Democratic Dark money: influencing elections in 2018

[createdtoworship]

political pacs are set up to raise money for candidacy, which is a good thing. However organizations without permission of their members are donating to political causes. This Dark money, is not allowed to opt out, unless you sue. examples are unions and planned parenthood. They both donate millions. Hillary takes it a step further and allows for foreign entities to donate to political causes, without ever taking their name and info down. Which means if china or russian governments decide to donate to hillary in 2018, they can. Effectively influencing elections. Not to mention terrorist cells, or drug monies. more info here:

Hillary Clinton Launches Unlimited ‘Dark Money’ Group | NTK Network

also more info on union donations and planned parenthood's donations to democrats:

planned parenthood:
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2016 cycle | OpenSecrets

unions:
Top PACs | OpenSecrets


to counter this, trump is pushing legislation to allow non profits to donate to campaigns.

 

[tulc]

You mean like this:
Dark money - Wikipedia

2016 election cycle
Main article: United States elections, 2016
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, by October 2015, $4.88 million in dark money had already been spent for the 2016 election cycle, "more than 10 times the $440,000 that was spent at this point during the 2012 cycle."[10] ]The money was spent by six groups - five conservative groups (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $3 million, and Americans for Prosperity, which spent $1.5 million) and one liberal group (Planned Parenthood, which spent just under $75,000).[10]

According to Richard Skinner of the Sunlight Foundation, "the focus of early dark money being spent in the 2016 cycle" is on competitive U.S. Senate elections and some U.S. House of Representatives races.[10] However, dark money also is playing a role in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries; by June 2015, at least four Republican presidential candidates were raising funds via 501(c)(4) organizations: Bobby Jindal's America Next, Rick Perry's Americans for Economic Freedom, John Kasich's Balanced Budget Forever, and Jeb Bush's Right to Rise.[22] (emph. added)

tulc(is just curious)

 

[createdtoworship]

You mean like this:
Dark money - Wikipedia

tulc(is just curious)

Please use a valid source of information, Wikipedia is open sourced and thus not a trustworthy source.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
to counter this, trump is pushing legislation to allow non profits to donate to campaigns.

Ahhh!...so the presidents solution to this problem is: add more money into the situation?
tulc(doesn't see what could possibly be a problem with that)

 

[tulc]

Please use a valid source of information, Wikipedia is open sourced and thus not a trustworthy source.

How about if you just point out any errors you see in the parts I posted?
I might also point out the part I posted pretty much agreed with the part you posted about how much Planned Parenthood spent
tulc(just a suggestion)

 

[createdtoworship]

I did however briefly glance at it. 4 million in donations by conservatives, while my above donations total 5 times that much in leftist dark money, you need to figure your math better.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ahhh!...so the presidents solution to this problem is: add more money into the situation?
tulc(doesn't see what could possibly be a problem with that)

Do you think hillary should accept an anonymous donations? is that your solution?

 

[tulc]

Do you think hillary should accept an anonymous donations? is that your solution?

My solution would be that no one should be allowed to do so.
tulc(since gradyll asked)

 

[tulc]

here's an interesting article from 2014:
Which side spent more on the 2014 midterms, Democrats or Republicans?

Sunlight Foundation managing editor Kathy Kiely says untraceable dark money is a preferred tactic of conservatives, while Democrats tend to use traceable super PACs.

Take Steyer, a liberal environmental activist who poured millions of dollars into the 2014 elections attempting to unseat Republicans including Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Steyer is the single biggest contributor to super PACs in 2014 at $73 million, Kiely said. The next biggest donor is Michael Bloomberg at $20 million, who also supported Democrats in 2014.

Conservatives donated to super PACs as well, but not to the same degree. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson gave about $5 million, she said.

"But the question is has somebody like an Adelson completely stepped out, or is he merely giving in ways that we can’t see?" Kiely said.

While Steyer’s contributions are declared because he gave to super PACs, there’s not as much certainty on the other side of the ledger. The Sunlight Foundation has recorded about $140 million in dark money, some of which comes from business groups who want to keep donations private. These so-called dark money groups also tend to give more heavily to Republican candidates, which would hint that donors are also Republicans.

It wasn’t until January 2014, for instance, that the Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics were able to use tax filings to detail more than $400 million in spending on the 2012 campaign by a web of 17 conservative groups spearheaded by the Koch brothers.

tulc(in case anyone needed more info)

 

[mark kennedy]

to counter this, trump is pushing legislation to allow non profits to donate to campaigns.

If it goes through and gets voted into law, it will be tested in the Supreme Court:

In the 2007 Wisconsin Right to Life case, the court ruled that certain nonprofit corporations could spend corporate money on electioneering so long as it stopped short of calling for the election or defeat of a candidate. This is what we’d call “issue ads.” The FEC followed up this ruling by gutting a new regulation imposed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law requiring all independent groups spending money on elections to disclose their donors.

Then in 2010, the court ruled in the Citizens United v. FEC case that corporations and unions could legally spend unlimited sums of money on elections so long as it remained independent from candidate campaigns and political parties. Although the court’s ruling included a strong endorsement for donor disclosure, the ruling essentially lifted a major obstacle to dark money in elections by allowing nonprofits to use corporate donations to fund express electoral expenses. (Yes, Citizens United And Other Court Rulings Led To A Rise In Dark Money. No, it wasn’t like this before the court started deregulating campaign finance. Huffington Post)

​

 

[createdtoworship]

here's an interesting article from 2014:
Which side spent more on the 2014 midterms, Democrats or Republicans?

tulc(in case anyone needed more info)

well why don't you update your info to the 2016 election:? Where hillary spends over 40% more? Due to being over funded due to dark money?

How much money is behind each campaign?

 

[tulc]

well why don't you update your info to the 2016 election:? Where hillary spends over 40% more? Due to being over funded due to dark money?

(snip)

I notice you didn't say whether you also thought no one should use anonymous donations? Particularly because it appears it's more common among Republicans then Democrats.
tulc(likes knowing where people stand on things as well)

 

[createdtoworship]

I notice you didn't say whether you also thought no one should use anonymous donations? Particularly because it appears it's more common among Republicans then Democrats.
tulc(likes knowing where people stand on things as well)

evidence? Because republicans don't accept anonymous donations as far as I know, you have to put your name and address.

 

[tulc]

evidence? Because republicans don't accept anonymous donations as far as I know, you have to put your name and address.

You do understand, ducking the question, doesn't actually answer the question, right?
tulc(thought that should be pointed out)

 

[createdtoworship]

You do understand, ducking the question, doesn't actually answer the question, right?
tulc(thought that should be pointed out)

The question was fully answered, and if you wish to further this discussion you will post evidence. he who makes a positive statement must prove it. you said republicans are accepting anonymous donations, now prove it. thank you for your time.

 

[tulc]

The question was fully answered, and if you wish to further this discussion you will post evidence. he who makes a positive statement must prove it. you said republicans are accepting anonymous donations, now prove it. thank you for your time.

It was "fully answered" by me, you however have ducked, weaved and tried to obfuscated but haven't actually answered what I was able to answer right away when asked.
tulc(suspects all that dancing is going to continue to be all the answer he gets)

 

[createdtoworship]

Try rewording in your post in English this time. But seriously do you have a single evidential fact regarding republicans taking anonymous sources? I await your response.

 

[tulc]

Try rewording in your post in English this time. But seriously do you have a single evidential fact regarding republicans taking anonymous sources? I await your response.

So...I asked in post #12, #14 and again in #16 and here we are in post #18 and you still can't seem to answer a simple question. When I answered it it didn't seem to be a very hard question, I'm curious why gradyll is having such problems doing so.
tulc(is actually getting a little suspicious...)

 

[createdtoworship]

So...I asked in post #12, #14 and again in #16 and here we are in post #18 and you still can't seem to answer a simple question. When I answered it it didn't seem to be a very hard question, I'm curious why gradyll is having such problems doing so.
tulc(is actually getting a little suspicious...)

not to good at debate? Maybe take a few classes or something. Not exactly sure how to help you prove your own claims. Again for the second time. When you make a positive statement you back it up with evidence, or citation. When you said that the republicans are taking on anonymous donations. I asked you for evidence. And yet here we are waiting. so once again , I await your response.

 

[tulc]

not to good at debate? Maybe take a few classes or something. Not exactly sure how to help you prove your own claims. Again for the second time. When you make a positive statement you back it up with evidence, or citation. When you said that the republicans are taking on anonymous donations. I asked you for evidence. And yet here we are waiting. so once again , I await your response.

I notice that you didn't actually read my posts, because if you had? you would have seen the links to support all the things you keep asking about. It's ok, I understand how President Trump supporters don't like being exposed to thoughts that aren't in the "approved list of news sites" that's (apparently) in some sort of "How to respond when you can't find any evidence to support President Trump" handbook you all apparently read from. That's also pretty much why I've let you push and push about something that was actually addressed in one of my first posts in this thread. OH! And you still haven't answered the question I've been asking you for a while now. I almost would point to your reluctance to do so as another proof of how Republicans are as addicted to "dark money" as they like to claim Democrats are.
tulc(hopes gradyll will feel free to answer the question now after he actually goes back and reads the early posts he just skimmed through)