gatomontes99 Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 (edited) Past articles: April 2, 2025-Fraud on ActBlue: New Report Details Potential Illegal Activity on the Democrat Platform July 22, 2025-SCOOP: Dem fundraising giant ActBlue hit with subpoena by top House committees 3 powerful committees subpoena ActBlue over allegations of accepting fraudulent donations from foreign sources And now, the current dilema: ActBlue May Have Misled Congress on Vetting Foreign Donations, Its Lawyers Warned In short, ActBlue was accepting foreign donations. To hide the fact they took foreign donations, they put in place a multilayer verification process. The process was not followed when a known foreign donation came in. However, the existence of the process was used as proof that they did not get foreign donations. Fortunately, the DOJ did not just accept the fact they had a process. They are doing a forensic investigation and finding foreign donations. The fact that ActBlue was warned, by their lawyers, that this was illegal and they did not fix it means they violated the law. ActBlue has raised billions. If they get shut down, the DNC is f'd like Debbie in Dallas: NY Post (via msn): DNC 'drowning' in nearly $16M of debt — and pointing fingers as failed 2024 Biden-Harris campaign haunts Dems The DNC still owes more for past elections than they currently have on hand. The RNC does not have that same problem. If ActBlue goes under or if the FEC restricts their ability to fund campaigns, 2026 is going to be very tough for team blue. Edited April 3 by gatomontes99 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
robosmith Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 Meanwhile the RepubliCONS get most of their money from dark untraceable Super PACS But you won't find Trump's DoJ investigating that in a million years. 🤮 New Study Shows Runaway Influence of Dark Money in Politics Quote Unknown entities poured billions of dollars into the 2024 election. Every day brings a new story about the outsized role of private wealth in American politics. Elon Musk slashing and burning his way through federal agencies. Billionaire campaign donors like Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon running cabinet departments. Other Trump patrons reportedly shaping policy on everything from crypto to the Middle East. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, a small group of major donors is organizing to fund the party’s 2026 push to retake Congress. And these are only the donors we know about. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision ushered in the era of “dark money” — ballooning campaign spending by groups that do not disclose their funding sources. Today the Brennan Center published a study by the journalist Anna Massoglia. She found that dark money groups spent almost $2 billion on the 2024 election, roughly double the total spent in 2020. And that’s the money Massoglia could identify — the real total is almost certainly higher, perhaps substantially so. The term “dark money” as we use it refers to election spending by groups that are not legally required to — and do not — disclose their donors. Most of this spending would have been illegal before Citizens United, which eviscerated many long-standing limits on campaign money and led to the creation of super PACs, political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited money on campaigns. The justices got many things wrong in Citizens United. One of them was their assurance that all the new campaign spending they had just allowed would be transparent, allowing Americans to be fully informed about who was trying to influence their votes. The justices seem not to have realized, however, that many of the new groups they were now permitting to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns were not subject to any disclosure rules. There have since been numerous efforts to fix this oversight and require all major campaign donors to be made public — most recently as part of the Freedom to Vote Act, which came within two votes of overcoming a Senate filibuster in 2022 — but none of those bills have made it through Congress. Meanwhile, dark money in federal elections has continued to rise — and become even harder to trace. In the years immediately after Citizens United, groups that didn’t reveal their donors tended to purchase their own campaign ads, which were at least reported to the Federal Election Commission if they ran in the weeks before the election and were therefore fairly easy to track. Even if the source of the money was opaque, we could see the spending itself. Quote
User Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 3 minutes ago, robosmith said: Meanwhile the RepubliCONS get most of their money from dark untraceable Super PACS No, they don’t. You are too stupid to grasp the difference between direct campaign contributions and other people and organizations spending money on causes they support to in support of candidates they supports 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 3 Author Report Posted April 3 17 minutes ago, robosmith said: Meanwhile the RepubliCONS get most of their money from dark untraceable Super PACS But you won't find Trump's DoJ investigating that in a million years. 🤮 New Study Shows Runaway Influence of Dark Money in Politics Even your article declared that that "dark money" was legal. You want to equate that to the DNC taking millions, if not billions, from foreign donors in violation of the law? Give me a break. 15 minutes ago, User said: No, they don’t. You are too stupid to grasp the difference between direct campaign contributions and other people and organizations spending money on causes they support to in support of candidates they supports Yes he is. 1 Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.