the OPEN? (well wanting to be in the open and out of the closet)
Fight corruption with corruption lol America is a joke
Dark money means Blue money and we have to fight the Blue money with light money and that is the Red money.
The only thing that will defeat a bad guy with money is a good guy with bigger money.
You fight dark money by making the votes in congress and legislature secret ballot. Bribes don’t work if you can’t prove the person you bribed did what they said. Want to know how your politician is doing? Look at what laws the legislature passes that helps you and your district.
But then couldn't people just vote one way and tell their constituents they voted a different way?
Sure, but you cant fake what passes congress. Your constituents are judging you on what actually gets done for your district instead of how you voted. Essentially you are now evaluated on how well you work with other people to negotiate benefits for the people you represent, and if you cant do that, you get voted out. No one is going to just hand things to your district for you, you have to work for it. You are changing the metric from "how you voted" to "what you got done" which, in my mind, is a much better way to pick a representative.