This is a peach except 3 million early votes have already been cast.
My solution. If you can't vote for them, you can't give them money
• “It’s a very chaotic media environment and, understandably, lots of people are chasing Trump’s Twitter feed”....
'Lots of people are chasing Trump’s Twitter feed' encouraged by the media he constantly attacks. Delete/ignore ALL Trump tweets. Starve the voracious, attention-craving publicity hound! Publish only news worthy of national concern and attention.
Nothing less than silencing him will cut his venom.
“Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.” ~ SAMUEL BECKETT
1
Democrats must embrace the caravan and call for Trump’s impeachment now
Really? How about an apples to apples comparison? And the Democrat small donors could have been mentioned, Beto raising 38M in three months, small donors only. The Times continues to commit editorial suicide in spite of all the warning signs. Beyond this I don't think I've seen one piece in the Times on cleaning up campaign money, or much else for that matter.
So, how many more anti Democratic Party hit pieces can we expect in the coming six days?
3
Remember this the next time some idiot Democrat says they are against Big Money.
1
Your conservative bias is showing again, NYT. Including this story, the last week you've gone overboard to try and prove you're reporting "both sides" of the story -- and I say that as a progressive fellow reporter. The way you frame stories and are constantly 'though"ing and "to be sure" ing dilutes the danger we're in from the GOP.. I'm not asking you to take a side, just to stop trying to create a false equivalency in every story to assuage what you think is a guilty conscious for being on the right side of history.
3
I feel like I'm in a very real deja vu moment, flashing back to the negative spin on Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server almost precisely the same number of days before the 2016 election.
Pardon me while I spend a few moments conspiracy theorizing.
4
I lay the blame for this Dark Money solely on the Republicans as they pushed through Citizens United, which allowed corporations to be equal to the individual voter. It is a travesty to American politics.
3
Why should Democratic funds disclose donors if GOP refuses?
4
Republicans own Citizens United lock, stock and barrel. Their majority on the Supreme Court legitimized it. Their mega-donors have darkened democracy with their anonymous billions. And with that money they bought the White House, Congress and now the federal judiciary. If they're not opposed, they will buy and own the future by any means necessary.
Those are the Republican rules of the road. It's their Golden Rule (those with the gold, make the rules). The Republicans are racing to the finish line. It's called the finish line because they'll finish off all resistance if they get there first.
Republicans see democracy as a closed cage Mixed Martial Arts grudge fight. Democrats and Independents who insist on following the Marquess of Queensberry Rules have their heads in the sand. Unless, of course, they're big fans of Chinese One Party Rule.
Smokey Bear and forest fire prevention is ideal. But sometimes forest fires can only be contained by setting strategic fires like controlled burns and backfires.
This year and in 2020, we fight fire with fire or there won't be much left when Elvis leaves the building (unless there's a Mueller perp walk before then).
6
Capitalism is antithetical to democracy. Never forget that
1
The Congress, all of them, including other political powerful exist in an isolated secure Echo Chamber into which Lobbyists have access and some regular citizens groups representatives, the most insistent of which and most moneyed have access. That Echo Chamber suffers from a television existence in which political leaders watch each other on CSpan as well as watch television pundits and consultants.
I have a proposal to get Congress back to it's mandate of representing ALL Americans, not just the few chosen to get inside the secure quarters and halls of Congress.
I propose a mandate that all Representatives and Senators form as a group according to their state and conduct widespread massive polls among their constituents to determine the majority will of their people on the issues presented to Congress, not dictated by them.
Extensive polling by Representatives and Senators with some form of binding responsibility to vote according to the public will do a few things of significance;
Marginalize the influence of campaign funding by a few wealthy represented by the Lobbyists who present "Needs".
Affirm the true wishes of a democratic majority in society.
Assure that the Constitutionally mandated representation of the will of the people is done.
Rebalance the powers vested in the three branches of the government by demonstrating the true mandate of the people with proven no/yes polling results making that mandate irrefutable by those in government wishing to exceed it.
There is so much wrong with the American election system. As is well set out in this article, money wisely used can be the deciding factor in an election. It doesn't always work but, it works often enough that people will try it.
Does anyone seriously doubt, if an exit poll was taken of voters, that the overwhelming majority voted for candidates for some illogical reason? The reason for this is that it takes an extraordinary amount of diligence to know what each candidate stands for. We are a country busy making a living.
Related to this issue and a big negative in elections are the number of signs that are put up by candidates. If you look at a ballot at home or in an election booth and don't know whom to vote for, the tendency is to vote for someone that you remember their name from signs that were put up. It is that name recognition that gets your vote.
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that we are very far away from reforming these practices. No one will support forbidding the placement of signs in public or demanding that people not vote in elections unless they are informed on the issues and the candidates position on those issues. People voting on issues and politicians they know little or nothing about is the blueprint for more Trumps. They just go with their gut.
Fighting Big Money with Big Money is a losing proposition for democracy. Absent any other change Mr. Gerney makes sense: Unilateral disarmament is probably going to lose elections. But...there are changes happening and I believe they are going to be paradigm shifting in the next cycle or two. People are understanding more and more that they are being 'Advertised' to by dark money groups. Advertising meaning here that the truth and reasonable fair representation of an issue or opponent is of little concern. So people are getting tired of those campaigns. Pretty soon they are going to react adversely in opposition to a anything seen as dark money ads and to politicians who are manifestly corrupt by virtue of taking Big Money donations. The movement amounts to public disgust with money in politics.
There are democratic party groups who don't take big money donations. (Justice Democrats) They are the spearhead of a movement toward actual constituent representation, integrity, and toward restoring democracy.
As a progressive and from plain common sense it is clear that Hub Project donors are every bit as power-mongering as Cato Institute/Heritage Foundation/AFP donors are. Sure, Hub donors contribute, now, to things I might agree with. But what they don't contribute to is making my vote and voice equal to any other Billionaire's. They make sure to retain that power for their class...The Financial Elite... Which includes the Koch Machine.
I get it, the resistance and all, but when the Democrats start believing that the means justify the ends, that's a milestone in the wrong direction.
2
Although I don’t agree, the Dems finally understand how the game is played.
1
Since the majority of Dark Money PACs are Republican, why is this article about a Democratic one?
4
How many times have we heard and read about Dems and liberals bemoaning the unseemly influence of the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision on campaign financing?
This whole scheme cooked up by 'dark' state Dems using the very financing mechanism they have been braying against for years is the height of hypocrisy.
Vote for change to the status quo and a draining of the swamp. Vote Republican.
2
Excellent and May the Force Be With You! I am tired of the tyrannical Republican monopoly on dark money. It's time that Democrats fight fire with fire. Spew the same venom the GOP has mastered and strengthen the divide.
2
Republicans started the dark money wave when they pushed Citizens United on us. Now they have no right to complain. If they want dark money out of politics, they should join with Democrats in opposing Citizens United, and in promoting the concept of political campaigns with caps on spending and on duration for every candidate in every state, local, and federal election. One month, one million dollars, tops, per candidate. We are sick to death of campaigns that start the day after election day. We are sick of our representatives being forced to spend the bulk of their time fund raising for re-election, when they ought to be concentrating on legislation. Political campaigns are nothing but entertainment and have nothing to do with governing. Look at Our Idiot President. He does nothing but practice his lousy imitation of a standup comedian at his interminable pseudo-Nuremburg rallies.
1
Who is Alexander Burns and what is the source of his exaggeration that $30 million dollars can flood the midterm race for House Seats? There are 435 (approximately) house seats. $30,000,000 divided by 435 districts is about $7,000 per district - hardly big money. It's also dark money - so a few candidates will not accept the money.
The point is that $30,000,000 isn't what it used to be and voters are hard to persuade in the deeply divided gulleys and even sewers of American politics.
Real power lies with tiny donations from different real human beings, self-identified. If this is further broken down by where the donors lived, you can get a pretty clear idea of now many folks who actually live in the district care enough to give something to the candidate(s). Tiny donations, say an average donation of less than $100/donation is indicative of wide support from wannabe middle classers. Folks may be getting tired of the Trump Terror Show and Saudi Assassinations in the Public Square. They like their Social Security, Medicare, and coverage for pre-existing conditions. No one has his/her own doctor any more (except for really rich folks) and most younger folks are not as demanding about doing business or driving with actual human beings than computers. Democrats have a chance this time. I think its one of those times when the best looking folks will win, or the least like the status quo.
2
I’m at the point with these elections and all this money spent on them where I just don’t care about all this money. My mind was made up months if not years ago the way I will vote. When a tv commercial comes on my mind immediately drifts to another thought or something on my phone. When the phone rings and I know it’s pollster or similar I simply hang up and when my mailbox is filled with large pieces of card stock election brochures they go right into the recycle bin. What a colossal waste of money and my time. Surely I’m not the only one who feels like this .
1
Dark money is Dark money no matter who gets it. This should not be allowed as it only poisons the political process. How are "average americans" supposed to feel confident that their congress has their interests in mind when you can't even find out who's donating to them?
1
I see the NY Times has changed the headline on this story from "DARK MONEY" (oooh--scary) to Obscure Democratic Group. How many objections to the original headline did it take for this change to be made? I hope a great number!
Dark Money is primarily the purview of Republicans, enabled by the horrendous Citizens United Decision.
If Democrats use the same tactics, it is purely defensive.
5
So much for the Democrats and any faux outrage over Citizens United and so called dark money.
Both sides are complicit in this sick, evil, twisted corruption of democracy. No wonder so many voters have given up.
1
Until we can change the campaign finance laws which is not any time soon given our Supreme Court we need to match dark money
With our own Must read is Jane Meyer’s “Dark Money”. She is a national treasure and deserves many awards.
It was obvious from day one when the Supreme court found in favor of Citizens United. Both major parties would be completely corrupted by money. The rational was that money was speech and protected by the first amendment. Of course everyone knows that money is a medium to facilitate trade. Money is not speech. Money purchases speech. The commerce clause gives Congress the right to regulate trade. But Congress won't assert it's right. This was the worst decision in Supreme court history. Our Congress is too feckless to write a law to correct this because both parties are hostages to the lobbies.
2
I don't care who is behind the dem's dark money. About time. Fight fire with fire. Take your pick- Dem's dark money, or fascism.
To me, the most significant part of this article is:
"The quiet onslaught embodied two of the most important strategic choices by Democrats in the 2018 elections — putting health care and taxes at the core of their message, and using invigorated fund-raising on the left to challenge Republicans even in conservative-leaning areas"
I disliked ... despised ... the Supreme Court's decision about enabling billions to be flooded into elections around the country. Even down to state races with $$$ from 2,000 miles away.
People like Hannity and Rush banter on about how the awful liberals are all just running on an anti-Trump platform.
It does appear that a lot of Trump supporters have a hard time admitting what reality and facts are.
I think this is one issue voters of every stripe agree upon:
Repeal Citizens United and the McCutcheon decisions.
Reform state and local campaign finance laws.
Limit campaigning to three months or less (or some reasonable amount of time) before elections.
Revive funding to enforce truth in advertising laws to go after blatant liars.
1
Finally the D’s doing what the R’s do
What goes around comes around
Things changed in campaigns when the 5 Republican, activist Supreme Court Justices changed the rules. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, there was a chance to have that decision overruled. But The Democratic Party allowed someone who was not a member of the Democratic Party run in the Democratic primaries, and he divided the Democratic Party, leading to the election of Donald Trump. and a right wing Supreme Court for decades. So the Democrats have to play the money game now that overturning Citizens United is embedded for decades if they want to win elections. Despite what the Bernie or Busters say now, this is just a fact. We have two choices: Don't take dark money and turn the country over to the new Republican Party or take it and save democracy.
1
$30 million dollars is what the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) had in 2010 to put in place REDMAP which spent dark money on strategic state level and congressional House of Representative elections which in turn allowed the republicans to redraw House of Representative districts after the 2010 census. This locked in the Republican minority control that has dominated politics Since and moved the country to the extreme right.
Hub sounds like the same kind of effort from the democrats. If the Supreme court is going to let abstract entities the right of free speech then we will see an ever increasing role a few small people and groups dominate what passes for democracy these days.
Especially in the post-Citizens United world, EVERYTHING is up for sale, including the Presidency, the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and every state and local office. The only solution- The maximum amount of a contribution across everything. everywhere limited to what Bernie got as an average contribution in 2016.
8
Bernie Sanders' success in fundraising shows that underhanded tactics simply aren't necessary.
I understand why some DEMs may feel the need to resort to legal though unsavory funding practices. But the sooner we clean up campaign finance laws the better.
In another article in the NYT today, several DEM leaders, including Pelosi, say that campaign finance reform is top of the agenda if they regain a majority in the House.
11
Private campaign contributions should be illegal. The minute they are legal, efforts will underway to increase the legal allowed amount, to treat money as free speech, etc., which is how we have arrived at this moment, when Citizens for Koch Prosperity, routinely speaks of 9 figure contributions, as if this is OK. We must realize private political contributions will corrupt politicians and politics, as they have done for many years. We should permit public contributions, and debate their amounts publicly. Where politicians stand on this issue should be publicized, probably as an index of corruption. The alternative is to be lobbied endlessly by those who want to convert economic donations into political results for themselves, a pretty good working definition of corrupting our 1 person, 1 vote system of democracy.
6
Finally!
"Dark money" is the political equivalent of white phosphorous munitions. Both are supposed to be "mere adjuncts"; dark money defining issues, willie peter making smoke on a battlefield. Those are polite lies. Willie Peter is used to take out enemy combatants by burning them to death. Dark Money is used to target "enemy politicians" for removal.
Dark Money has been used for years by one national party, the Republicans. Enough so that even Colbert mocked it -openly founding his own dark money Super PAC. That the Democrats have caved in and are using it is sad, but predictable. Arguably they have suffered numerous defeats by not using it earlier.
It's rather similar to the story of gas warfare. First one side uses it. Then the other. Then it's the gold standard for starting an assault. And everyone blames everyone else for starting it. With gas everyone agreed to stop it as the pain it caused was just too high. After a few election cycles of dark money duking it out, nastiness for nastiness, we will see if there is an agreement to abandon it.
18
They don't disclose their donors because crazy trump supporters will target the donors.
15
Finally! It's about time the Dems caught up.
20
Dark money is fine, as long as it is for Democrats. Any Democrat is better than any Republican.
18
Come on America, wake up. The gist of campaign financing is status quo, meaning leave it alone, don't touch it. Neither party wants reform, just more ways to get money and certainly to prevent the identity of the giver. Has been that way and it will not change. Everyone complains, but no one takes any action to correct it. Do you think Congress wants to give up their free dollars, if so, then you are the only person in the boat.
4
Empty, bland, and vague--"for most people, their health care, their family finances, their economic future — these things really matter”--won't get them far without specifics.
Like saying everyone's for truth, liberty, and mom's homemade apple pie.
So what's the real message--DNC Politburo wants back into the deep-swamp and its share of the public weal?
10
Beats the Republican message: "We're going to run up your children's debt in order to give billions to the people who already have them!"
About time they started playing hardball.
23
The $ is very corrupting but in order to do something w that, we need to get rid of Citizens United. There is already a book titled Dark Money. How do you fight White Nationalism? How do you fight gerrymandering and election fraud? How do you fight w a President who has a new ploy at least every other day and each day your stands on end and... when he says I am sorry for you loss, he has a smirk and acts as if he is in an ad for the NRA?
11
Looks like they just messed up Tester's chances in Montana with that mailer. "More" money, beyond the minimum needed to run a campaign, is not always good, and you can't buy elections in America.
2
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's about time the Democrats start playing the same game as the GOP.
23
I deplore the use of dark money in our politics and elections. But until the rules are changed, it's foolish for Democrats to bring a knife to a gunfight. And with the seating of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it may take generations before real campaign finance reforms become established law. That's specifically why these arch conservative robots were appointed to the Supremes (with a sop to the anti-choice crowd).
It remains to be seen if Democratic candidates more broadly, not just maybe Bernie and Beto, can prevail with small dollar donations. If so, then great. But EVERY Democratic win, by whatever legal means, is another step closer to broad repudiation of modern Republicanism and Trumpism. And it will require wins all up and down the ballot, in national elections and down to the smallest off-cycle local contests.
I expect the country will stay broadly divided on both social and economic issues. And Republicans will have significant structural advantages due to constitutional compromises necessary at our founding. But Democrats have the advantage of numbers (obviously turnout dependent), and they have the ideas more likely to help most Americans.
But, regardless of popular support, they still have to play by the prevailing rules and within constitutional restrictions. And no matter how much you decry those impediments, you can't try to change them if you're out of power.
15
An old saying about things being good for both geese and ganders comes to mind . . .
9
Playing nice and taking the high, sunlit road for the last decade resulted in not only massive losses for Democrats but in the steady erosion of progressive accomplishments. I hate the dark money too but we can’t change the system while Republicans get all the wins. Democrats are finally stepping up and fighting fire with fire.
24
I doubt the Times is suggesting outlawing dark money, they are just saying Democrats are bad too, so as to deflect the negative attention payed to the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. The Times is also unlikely to oppose the supreme courts decision on citizens united. Corporations like the Times and their owners got the laws they wanted and when Democrats play by the rules they created and are disadvantaged by the Times say see, the democrats do the same thing. This is clearly bunk. Just more evidence that the Times and the fake democrats in NY state they support are not really democrats. It's too bad New Yorkers have two republican candidates for governor.
2
This will undoubtedly be Trump's next target. He will, of course, claim that FFS is illegal, has violated the Florida election laws and has caused his crooked Trumplican candidates to unjustly lose this election. That's his m.o.
Trump will ignore any reference to the same LEGAL (but unethical) REPUBLICAN scheme, gerrymandering, deliberate interference with free voting for minorities, etc. Even Jimmy Carter, perhaps the most respected international elections monitor (ignore his political affiliation, it's irrelevant here), decries the targeted GOP abuse of free elections.
VOTE THEM OUT! Don't ignore your rights and obligations in preserving American Democracy. Use them or lose them! TUESDAY! DO IT!
3
The American citizens attempted to stop this dark money through numerous law suits calling attention to this travesty. The Supreme court doesn't see anything wrong with this madness. Why brother to call the United States a democracy anymore, its all about greed, getting over by rich people who absolutely refuse to do the will of the people.
.
It's all very pathetic ,we can try to support politicians who only accept small dollar donations and even that is unrealistic.
Tired of being sick and tired.
3
All dark money should be banned. Corporations are not people like John Roberts maintained. However, compared to the hundreds of millions coming from the Kochs, Mercers, Adelsons and their pals..this is The Hub Project provides a mere drop in the bucket.
9
I disagree with those ragging on the NYTimes for reporting on democratic "dark money" groups and potentially damaging stories about Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams. Liberals may need to use "dark money" to fight "dark money" in this election but we do not need the NYTimes newsroom to turn into a propaganda outlet to fight fox news.
Thinking progressives who read the NYTimes are not symmetrical with Fox News watching Trump supporters. I am not liberal because I only consume facts which support my views, I am liberal because I seek to understand the truth and form positions based on my understanding of what is true. That is why I read the NYTimes because I want to know as much as possible and though it's not perfect I trust that it will help me do so. I do not need to be insulated from truths that are uncomfortable or have context spoonfed to me so that i can view every issue as two equivalent sides and conveniently pick up the argument assigned to me. Some liberals who have commented on this sound like they want Trump's attacks on the NYTimes to be true.
6
@MaxistMax, can you honestly read the commentary here day in and day out, and Not reach the conclusion that many self-identified "liberals" posting here are exactly what you describe: the mirror image of entrenched, Right Wing, Fox news watching drones? Only with a bit more conceit and high-brow taste in their reading choices.
1
Only democrats are promising a return to voting rights and campaign finance reform. Count me in
10
Shameful. Dark money is shameful regardless of what political party is abusing the system.
4
The dark money mentioned in this article is wholly the result of GOP legislation.
There was a time when both sides wanted to see money in politics restrained. No more!
So now, GOP representatives are attacked by the same forces they unleashed.
The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
4
Does this mean that the Left has finally learned to stop bringing a knife to a gun fight?
5
Why isn't there a single mention of how much 'Dark Money' is going on on the Republican side? The headline makes it seem seedy and ties it only to the Democrats. Fair reporting or don't report.
8
When they go low we try to keep up.
5
Where is the graphic depiction of Dark Money for Dems vs. Republicans? I’d like to compare
10
Fight fire with fire. Glad to see the Dems take the gloves off.
9
Good.
3
Here in Pennsylvania the GOP appears to have the upper-hand in effective campaign advertising that appears to be working , with vicious attacks Ads on TV 24/7 now! Most all, if fact checked which few do, are riddled with half-truths and out-right lies. Or taken out of context. Disgusting, but it works and those democrats who follow Michelle Obama’s advice “to take the high road when they (GOP) take the low road” are losing voters fast!
7
I agree with everything that you stated, however my interpretation of Michelle Obama's suggestion of the "high road" pertains to the language used in political insults.
When this election is over, let's outlaw all such groups.
2
Take that...Koch brothers.
2
@peter bailey: $30M? That's just a tip to them...
American voters can do two things to loosen the grip of political interest group spending on elections. Whether they will is an unanswered question that could well discourage even the most sunny optimist.
First, demand that our representatives proactively communicate their legislative accomplishments. Most white-collar workers in the private sector have to face their boss at least once a year and justify their continued employment. Why do voters let legislators off the hook so easily? Look up your congressperson's or senator's government web site and see if you can find anything resembling a self-evaluation for the most recent legislative term. If you live in NYC, Jerrold Nadler has been doing this for years; where I live, crickets.
I suspect that Americans don't set even a basic legislative performance review as a minimum standard for incumbents seeking re-election because the subject matter is dry and boring to many. We seem to prefer animated points of view unburdened by detail to tedious facts and figures. And that is the second thing that would have to change: American voters need to kick their habit of passively consuming news about policies that affect them.
Focusing on facts takes away the shade that monied interests prefer to operate in. Ah, but this is the era of alternative facts, you say. All the more reason to stop accepting somebody else's characterization of what matters to you and your family. It's a small price to pay for democracy.
21
Thank goodness that Russian Facebook ads outweigh the influence of Democrat dark money.
5
It's about time.
5
This reporting seems very biased to me, as it is well-known that far larger amounts of “Dark Money,” as NYT calls it, are spent on behalf of Republican candidates.
13
Batter away!
See Krugman Op Ed. False equivalence and Botherism on parade at the NYT. What goes around comes around and what’s good for the goose...
Report this instead: Citizens United and other election cheating begets long overdue blowback onto Republican candidates. Is Gerrymandering next?
11
Great post
Can we get a figure for Republican dark money in the headline, please?
12
Do we know how much of this money came from George Soros? How about Uncle Vladimir?
3
Democrats are simply (finally) attempting to level the playing field, since we have for decades been whispering our message while the Republicans have used a megaphone (huge piles of dark money) for messaging. I despise the capture of politics by well-funded lobbying groups, and I find Citizen's United to be one of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. However, until CU is overturned, I'm glad the Democrats have learned not to let the Republicans own the battlefield.
Jane Mayer's entire book Dark Money is a horrifyingly depressing read/listen, and she provides ample evidence that the Democrats are at a huge disadvantage politically due to plutocratic control of Astroturf organizations, faux research institutes, and fear-mongering by the right and its winged-monkey brigade.
9
“We tried to figure out who they were, but there’s not much you can tell about who funds them and who they are, exactly.”
Republicans - you got exactly what you asked and paid for. Dark money cuts both ways.
6
I’m sure the Dems are just copying the same successful, if ethically questionable, strategy employed by the Republicans. In any case, I don’t care one bit, and all Democrats and good Americans should not care either. Because we must do whatever it takes to stop the Republican forces of evil as they continue their destruction of our once great country.
7
@G.W.
Do you see that's the same "the ends justify the means" argument made by republicans?
What we need to do is get the vote out to elect candidates who support campaign finance reform and repeal of the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions.
1
What's good for the goose is good for the gander?
Still, let's get RID of Citizens United. Our politicians should not be bought and sold.
2
I used to donate to political campaigns for candidates who supported causes that I believed would help my fellow man. After Citizens United, I stopped. The dollar amount of my potential donation money is a significant to my budget and savings, but a drop in the bucket compared to the dark money the candidates are getting. I let the rich buy the elections now; they certainly don't need me anymore. The upshot is that, now, all my donation money goes to MSF and Save the Children and St. Jude and the like. The down side is that our democracy is in name only.
6
I'm disappointed that this article implies that only the Democrats use "dark money" which has a negative connotation but is something not limited to their party. Does the GOP use this type of funding and if so shouldn't that be called out as well within the same article that will be part of shaping voter opinions?
6
@Jaime
Of course they use dark money; with the SC Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions they legislated it into existence!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/billionaire-stealth-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want
1
Unfortunately, Mr. Cavell doesn't realize he could have MUCH lower taxes if the ultra-high end didn't keep voting to lower its effective tax rate below his.
And sorry he doesn't care that our annual $1 trillion deficits, thanks in major part to these high-end tax cuts, are increasing everyone's debt.
2
S/he who has the most money wins... naive of me, I know, to wish for a day when qualifications and character give candidates the tipping point.
2
I'm glad Mr. Cavell is enjoying lower taxes. Of course, lower taxes for us baby boomers means one of two things: either a steep tax increase in the future or no Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. We must be the most selfish generation in history.
2
"[Mr. Gerney] described it as a test case for a larger theory of Democratic politics, defined by continuous attacks on Republican policies rather than on Mr. Trump."
Imagine that! A political campaign focused on issues and policy! I've no doubt the Republicans want to avoid a fight on that field; it becomes more obvious every day that their agenda has little to offer the majority of Americans. Women's rights, access to health care, economic justice and First Amendment protections are all on the line in this election. You bet I want the Democratic Party spending money in support of those goals, and I'm happy to hear there are wealthy people willing to fund the efforts.
7
Where is the reporting on right wing dark money, a specialty of the right used to hide who actually finances Republicans? Why has the NYT decided to attack Democrats, just days before the election, for doing what Republicans have always done? Where is the reporting on the monetary value to Republican candidates of purely political "reporting", aka lies, by Fox Fake News and other right wing sites? Playing by the Trump-Republican playbook will not miraculously shield you from the right's deranged hatred of all legitimate news media.
32
Because ‘Balance...both sides!!1’
This is why Democrats lose elections...
1
Oh, NYT - way to go with the Halloween-themed piece that hands 45 a really scary sounding talking point.
15
So what are democrats supposed to do - fight a raging fire with a squirt gun?
29
This article is your gift to Fox News and the radioactive radio commentators that have been pushing made up stuff about Obama, Soros, etc.
Ok, is it news? It's a breaking story just days before the election. Why now? Was it vetted? Is this some pathetic attempt at "balance" which the Republicans laugh at?
It's called politics, and it's better than the money from Adelson, Oil, Gas, Ag, etc., that want to rape the planet and get rich doing it.
Seriosly. Why this and now? THAT begs an investigation.
32
@JK I am as liberal as they come but have no issue at all with the NYT story. The are reporting an ongoing issue regarding dark money. It does happen on both side but this story it about groups supporting democrats. You can't applaud the NYT for its reporting only when it supports your view.
9
@JD
I agree. It's just news, maybe even good news depending on how you see it. In any event, nobody will change their vote because of this article.
So what?
20
Why does this sound Like the one and only Mover and Shaker, George Soros?
4
@Psysword: Why, Kochs, Mercers, Adelsons and Russian oligarchs (through the NRA) not enough for you?
6
A bit shocking to see the NYT resorting to scare headlines! A bit of perspective is necessary, i.e. how much are Republicans spending?
19
Sometimes all the money in the world won't help.... Just ask Hillary who outspent the Donald by leaps and bounds and still lost.
7
On one hand, I'm heartened by the chance of a fairer fight but on the other, it's depressing to consider that our political system has come down to pledging fealty to, or asking boons from, the super wealthy. And while "our" billionaires at least won't undo civil rights protections, don't expect them to tolerate anything that may harm Wall St. interests.
5
Limit all donations to PAC's, parties, Superpacs, candidates to something like $500 per individual and ban all corporate money
8
When in Rome!
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
Gotta fight Fire with Fire!
Etc, etc, etc....
Republicans ushered in this legal precedent, do we expect the Democrats not to take advantage of it too?
Politics is about power. Sometimes it’s a zero sum game as the GOP has proven of late.
Sometimes it’s about compromise.
Governance is not necessarily politics. It stems out of politics. Currently we do not have governance, we have an all out civil war between the parties.
At some point when our democracy is in tatters they may decide to surrender and start working together to govern our beautiful country and produce legislation that promotes equality and equal access to education, social mobility and the law, and that protects all our rights, rich and poor, male and female, gay and straight, religious and secular...and enhance all of our quality of lives, healthcare, clean water and air, safe housing, safe communities and honest pay for honest wages for honest labor.
Until then.....see my points above.
9
Or, put another way: two wrongs make a right.
1
@David. You have just hit on the problem. In American politics there is no concept of right and wrong. There should be.
Remember, the full name is Americans for Prosperity of the Kochs.
Republicans are the gift that keeps taking - on behalf of the rich.
At least Hub has the truth and facts on their side and should not pollute it with far fetched notions, conspiracies and vilification of the other side. It’s not needed.
Focus on the truth and the facts, correct the lies of the other side and the votes will come - maybe.
Trump is a menace and a distraction - so focus is good.
9
@PAN
If only network programming, network late night comedians, network news, network morning shows, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, HBO, AP, NPR, the NYTimes, Hollywood movies, cable series, the Washington Post, etc, etc,etc would all push back against Republicans. Poor Democrats. They don’t get any support in the media.
1
The issue is not “dark money”. The issue is honesty.
Democrats use dark money, but pretend that they oppose it. Republicans use dark money and do not pretend to oppose it.
Dark money is bad. Dishonesty makes it even worse.
6
I find this take dishonest! SCOTUS decided the Citizens United case, giving a huge advantage to the Republicans who appointed the conservative justices. Democrats can either allow Republicans to keep that advantage, or they can neutralize it.
The test of their sincerity isn’t whether they take the money now, because frankly there’s little choice about that. The test will be whether they really push for campaign finance reform if and when they do gain power.
And if Democrats show they can be just as adept at the dark money game, maybe, just maybe, there will be enough conservatives capable of thinking that through, so that campaign finance reform becomes an actual bipartisan effort.
2
No, Democrats do not pretend they don't use it. They're just late to the game - a game whose rules the Republicans recently rewrote. The difference is that Dems decry the fact that they HAVE to use dark money, while Reps think it's terrific that we have the best government money can buy.
4
@John Oh please. ALL money is what carries power, and since Republicans excel at creating, hoarding and using large sums of money, they've traditionally won their causes. Dark or light, it's all the same - money speaks.
3
30 million is peanuts.
6
"Democrats Finally Fight Fire with Fire"
There, I fixed that for you.
22
Glad to know there's some dark money on our side.
11
When do we quit calling what we have in this country a Democracy? Clearly that's not what we have.
4
We do not win with lower taxes. Our children, grandkids lose so how is that winning? We had a chance at the end of the Clinton era to erase the national debt. I think the Bush administration was set up as is the current GOP, to make sure that never happens, that the banks and Wall St. that invested and contributed to the GOP (and some Dems) own us forever. Which is a mistake on their side, because one day a lot of folks on the left and right are going to go hmm. That's when we will see such an exodus of the aristocracy as we go after them instead of each other. Maybe that is when we can take care of our kids and not just ourselves.
5
Why a story on dark money for the Democrats, how about the same things for the Republicans?
6
The NYT does it again. They report one narrow instance and leave its learned readers responding as if they have the whole story. This well set deflection piece never says this is all the dark money or this is the first dark money for Democrats. In point of fact both side spend tens of millions of dark money all the time. Clearly, based on reading comments here, NYT readers think this is the universe of Democratic Dark money and it a drop in the bucket compared to Republican dark money. Neither such thing is mentioned but the loyal readers jump just as the fiddlier at the NYT wanted.
1
@mkm: This Republican bias must be why the Times is failing.
1
Cue republicans complaining about big money in politics (now).
7
"flooded" "opaquely-named" "onslaught" = biased reporting! This to describe a midsize political org that seems quite transparent about their policy goals, meanwhile Koch brothers give Billions to further their own shady corporate interests.
The conservative Supreme Court and Republicans have done away with the rules, the Democrats are playing the game.
The Hub and their affiliates are pushing important policies rather than personal attacks or anti-Trump rhetoric. I don't like dark money politics, but I like what they are doing.
7
“There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Maffia.” —WINSTON NILES RUMFOORD”
― Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan
5
Democracy as it was conceived by the founders has turned to dust in the age of technomedia, now that obscene wealth and social media manipulation rule, now that everyone with Internet access is a pundit, now that everyone with excess billions, or millions, is a politician. What new form of government will be able to handle all this manipulation and deceit?
1
Read 'Dark Money' by Jane Mayer and you'll get a pretty good idea of exactly what the American people are up against when it comes to getting an honest election.
6
So when the blue wave comes and wipes all the gop garbage out to sea, the Dems are going to get money out of politics, right? Schumer and Pelosi are going to stick thumbs in the eyes of their big donors, right?
4
What's up with this headline??? A measly $30 million is a flood? Give me a break. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dark money on the right. Even Michael Bloomberg's donations eclipse this total by far.
12
Please make sure to write a story about the "Dark Money" flooding into elections by Billionaire republicans,.i.e., The Koch Brothers, the Mercers, Robert & Rebekkia, DeVosses, Princes,Sheldon Adelson, etc...All these and more have sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into elections covering the entire US, going back over 20 years to drag the US to the extreme right and they have succeeded. Do you like the results? Dark money on both sides is out of control and Citizens United needs to go!
5
Good. I'm not much for money in politics, dark or otherwise, but this battle is not being fought on common ground or with anything even beginning to resemble any kind of level-ish playing field.
Thank goodness somebody's in the Dem's camp.
3
Don’t worry, Republicans, these are the Democrats who waited until after they got their tax write-offs to spend anything on substantive political change. In other words, they’re Republicans who use money to construct a facade of principles, theirs just happen to align with a different country club.
2
No, we do not win with lower taxes. Our children, grand children lose so how is that winning? We had a chance at the end of the Clinton era to erase the national debt. I think the Bush administration was set up as is the current GOP leadership, to make sure that never happens, that the banks and Wall St. that invested and contributed to the GOP (and some Dems) own us forever. Which is a mistake on their side, because one day a lot of folks on the left and right are going to go hmmmmm. That's when we will see such an exodus of the banksters as we go after them instead of each other. Maybe that is when we can take care of our kids and not just ourselves.
It shouldn't be that difficult to pinpoint the sources of that 'dark money'. Sixteen Thirty Fund lists no paid employees on its 990. But it pays close to $800k to Arabella Advisors for management services. CEO of Arabella is also president of 1630. CFO od Arabella is also CFO of 1630. Arabella and 1630 share the same address. Arabella and 1630 share a lot of same ideas. I think it is fair to assume they also share a lot of same donors. So, I would put my money on Bill Gates being one of the sources of the 'dark money'. This much I found in 10 minutes. Since I am not paid to dig deeper, I won't. I just want to suggest that it is not so dark as it seems.
1
Let's get ALL money out of politics. Each campaign should have a pre-set budget paid for by the government using the $3 presidential campaign contribution on our federal tax form plus a one time contribution from the state or local level per candidate. That's it!
Seriously, wouldn't the millions be better spent on the needy in our country?
3
Members of the House and Senate should be required to wear badges designating how much money they have received from lobbyists and special interests every time they appear in government related functions.Kind of like NASCAR drivers. they should also wear insignias showing exactly whose team they are on and who their sponsors are.
2
“its funding has come from so-called dark money — funds from donors who are not legally required to reveal their names”
“there’s not much you can tell about who funds them and who they are, exactly”
“the larger nonprofit does not have to disclose its funding sources”
For two years, we have been saturated with a narrative of "election meddling" by foreign actors.
Yet, in 2018, anonymous donations made to “obscure nonprofits” that work to influence American voters are completely legal.
These anonymous donors might be American.
However, some of the donors might be wealthy foreigners seeking to influence American elections.
Am I alone in believing the lack of financial transparency (and a law requiring transparency) is completely absurd?
2
What I see in a lot of the comments below is the old playground argument, "but he started it!". If it's wrong when the Republicans do it, it's wrong when the Democrats do it. If all the other kids jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too? And, whatever else you may think of Bernie Sanders, he built up an enviable war chest on multiple small donations from supporters.
3
“They made the first big attack on George,” said Mr. Wrenn, adding that he had sought unsuccessfully to discern who was behind the attack: “We tried to figure out who they were, but there’s not much you can tell about who funds them and who they are, exactly.”
Exactly the way Republicans and Republican operatives think. What matters is who is saying or funding it, not whether what is said is accurate. Dismantling the Individual Mandate will make health insurance unafforable for some 3 million Americans in 2019 (rising to 17 million by 2027), thus consigning thousands of Americans to needless, premature death EVERY year. Any Republican who voted for the tax bill is complicit in what is criminally negligent homicide.
As for Mr. Cavell, unless he's in the top 1% (which garners 80% of the benefits of the Tax Bill) or, better the top 0.1% (which garners nearly 60%), he's really not doing as well as he thinks. And I doubt he'll be enjoying the coming cuts in his Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the $1.7 trillion hole in the deficit, proving once again that ignorance is always its own reward.
1
I don't like dark money. I don't like it in the Democratic Party, I don't like it in the GOP. If you have to hide who donates to you... or you want to be hidden when you donate, that's a problem in a democracy. It's one person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote. And don't tell me ads don't matter, there's a multi billion dollar industry that would disagree.
4
Dark money has apparently flooded the assembly race in my home district, where a longtime local and progressive, Jovanka Beckles, is running against a well-funded first-timer who used to work for Obama. It's insane to me that corporate Democrats would spend a red cent on a race between two Democrats when there are competitive races against Republicans going on elsewhere. I guess it's true that the party heads see progressives as a bigger threat than Republicans.
1
We need campaign finance reform immediately.
I don't think any corporation or business or PAC should be able to donate any money at all.
Only Americans.
And they should be limited to $5000 a person. That's it.
People are BUYING our elections. And who knows where the dark money is really coming from?
The Saudis? The Russians? The Chinese?
It's ridiculous.
Now, without all these money bribes the elections would be much shorter. Three months long, not two years of ads.
Wouldn't that be better? Three months and done.
But the corruption in our election system is disgusting. It's a bribe, that's all it is for the politicians.
We are a mess.
60
@KatieHere, here. I agree with Katie!
3
Just remember it was US Supreme Court Chief Justice and his Republican Justices who decided a corporation was a person and could, therefore, give huge sums of money in elections for US Senators, US House Representatives and the President. From that point on elections have been bought by the highest bidders. With the usual middle of the road voting Justice Kennedy gone and his replacement by Kavanaugh, you may rest assured the richest 1% of Americans and Corporations will continue to seize the most they can for themselves and the Hell with the other 99%.
New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer documents in her book Dark Money, that the idea and structure for this opaque political funding mechanism came from the Koch Brothers.
The Kochs set up Americans for Prosperity prior to the Citizens United decision as a PAC to distribute funds from anonymous donors. Once or twice a year they hold secure meetings with large numbers of donors to secure their commitments for funding. Their annual targets are in the $200-$300 M range.
Part of their pitch to donors, is that while the funds are distributed to PACs and think tanks through layers of shell companies to mask the quid pro quo nature of the funds, the donors are placed on the boards of the end organizations that distribute the money. The donors ultimately direct where the [their] money goes. All "completely legal" for some 20 years, or so.
10
We need to bear in mind that different parties and sides play this game. @OSS Architect
1
All essential politics, as they say, is local. Until Democrats figure out how to control state legislatures and governor mansions, the Republican minority (yes they are minority) will continue to govern at the federal level. Democrats will not win long-term until they control state legislatures and permanently undo the damage of gerrymandering.
The efforts of Hub Project may convert a few Republican seats in 2018 but this will only be temporary. Gerrymandered districts will swing back to Republicans in the next cycle. Democrats need a master plan to control two-thirds of state legislatures in ten years. Short-term victory is not the answer.
11
@Merlin "Democrats need a master plan to control two-thirds of state legislatures in ten years. Short-term victory is not the answer."
actually in this case short-term victory is the answer, because whoever wins local elections this year and in 2020 will have a say in 2021 redistricting, which will influence election results for the next 10 years!
2
@Bogdan
The point I am making is that if Dems win in 2018 and lose in 2020 or 2022 they will hardly be able to make a lasting changes in the political process. They need to win, and then hold on to that victory and consolidate their progress.
It is well past time for sunlight of disclosure to cleanse some of the dirtier aspects of our political system. And dark money in politics is just dirty by any definition. Crying foul now that Progressives have used the loopholes against them just makes Republicans all the more hypocritical.
Our system depends on the three branches working together in the best interests of our country. The Republicans have totally rejected comity by pouring money into politics on all levels. And it is not to improve the lives of anyone but themselves. Howling about progressive dark money is laughable.
It would be my hope that all areas of government will begin working together to make the system more fair. In this hyper-political environment, I will not be holding my breath.
62
These are not progressives, these are corporate Democrats. Please do not confuse the people fighting against dark money for those who are only too eager to accept it.
2
PS: Personally, I believe that senators should all be required to wear sweaters and t-shirts and not suits and $200 blow drys, but until that happens each party is going to do what it legally can.
4
So, cries against Citizen's United notwithstanding, both Republicans AND Democrats raise and spend money through organizations who do not disclose their donors. Given that the major concentrations of wealth in this country, California and the Northeast Corridor, are also Democratic strongholds it is not surprising that there are very wealthy Democrats who want to influence the elections without having their names associated with them.
6
@Whatalongstrangetrip "cries against Citizen's United notwithstanding, both Republicans AND Democrats raise and spend money through organizations who do not disclose their donors."
yes, but only democrats want to get rid of Citizens United. republicans are the only ones who are hypocritical here, sorry.
2
I know Dark Money has been around ever since Citizens United ruling. A great book called Dark Money is very enlightening on this phenomena. In the past this was mostly an Alt Right funding vehicle by the Koch brothers and other wealthy people of like mind. I find it sad that Democrats are now in the same game. America needs a fix to get these groups banished from our politics. No one should be able to use 501 monies to engage in politics be they Republican, Democrat, or other. Money in politics is truly the root of all evil. It corrupts our politicians and makes fools out of the voters.
9
@KEOB " I find it sad that Democrats are now in the same game."
it's not sad at all! so long as these are the rules, dems have to play by them. i would find it sad if they were unwilling to change them, but so far i think most dems want to put limits on political donations.
@KEOB What we need is publicly financed elections, getting money out of politics and getting rid of Citizens United....Limits should be set on how much any candidate can spend, PERIOD! The election cycle should be shortened to 90 days and only issues & policies should be discussed. Try to get democracy back NOW!
2
@Rich David We have public financing of elections, but Saint Obama was the first major candidate to turn it down (after first saying he would not):
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html
2
I don't like being tackled - but I will tackle my opponent whenever I get a chance. Because that is the way the game is being played.
16
Well, they learned from the best- the republicans.
you were expecting us to unilaterally disarm?
19
I'm an independent voter who has defensively voted for Democrats as the Republican party back when I voted in NJ for Tom Kean has disappeared, with the rational wing hounded out as RINOs.
Gingrich tossed the Office of Technology Assessment, because Republican donors are often hurt when evidence is considered in lawmaking. Gingrich tossed bipartisanship with his memo advising demonization of Democrats.
Then the Tea Party, Citizens United and the back-to-back Obama victories (popular AND electoral votes) drove the Republican Party way off the deep end. "No tax" pledges to pressure groups put ahead of paying for things we need as a nation. Massive funding from extremist billionaires to hound the remaining sensible members from the party with far-right primary challengers.
All that said, I wish the Democrats gain in this election and in 2020, and I hope more, for the country's sake, that we get a Congress that will legislate the horrible Citizens United ruling out of existence. That the Roberts Court doesn't see such money as corrupting proves at least some justices are blind.
12
While I can understand why Democratic supporters are okay with this (after all, the Democrats have certainly suffered politically in the past for refusing to stoop to the Republicans' level), this still reeks of hypocrisy and I don't like it. If you don’t think these shadow donors are going to be exerting undue influence on our government, you’re fooling yourself.
I saw another commenter say that the only way to get big money out of politics is to elect Democrats. Well not when they’re elected like this. Democratic politicians are still politicians and they know just as well as Republicans not to bite the hand that feeds them.
5
@Alex "this still reeks of hypocrisy and I don't like it"
it's not hypocritical at all. playing by the rules while campaigning for changing them is perfectly honest, and that's what dems are doing here.
1
"Dark Money" is a fraudulent term that is deployed to promote reform, but which is actually an assault on the right to privacy. The fourth amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Coercing people to reveal who or what they are contributing to, which in effect causes them to reveal what and whom they are voting for and thereby violates the rules pertaining to a secret ballot, is unconstitutional. In this case it happens to be the Democrats and even though a conservative I support their right to give secretly. Big money donors could very easily face harrassment, violence, boycotts of their businesses and other forms of unpleasantness if they put their name on donations.
Democrats are forever praising the virtue of the right to privacy, but they are woefully inconsistent on the subject.
2
@Dougal E funny how every law that republicans don't like is unconstitutional. the constitution means to protect business people from boycotts?!
5
@Dougal E Even Justice Scalia, with whom I don't agree very often, said that in a democracy openness was necessary. He cast a crucial vote supporting the public access to the names of people who sign petitions, arguing that it is a small price to pay for democracy. People who contribute money to influence political decisions do not have a right to do so in secrecy because their contributions effect other people.
26
I get you want to buy elections fair and square, but pray tell, unconstitutional on what grounds?
#1person1vote
#resist
3
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Money is not speech, because it has no content. It's just a megaphone, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans. I'm sure the Justices realized this. Citizens United is nothing more than cynical political hardball -- just another voter suppression strategy, in this case suppressing information voters need. But perhaps they miscalculated. It turns out that there are super-rich Democrats too.
11
The Supreme Court in the Citizens United case decided that this is an entirely legal, legitimate way to finance political campaigns. Most democrats would like to see that changed (which is becoming less likely by the second.) However, to suggest that Democrats should sit by and not conduct this kind of campaign financing while their political opponents do is an absurdity. The (broken) system is such that raising lots of money is critical.
Additionally, did I miss the front-page article in the NYT, published one week before the elections, about the extent of Republicans' use of Dark-Money?
39
@HRY: i missed it, too.
2
Thank you to the New York Times for fearless journalism. While there are times when I think this paper is too stridently left and may be lamenting epochal changes to a move right in North America, South America, and the EU, you publish articles and pieces that are balanced. Yes, Trump is a dark force in politics, but you correctly note that there are myriad dark forces in politics, on both sides, and you have the “guts” to expose them on both. It’s why I have been a subscriber for over 30 years.
9
@jrinsc: You had me on your first sentence about how terrible a decision Citizens United is.
If Roberts had said, "corporations are MADE of people, too..." instead of " corporations ARE. people, too..." at least he would've been right.
Still, as long as it's on the books, our political system will remain in a world of hurt.
1
Nice last line to this article: "I'm enjoying the lower taxes." Yes, some of the wealthy are certainly that self-centered. Yes, many voters vote for selfish reasons. But in my opinion, they lose. It actually is true that all our lives are affected by how we treat the least well-off among us. (I wish the article hadn't mentioned the name of the young guy--66 is young to me now, because he may very well be a really nice individual.)
BUT the big deal in this article, of course, is the fact that Democrats have been forced to take the low road of huge dollars in dark money. We ourselves have had to use the dirty weapon that we're so fighting hard to destroy. Citizens United, gross gerrymandering, massive political contributions by Kochs, Adelsons, Mercers, etc are what we want to stop.
I fervently hope we win this election. And that we then work hard to clean up the corrupt mess that our political system has been turned into.
But there's a difference even now: Republicans donate huge dollars to what personally benefits themselves (or so they think--because climate change, etc won't benefit any human beings). Wealthy Democrats push for a fair tax system, which will mean higher taxes for themselves; and for decent, affordable health care for all, which they personally can already afford.
What's happening now isn't altogether good, but is there another way?
49
Two can play at the Dark Political Arts, Greed Over People.
Enjoy.
8
What an awful story and ridiculous headline. How about something like "Taking a page from the republican playbook, deomocrats fight back."
38
I can see it now on Fox and Breitbart, "Even the ultra-liberal, failing New York Times admits to the deep state dark money flooding into the Democratic world bankers slush fund." You are feeding into their narrative. OK, all donating should be transparent. OK, two wrongs don't make a right. But on the heels of the hit jobs on Beto and Stacey Abrams, and the events of the past two years, I gotta say it's disconcerting. And I have to ask, "Why?"
20
@Mikeyz because NYtimes has to be "objective". it's the only way Trump will stop calling them fake news.
i came close to cancelling my subscription after their horrible coverage of the 2016 elections, and now they're back at it.
perhaps it all makes sense once you notice nytimes stock value has been up since Trump became president.
1
we are the gander.
9
I take this as a welcome and long overdue sign that Dem leadership is going to finally wake up and use all available and legal means to win an election.
You know what IS hypocritical? Saying that you care about the middle class, disenfranchised, and want to empower the next generation and then not winning elections to get that done because you were hung up on where the money came from.
10
Oh, and how upset the liberals were with Koch brothers and Citizens United...
2
You expect unilateral disarmament, Henry K.?
The radical Republican Party created the moneyed speech and corporate people system.
To expect one side to disarm is pathetically naive or worse;
A bipartisan treaty and law is required to eradicate dark political money.
26
BTW this and the BETO "barrio" article I may have to cancel. Are you deliberately trying to confuse everyone at midterms? The GOP has been doing this with passion since Citizend United. The Dems just caught up. You make it sound like it is something new. This is who we are now.
26
I'm convinced the NY Times wants Trump and the Republicans to keep winning. Republican groups do this all day, but it'll be "DEMOCRAT DARK MONEY" that gets the headlines and the Twitter, Fox, and alt-right nonsense that follows. Yes, this kind of concentrated money should have no place in our elections. But no, Democrat Dark Money does not deserve it's own headline, just like Hilary's emails did not deserve separate and undue coverage from the impending corruption parade of Donald Trump's presidency.
23
@Derrick
Trump has been very good for news subscriptions. Maybe this explains the backhanded headline here, and many others.
1
And this differs from the what the Republicans do how? Thanks Citizens United!
6
Dark money is a bad weapon but you don't go to a AK45 fight with a nail knife...
6
Wait I thought Dems were against Dark Money in campaigns? Well thats a bad look.
1
Yet ANOTHER last-minute hit job on the Dems?
If this was really fair an balanced reporting, you'd have an accompanying piece about all the loot the likes of the Koch Bros, Adelson, and all the Dark Money right-wing Super-PACs. have been / are now FLOODING our political system with! Or at least equal coverage in this article!
How about an explanation, Times?
Your long-time readers are becoming increasingly skeptical -- or even cynical -- about your motives and priorities in your reporting and editorials. YOUR credibility as a news source of record, or even a reliable news source, are in the line. How abut addressing that?
Why is the Times repeating its election-affecting "coverage" in 2018, after what it did in 2016 to cast aspersion on Clinton, and thus helped spin the election to Trump?
52
30 Million, all in! That's less than Mitch got from drug companies alone!
21
I for one read this article as good news.
4
Read this silly piece with amusement. Only things missing were Hillary’s emails, and a follow up to the recent bizarre NYTimes Beto O’Rourke story about something that never really happened 12 years ago in El Paso. Bad, bad, bad Democrats. How dare you use Citizens United against the very people who created it, and even make use of the same tactics the Repubs have been using for decades. According to NY times, Dems are only permitted to bring a knife to a gun fight.
20
so the dems figured out how to play in the sandbox with the GOP...took long enough...not news
7
I'd like to know why The NYT is suddenly focused on taking down the Democratic Party, but they have been astonishingly "soft" on Trump and Republicans for years.
Where are the articles about Republican dark money (a game they've been playing for years and in profoundly malignant ways) just days before this midterm election?!?
I question why The NYT is publishing so many hit pieces about Democrats days before the midterms but they are completely silent about Republicans.
17
Why point the finger at Dems. We know republicans are masters of dark money. Nyt , why are you giving fox fodder
10
How a Democratic Dark-Money Group Flooded the 2018 House Map
[ Just what I needed to make me wonder whether my votes will mean anything. What the heck, I can hope but I do not like this. ]
1
Seeing as the floodgates were opened by the right wingers on the Supreme Court with Citizens United I'm not sure Democrats have many options. I'm tired of donating all the time because it actually comes out of my pocket unlike the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson, the Mercer family, etc. I hate all money in politics and believe elections should be publicly financed. The Republicans are airing ads where they are lying about their votes to repeal the ACA provision especially regarding pre-existing conditions. I'm sick of corporate Democrats too but we are in an existential fight right now and for me, nothing is off the table in order to win back the House and, less likely but still hopeful, the Senate.
227
@lzolatrov Maybe they could stand on their principles instead of "when they go low we go lower". Well it is politics so I guess both sides can be clearly crooks at this point. This is why so many are checking out of politics, have no faith in media, and are voting populism is this sort of lowest common denominator attitude.
@Mystery Lits this is nonsense - you first need to win to change the rules, and you'll never win if you don't take full advantage of the rules like your opponents do. it's really not that hard to get this.
13
@Mystery Lits Please stop saying both sides. The GOP nuked congressional norms (ie. the filibuster) and is actively spreading misinformation. Democrats have to take a stand to make themselves heard, but when people brush off the GOP's behavior by saying "Democrats do that too" it obscures the issue. Our government depends on the morality of its leaders, which we clearly cannot expect. We need reform.
5
and we wonder why the democratic party is out of touch with the people....
6
@r s,
yes, the republicans have all the light money, LOL.
3
There’s a lot of reasons, but this isn’t one of them. Or at least, it doesn’t make them any more out of touch than Republicans.
3
this is not about Republicans. I agree with Krugman that the Republicans are an authoritarian regime in waiting. this is about putting people's interests before corporate interests and, in doing so, trying to save this country from authoritarianism.
3
With this C1 focus on the same kind of anonymous donations that have funded the GOP for years, is The New York Times trying to torpedo the Democratic midterms - just like they did with the constant barrage of headlines about Clinton.emails in 2016 - while Trump's unsecured iPhone while president of the country merited a mere two articles?!
Clearly, with far less dirt on the Democrats than Trump's multiple daily violations of decency and democracy-The New York Times is scrambling for story.
118
Agree on Trump cell phone usage coverage.
At least as bad as HRC’s emails in terms of security breach.
14
@common sense advocate This article should be applauded.
Both, Republican and Democrats have used somewhat less than honorable funding mechanisms They are not illegal and they should not be.
The time will come when this funding practice will benefit an issue I care about. I much prefer to see with discomfort from a distance holding my nose to this practice than to shut speech altogether because it currently does not benefit me.
1
No, they are not torpedo-ing Democrats’ midterm odds. They are being a unbiased, accountable source of information.
4
Dark money, eh? I'd call it Light Money, as in the disinfectant of sunlight that Democrats will, on balance, bring to this very dangerous situation. Dark is the unending lying, getting ever worse as GOP politicians believe now there are no consequences for it, as demonstrated by the Orange Nightmare. Dark is the fear and greed that animates them. Dark is the hate many of their followers hold in their hearts.
The NYTimes is now becoming know for such clickbait headlines. Editors should think more carefully about their consequences.
94
Seriously another snowflake who can’t tolerate any negative reporting about Democrats
2
@Nyalman
I confess, I'm a partisan patriot, who fears for this republic.
2
Sunshine best disinfectant.
Where does the Constitution provide for dark or hidden speech?
10
@Dan The fourth amendment. And the first.
Don't bring a nerf bat to a gun fight.
Given the opportunity shoot your opponent in the back.
Better to throw a sucker punch than receive one.
Then on day one, if you dare, propose legislation or an amendment to overthrow Citizens United and gerrymandering.
13
@NYTimes
You're falling into the same trap you did with Hillary bashing and questioning throughout the 2016 election!
The way this article is written - it implies nefarious funding by the Democrats. Enough already - spend time focusing on how the Republicans have shredded American values, ethics and respect!
Just because some donors don't want their names given doesn't mean they are nefarious or crooks!!
118
@Mrinal
Yes, the so-called liberal media might just be about to hand power to Republicans. Based on ridiculous, biased coverage. Again. How do they sleep at night?
3
Finally the Dems wise up?
When dealing with crypto-fascist elements you have to go bare fisted.Sad, but true.
When the Rs go low with lies, the Ds need to go low with the truth.
15
Good for them!!
21
Just because the Republicans do it, doesn’t mean we should. Keep dark money out of politics as it will lower the energy from the base.
This is stupid strategy. Strategy by definition involves selection from options and making choices based on trade-offs.
An ‘all-of-the-above’ strategy doesn’t work. It’s not strategy. It’s cowardice and FOMO (fear of missing out).
Just like politicians who say anything to win (looking at you Claire McCaskill) should run as Republicans.
Democrats stand for something. Let’s not pollute this. Wake Up, DNC...
3
So , according to you, dems should just quit. That is not the right strategy. They must play by same rules as republicans. If and when they retake control of our government, then they should fight to change the rules, but not before then.
4
@Steven
I understand the argument of not tying ones hand behind ones back while fighting someone.
But. I also understand strategy. I majored in strategy. I’ve done strategy professionally for over 20 years for large corporations and consulting firms.
Just because something works for Republicans doesn’t mean it will work for us. There are different factors bringing Democrats to the polls than Republicans. One of the big ones is: these guys are so crooked and corrupt and fight for big money using dark money.
Anyway, I’m also a fact based practical person. My objection is strategic and not ideological. There is no data yet to judge this strategy. I’m willing to suspend judgment till next week and an analysis on whether this was a good political move: How many races were swayed by it. Specific races, not overall if we win the House (which we all expect to)
If there were enough races swayed, I’ll shut up.
Trust my position is clear.
Thank you Supreme Court.
4
Honestly! What is up with these articles?! Just because the donors are unknown does not automatically mean that the donors are somehow “bad” and the money is “dark.” Just say “money from unknown donors.” This article is horribly biased.
84
Because in this day and age, nobody gives up $30 million dollars for a just cause. There is ALWAYS an ulterior motive. And on both sides , it's greed.
5
It's merely democracy, Citizens United style. The only way the Republican-leaning Supreme Court is likely to reverse itself is if Democrats can regularly round up more dark money than Republicans. No one should doubt that the SC majority will then "discover" some obscure provision in the Constitution to justify the reversal. See Bush v. Gore for precedent.
28
What the heck is this article trying to do--especially the headline? "Dark Money," for Democrats really? Where is the headline talking about Dark Money for Republicans, who have used this mechanism massively more than Democrats.
Following Citizens United, thanks to the conservative SCOTUS the floodgates have been opened to so-called "Dark Money" for everyone. It is sadly utterly legal to conceal donors, and it is something both parties have done, but what is the alternative for Democrats when Republicans openly, blatantly and scurrilously use Dark Money as the major source of funding for their attacks on Democrats.
Of course, we need campaign finance reform. The Citizens United decision needs to be legislated out of existence, but until it is, any Democratic use of this funding procedure is merely defensive, and should not be criticized.
33
We are so far beyond a story about $30 million dollars from an unknown source at this point, unclear why it need to run on the front page.
51
Why does the Times hate Democrats? The constant negative spin on candidates and races is noticeable.
My advice to you is the same as my advice to Lindsey Graham. Stop trying to make friends. The GOP is never going to like you.
84
well said!
I've been for publicly financed elections since Citizens United, and still primarily support candidates that reject dark money.
But holy cow NYTimes, are you just *trying* to get Dems to lose their midterms at this point? Hit pieces on Gillum, Beto, and now this -- playing up to the right's "deep state" conspiracy theories.
Anything to sell a paper right?
68
How can I contribute to the Hub Foundation?
While I detest the role of (dark) money in politics, AKA the “Citizens United” corporatist SC ruling, that is the reality of the moment. We must fight fire with fire.
Go Hub!
29
The Citizens United decision was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The influence of money - most especially dark money - in our political system is so corrosive as to basically nullify representational democracy. The only voices that count are the ones that pay up. It's not just about elections; it's about access to lawmakers.
No doubt as soon as this story hit the NY Times website, the alternate conservative universe of Fox News, Twitter, Russian trolls, Alex Jones, etc. began their apoplectic screaming fits. But what should the Democratic Party do? Unilaterally disarm, as Mr. Gerney said? How can they compete with the likes of the Koch brothers?
The conservative faction of the Supreme Court got us into this mess, and with Justice Kavanaugh's appointment, there's no turning back for the time being. So many of our intractable political issues could be better addressed if we had equal public financing for elections, and got dark money out of politics.
18
The way to keep money out of politics is to shorten the campaign season to just 3 weeks, and make it illegal for a TV station to broadcast an ad for anything other than a real product during that period. Billboard ads would also be made illegal, as would newspaper and magazine ads ads larger than 1/8 page during that period
People wouldn't keep from talking - they could talk to each other all they like - they would just be keep from spending vast sums of money on advertising. Web media of all types - except buying ads on other web sites - would be OK. It would not a limitation of speech, just a limitation of spending.
What about primaries? There should be no government supported primary elections. They should all be required to take place in the same time slot. They should be 100% a function of the parties. Same 3 week rule and limitations apply to primary elections.
How do you enforce the 3 week periods? By disqualifying anyone who announces beforehand.
Remember, the campaign business is now a multi year, multi-billion dollar waste of money that spreads hate. Why would anyone want to keep the current arrangement?
9
@Peter Zenger Let's just toss that freedom of speech/press in the garbage. God forbid should voters hear political messages prior to an election!
@Peter Zenger What wonderful ideas... sounds so much like China.
As Gaius said in the BBC production of "I Claudius" regarding checking the actions of Praetorian Guard Chief Sejanus, "Sometimes you have to get a dog to fight a dog".
20
This is great news! Koch and Adelson and the legions of dark money have corrupted the process. Unless they are fought head-to-head taking full advantage of the laws as they unfortunately currently exist the left can’t hope to ever re-level the field. I wish they had $300 million.
7
You could run an equivalent article on GOP dark money but it would be too long. Just read "Dark Money," an entire book devoted to the subject.
Do you think there are any articles today on Fox or other right-wing outlets exposing "dark money" on the Republican side only days before an election?
32
The difference is that the democrats will use dark money to end the ability to use dark money and overturn citizens united. Why is the times reporting this as a negative when the republicans embrace dark money often from overseas.
5
This is a necessary evil to battle the regressives. I'd prefer a bilateral disarmament - a return to the days before Citizens United - but that will never happen. We can thank Roberts for this travesty.
10
I agree totally with the comments by njglea. Right now I’m going with valid criticism of GOP candidates supporting inaction of Trump’s demogoguery.
Later, gerrymandering must be addressed and political donors must be regulated. Later.
Now I find the New York Times to be irresponsible in making false equivalence of Democratic and Republican ethics.
16
All right!
It's about time the Democrats stopped bring toy pistols to real gun fights.
12
I typed too fast.
I get it, the resistance and all, but when the Democrats start believing that the ends justify the means, that's a milestone in the wrong direction.
3
I hate this, but let's be perfectly clear this is a game the GOP also plays and it was their Supreme Court majority that harkened in this new era of crazy spending with Citizens United. I'm just glad there is a counterpoint to the radical right and all of their big spenders.
27
So how is it that Democrats and this newspaper rail against Citizens United on a regular basis, but have no problem having "undisclosed" donors throwing $30M around ?
Are you going to say that without Citizens United, these donors would not spend their money either ?
Nonsense !
3
@G
"Are you going to say that without Citizens United, these donors would not spend their money either ? "
Less rhetorical but more interesting should be (in the era of the check off box on our income tax forms) the question of why so much money is spent on political campaigns in the first place and why so many contributions are undisclosed no matter what the "presumed" affiliation is behind them.
1
Do you really believe that if enough Democrats are elected (using dark money) to eliminate the use of dark money that they will actually enact a law banning it? Really? It's like an opioid - immediately addicting and too painful to quit.
3
@Kparker
Perhaps. Maybe now Republicans might regret having shoved this practice into law?
1
The headline and the first few paragraphs are full of manipulative rhetoric, intended to paint a scary picture without actually having any substance. For those readers sturdy enough to push through to the end, it is clear there is not much of a story here. In short, some DEM supporters are using the existing campaign financing laws to get their message out there. Some other DEMs would like to see these same campaign financing laws changed.
Woop de doo
"Dark money"
"opaquely" named ... Hub Project
"vaguely sympathetic" names like Keep Iowa Healthy
"quiet onslaught"
Onslaught? For crying out loud! This is politics, people expressing opinions. What do you expect?
6
Thank God! It’s about time the Democrats fought back with the same kind of ferocity as the Republicans. When your opponent fights as dirty as the GOP, you can’t just wring your hands and scream about playing fair. That’s exactly how we ended up with this debacle in the White House.
6
Oh well, the ends justify the means. That's all that matters.
1
Bernie Sanders' success in fundraising shows that underhanded tactics simply aren't necessary.
I understand why some DEMs may feel the need to resort to legal though unsavory funding practices. But the sooner we clean up campaign finance laws the better.
2
The sky is falling, the sky is falling - run for the hills; Dems have a group which raised $30 million to combat the Sheldon Adelsons' GOP'er contribution of at least $100 million from 1 couple:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/politics/adelsons-political-donations-republicans.html
and Koch Bros. Inc.'s $400 million$ GOP'er honey pot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/30/dont-be-fooled-the-koch-brothers-will-stick-by-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ff40f348aa4
Soon cats will start barking, and dogs will be climbing trees !
30
@R. Law you left out the Mercers. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/no-one-knows-what-the-powerful-mercers-really-want/514529/
4
Glad to see Democrats standing up and fighting back. The $30mm here is nothing compared to the Dark Money that has been flowing through conservative causes for years. And I'm impressed these leaders are willing to go on the record and discuss their work. And yes, health care, taxes, human rights, this is what we are voting about next week...
21
We have to get out from under the corporate power structure that is eating our government alive, but during a war, you use your best and most powerful weapons to win, and now is the time for Democrats to fight fire with fire. David and Goliath is a great bible story but has no place in American politics right now.
103
@Wally Wolf
The United States actually doesn't use its best and most powerful weapons to win wars. If we did, both Korea and Vietnam would have gone tactically nuclear. I personally would prefer campaign disarmament as much as I would prefer nuclear disarmament. Maybe even more.
At least nuclear weapons contain the explicit threat of mutual self-destruction. Campaign finance doesn't acknowledge any such threat. This despite presenting a greater potential for singular destruction. Our own.
No doubt it’s Russian money. The Democrats are Putin’s workers party.
9
Stop projecting. It is dishonest and distasteful, and, frankly, unimaginative.
12
@Shamrock
There is only one reason that Russian interference in our elections is ongoing -- it benefits Don the Con and his criminal family.
Hence, the long delay in implementing veto-proof congressional sanctions against oligarchs (allowing them to shift their finances around), daily attacks aimed at the DOJ, the press, and the special counsel intended to delegitimize efforts to establish the full truth about Russian interference, & Trump's total capitulation to Putin at Helsinki.
4
Dark money, dark times, in the dark, shadow banking, bagman. All the same.
7
The Republicans are howling in pain over Democrat’s fundraising, because they have always believed that while Democrats have the more popular stand on issues, the Republican access to special interest and 0.01% money evened out the playing field.
46
This is wrong. We need to get big money out of politics on both sides but as it stands right now, this is simply the nature of the game and we can't blame democrats for trying to compete. As far as hiding their identities, well, maybe they don't want to get bombs in the mail.
34
Enjoy the Ark.
The rest of us will be fighting it out in the streets and whatever ‘dark’ alleys need taking back.
2
What I want to know is whether the ads they're funding are telling the truth. If they are, keep it going. I agree that dark money is not a good thing, but right now, any way to get the truth out is fine by me.
15
What took the NY TImes so long ?
Two weeks ago ( 08/17/2018) Politico.com
Super PACs use new trick to hide donors
Outside groups are using loopholes and sometimes just ignoring the law to keep voters in the dark before key elections.
"Overall, at least two dozen super PACs that spent millions of dollars in recent elections used loopholes to get out of revealing their donors, according to information compiled by the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog organization.
And many of the groups pushing the boundaries are aligned with Democrats, the party most associated with complaints about undisclosed “dark money” affecting elections."
7
It is about time that we stopped the unilateral disarmament of progressive causes. If money can't be removed from politics (which it can't) then we need to fight fire with fire. Thank you!
86
So much for Democrats not liking Citizens United...hypocrites.
13
@MM
Your conclusion is inaccurate. We do not like it, but if it is the law, then we take advantage of the law until we have the congressional power to change it.
14
Not at all. I want Citizens United to be reversed, and dark money out of politics. But until that happens, it’s childish to whine that one side should unilaterally disarm.
Maybe, just maybe, seeing that Democrats too can play by those rules will give both sides some motivation to regulate dark money?
119
@MM. Hypocrites? Nope. But not fools. When Republicans play dirty, should Democrats just let them win?
9
Hey Republicans, you ready to do anything about Citizens United? Or are you just content to engage in a rapidly escalating fundraising war that will waste the equivalent of several small nations' GDP every election cycle?
130
Oh, the horror!!
Dems fighting back against right-wing big business tycoons hungry for more tax breaks, less regulation, more pollution, more drilling along pristine coasts and beautiful landscapes...
GOOD FOR YOU!!
217
@slim1921 AND don't forget "tycoons" who want more Yachts.
4
You can complain about the rules of the game or figure out how to use those rules to your advantage. Pretty sure which method usually wins.
50
@Renaldo Morocco Use the rules, get power, and change the rules. It can happen. Obviously, there are wealthy Democratic donors who are supporting causes that go against their own financial interests.
Much as our present leaders would have us believe otherwise, there are more important things in life than more money.
7
Conservative voices in my home state of North Dakota are aghast at the out-of-state money coming in supporting Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. These same people cheered Citizens United and call for removing all campaign financing restrictions and regulations. I guess they didn't think it would cut both ways.
Maybe some conservatives will learn from this cycle that we're on the same team when it comes to dark money in our elections.
227
@CD It's an example of watch out what you wish fo r- you might get it,
8
@CD Your kidding I assume about conservatives right? They have nothing without dark money, gerrymandering and voter suppression.
11
@Chris I am not kidding. Conservative radio and blogs have expressed great frustration these past few weeks that Sen. Heitkamp received such large donations from CA and NY post-Kavanaugh. Yes, they are whining about dark money going to a Democrat, even though they very much depend on it for their candidates.
1
Would a more balanced way of reporting on this be, "Democrats join Republicans in Plumbing Dark Money Sources for Campaign Financing"?
317
@Yann
My thoughts exactly. Though even your revised headline would show a false equivalence, as the amounts of Republican dark money injected into political races are much, much greater than $30 million.
This article and its prominence also has a whiff of this relatively recent NY Times phenomenon when, in the 11th hour before election day, they seem bent on sabotaging Democratic political efforts through nothingburger stories that sound sinister. Click-bait, maybe? I don't get the motivation, but it isn't coming from the supposed purity of their journalistic ethics, however they may spin it.
26
@Yann. Absolutely. This is the same crapola that NYT pulled during the 2016 election, repeating "people don't trust Hillary" without really examining what that meant. Was she going to declare war on false premises? Steal the National Treasury and run to Brazil? Did she have a history of lying? False equivalency and, worse, lazy journalism. I'm ending my subscription.
Awesome Democratic hypocrisy! Please spare us your moaning in the future about the SC's Citizens United decision.
11
@Richard
Somebody's upset that Dems are finally starting to level the playing field...
15
@Richard Or, let's work together--Republicans and Democrats--for the good of the country, and get dark-money financing out of our politics. This isn't a partisan issue.
6
Hypocrisy? You conservatives won that fight, you got your way on Citizens United. Now that it suddenly occurs to you that it doesn’t work for your benefit only, you whine. Cry me a river. Besides, in the Age of Trump, who could possibly care less about hypocrisy than conservatives?
I would love it if conservatives and progressives joined forces to curb dark money. But until that happens, don’t expect anybody to unilaterally disarm.
11
I am conflicted regarding this tactic. I believe that all donors to candidates should be traceable in order to make their motives for supporting specific candidates more transparent. This is especially true when you consider the influence of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson for their own financial gain and that of their personal and corporate interests.
Maybe the Republican Party will reconsider the fairness of this type of untraceable money now that it is being used against them.
We need money out of politics. VOTE.
12
What’s bad for the goose is bad for the gander. But how does the dark money compare between the two parties? That would be a more rational basis for a headline.
43
@Native Tarheel - I had the same thought! Wouldn't it have been nice if the author of this article had done a little research to put it in perspective, relative to GOP use of "dark money".
The Politico article below provides some more information and a wider context.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-score/2018/09/20/a-look-behind-the-dark-money-curtain-345762
2
This seems fishy. PACs and Super PACs breed corruption enough, but a dark money Super PAC seems like it could breed even more.
There needs to be a set budget for these kind of things, like in England.
2
@Sean There is no difference between a super pac and dark money.
3
I have no problem with democrats playing the Koch brothers and other Robber Baron games right now to take back OUR U.S. and state/local governments.
However, dark money still puts Robber Barons in charge of OUR election systems. Many people just get turned off by the barrage of advertising and do not know who to believe so they don't vote.
WE THE PEOPLE - average people across OUR United States of America - must support candidates who do not depend on BIG money to get elected but come out to meet us and tell us what they will do for 99.9% of us. WE must demand that BIG money be taken out of OUR elections.
NOW.
190
@njglea
until that nirvana arrives, we must play by the rules and elect enough Democrats, consistently, to get a majority on the scotusa to overturn citizens united.
52
@njglea
Big money will never be exorcised from campaigns unless Democrats win the reins of power. And that's not going to happen unless Democrats fight big GOP money with their own big money.
Sometimes idealistic stances have to be a sacrificed so the greater good can eventually prevail (see WWII).
53
exactly!