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

[there4eyeM]

It is not in the general interest that millions be spent on Congressional races, for example.
"Money doesn't talk, it swears.", as a famous musician once wrote.

 

[Disir]

Your party registration is, not your actual vote. Can you assume usually? Probably a lot of the time. Unless you are registered as an independent.

It's already online and considered public information..............

How far behind can the demand to know who one votes for, be?
It's already online and considered public information..............


Come again?????

Yep. That is all kinds of jacked up, innit?

How far behind can the demand to know who one votes for, be?
It's already online and considered public information..............

Your post claims that my vote is public information.


That's nonsense.

An individual's voting history is public record
Voter Registration & Privacy
Database configuration issues expose 191 million voter records

Frequently Asked Questions | VoterRecords.com

That's enough information. You don't even have to be affiliated with a political party on this board and the assumptions, accusations, and insults are there.

 

[Mac1958]

Our "political system" is so distorted and perverted by money and its associated influence, that the more transparency, the better.

 

[there4eyeM]

Our "political system" is so distorted and perverted by money and its associated influence, that the more transparency, the better.

Campaign limits. Public financing. Anything else is purely in the interests of a controlling élite.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Two things.

1. If you believe that, then you must be okay with the dissemination of information from the Clinton Campaign, as well as any information from the DNC.

2. To do this, heavy jail time should be given to anyone.....I mean ANYONE, who goes after the people on the donors' list. I mean even if you set out to destroy their reputation simply for giving money, then you should do 25 to life in jail.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your party registration is, not your actual vote. Can you assume usually? Probably a lot of the time. Unless you are registered as an independent.

How far behind can the demand to know who one votes for, be?
It's already online and considered public information..............


Come again?????

Yep. That is all kinds of jacked up, innit?

How far behind can the demand to know who one votes for, be?
It's already online and considered public information..............

Your post claims that my vote is public information.


That's nonsense.

An individual's voting history is public record
Voter Registration & Privacy
Database configuration issues expose 191 million voter records

Frequently Asked Questions | VoterRecords.com

That's enough information. You don't even have to be affiliated with a political party on this board and the assumptions, accusations, and insults are there.

Can I assume you are ready to retract post #29?


Me
How far behind can the demand to know who one votes for, be?


Your
It's already online and considered public information..............



Clearly, it is not.

 

[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.

Two things.

1. If you believe that, then you must be okay with the dissemination of information from the Clinton Campaign, as well as any information from the DNC.

2. To do this, heavy jail time should be given to anyone.....I mean ANYONE, who goes after the people on the donors' list. I mean even if you set out to destroy their reputation simply for giving money, then you should do 25 to life in jail.

Two things. The Clinton campaign was over two years ago, of which she was subject to the same rules as every one else.

That was then. This is now.

If you believe that being transparent about where campaign donations come from will ruin someones reputation, then you are admitting that donations are being made for the express purpose of quid pro quo, and that bribery should be able to take place out of sight.

If everything is on the up and up, this shouldn’t be an issue. Unless of course you have something to hide.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Two things.

1. If you believe that, then you must be okay with the dissemination of information from the Clinton Campaign, as well as any information from the DNC.

2. To do this, heavy jail time should be given to anyone.....I mean ANYONE, who goes after the people on the donors' list. I mean even if you set out to destroy their reputation simply for giving money, then you should do 25 to life in jail.

Two things. The Clinton campaign was over two years ago, of which she was subject to the same rules as every one else.

That was then. This is now.

If you believe that being transparent about where campaign donations come from will ruin someones reputation, then you are admitting that donations are being made for the express purpose of quid pro quo, and that bribery should be able to take place out of sight.

If everything is on the up and up, this shouldn’t be an issue. Unless of course you have something to hide.

No, what I am saying is that the left has an active campaign to silence anyone who does not agree with them and when they find out who is giving money to whom, they will deliberately set out to destroy them so that they won't have the resources to fight back. The whole reason that donation lists became private is just for that very reason.

ETA: Who cares WHEN Clinton ran. The point is if you demand transparency then you demand it for both sides.