It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Decision Requiring ‘Dark Money’ Disclosure

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   

The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand a lower-court ruling forcing politically active nonprofit groups to disclose the identity of any donor giving more than $200 when those groups advertise for or against political candidates.

Until now, such nonprofit organizations—generally those of the 501(c)(4) “social welfare” and 501(c)(6) “business league” varieties—could keep their donors secret under most circumstances


www.theatlantic.com...

While I have been unable to find the actual vote count of this decision (if that is what it is called), it appears that:


Some political groups may no longer be able to hide the identities of their donors after the full Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed a decision by Chief Justice John G. Roberts that had stopped a lower court ruling requiring the disclosures.


www.rollcall.com...

While I believe this is a good thing. I am fairly certain that new ways of buying 'representatives', 'executives' and 'judges' will be found.

It does appear that this 'regulation' will take effect immediately...


Also under debate is how far back into the political cycle the new rule extends.

It's possible that groups will only have to disclose donors who contributed funds after the Supreme Court's September 18th decision — but some may interpret the ruling to mean that political nonprofits should have to contribute donors who gave money earlier on.


www.politico.com...

Politico's article also posits one possible 'work-around' in good cheater rhetoric:


Groups that solicited donors for money to be used in specific federal races could wind up having to disclose where the funds originated.

But if solicitations were more vague, donors' identities may still be protected.


Transparency is a good thing - and it needs to apply to everyone ....




posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
This is a very good thing.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think this is something both Left and Right can agree is a good step.
]



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   
This is good news, get that in before Kavanaugh is sworn in.

One of the issues that keeps coming up with Kavanaugh is his opinion that lobbying is alright and he has indicated he would want to remove any limits on money that people and corporations can give to political candidates. He has argued it was unconstitutional to limit such political donations and thinks lobbyists and the money should be protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech.

Funny things is, Trump's SC choice thinks diametrically opposite to what Trump promised regarding money in politics and lobbyists.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
This is a very good thing.


Damn straight.

If you are a "Non-profit", *ahem*, the IRS should crawl up your ass on a bi-monthly basis. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Any person who works for a "non-profit" should have their salary and bonus and "whatever" available as a matter of public record.

Or, the better solution would be to do away with the entire "non-profit" scheme. Same thing with the church and religious bullsnip.

Jesus and that other one, you know, the child molester, could bring a lot of cash into the coffers.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
This is good news, get that in before Kavanaugh is sworn in.

One of the issues that keeps coming up with Kavanaugh is his opinion that lobbying is alright and he has indicated he would want to remove any limits on money that people and corporations can give to political candidates. He has argued it was unconstitutional to limit such political donations and thinks lobbyists and the money should be protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech.

Funny things is, Trump's SC choice thinks diametrically opposite to what Trump promised regarding money in politics and lobbyists.


Does he?
Yes? No?
Or did you just pull this out of your (whatever orifice you use)?

Hmmmm?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think this is something both Left and Right can agree is a good step.


Sure, but not the Republican & Democrat Party's. This sort of thing is their bag, baby. How did this even happen?!?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: Kharron
This is good news, get that in before Kavanaugh is sworn in.

One of the issues that keeps coming up with Kavanaugh is his opinion that lobbying is alright and he has indicated he would want to remove any limits on money that people and corporations can give to political candidates. He has argued it was unconstitutional to limit such political donations and thinks lobbyists and the money should be protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech.

Funny things is, Trump's SC choice thinks diametrically opposite to what Trump promised regarding money in politics and lobbyists.


Does he?
Yes? No?
Or did you just pull this out of your (whatever orifice you use)?

Hmmmm?



I believed this was well known, especially by the people on these forums.

The answer is yes, he has been opposed to regulating campaign donations in his decisions and opinions for about two decades now. He also believes there should be no limit on political donations and that the $2,700 limit should be increased or removed as political donations are Free Speech, according to him.

I imagine you don't read much discontent about it from the Congressmen, Senators and the President, as they all benefit from that opinion.

Link 1 . Link 2 . Link 3 . Link 4 . Link 5



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: Kharron
This is good news, get that in before Kavanaugh is sworn in.

One of the issues that keeps coming up with Kavanaugh is his opinion that lobbying is alright and he has indicated he would want to remove any limits on money that people and corporations can give to political candidates. He has argued it was unconstitutional to limit such political donations and thinks lobbyists and the money should be protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech.

Funny things is, Trump's SC choice thinks diametrically opposite to what Trump promised regarding money in politics and lobbyists.


Does he?
Yes? No?
Or did you just pull this out of your (whatever orifice you use)?

Hmmmm?



I believed this was well known, especially by the people on these forums.

The answer is yes, he has been opposed to regulating campaign donations in his decisions and opinions for about two decades now. He also believes there should be no limit on political donations and that the $2,700 limit should be increased or removed as political donations are Free Speech, according to him.

I imagine you don't read much discontent about it from the Congressmen, Senators and the President, as they all benefit from that opinion.

Link 1 . Link 2 . Link 3 . Link 4 . Link 5


That's fine. Understandable.

So what if a really super-duper-rich-dude, like Donald Trump runs for POTUS?

Is everybody else just boned?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: Kharron
This is good news, get that in before Kavanaugh is sworn in.

One of the issues that keeps coming up with Kavanaugh is his opinion that lobbying is alright and he has indicated he would want to remove any limits on money that people and corporations can give to political candidates. He has argued it was unconstitutional to limit such political donations and thinks lobbyists and the money should be protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech.

Funny things is, Trump's SC choice thinks diametrically opposite to what Trump promised regarding money in politics and lobbyists.


Does he?
Yes? No?
Or did you just pull this out of your (whatever orifice you use)?

Hmmmm?



I believed this was well known, especially by the people on these forums.

The answer is yes, he has been opposed to regulating campaign donations in his decisions and opinions for about two decades now. He also believes there should be no limit on political donations and that the $2,700 limit should be increased or removed as political donations are Free Speech, according to him.

I imagine you don't read much discontent about it from the Congressmen, Senators and the President, as they all benefit from that opinion.

Link 1 . Link 2 . Link 3 . Link 4 . Link 5


That's fine. Understandable.

So what if a really super-duper-rich-dude, like Donald Trump runs for POTUS?

Is everybody else just boned?


Makes no difference, Trump took money just like any other candidate. He started with his own money and was saying he is not taking any, then he took multi million donations to pay himself back for any personal money invested.

Look up Sheldon Adelson, pretty much a counterpart to Soros on the right side, and Adelson's $20m, $30m and $65 million donations. Then look at the nearly $100m in donations for the extra expensive inauguration from various parties. Many other donations in there if you follow the money.

So, bottom line, it makes no difference if a rich man or a poorer man is running for office, they all take money and try not to spend any of their own. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and let's assume donation and campaign laws are changed in the next two years -- Trump will take even more money in 2019 and 2020 than he did the first time.

Everything else is lies they tell us. They all benefit from Kavanaugh and his misguided views on political donations. This is what we're ALL against.




top topics



 
9

log in

join