Biden's White House victory fueled by record-shattering $145M in 'dark money,' report says

[Dashinka 24,735]

Hmmm.

 

 

Biden's White House victory fueled by record-shattering $145M in 'dark money,' report says

 

For years, Democrats have railed against anonymous campaign contributions as a uniquely corrupting political force — even as President Biden benefited from a record-shattering amount of "dark money" donations during the 2020 election. 

A report published by Bloomberg News shows that Biden raked in about $145 million in donations from anonymous donors to outside groups backing him, far outstripping the $28.4 million spent on behalf of his rival, former President Donald Trump. It also tops the previous record of $113 million in dark money donations spent on behalf of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. 

For instance, Priorities USA Action Fund, one of the most prominent Democratic super PACs supporting Biden, used $26 million in funds originally donated to its nonprofit arm, called Priorities USA, to back the then-candidate, according to Bloomberg. The donors of that money do not need to be disclosed.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-white-house-victory-fueled-by-record-shattering-145m-in-dark-money-report-says

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Hmmm.

 

 

Biden's White House victory fueled by record-shattering $145M in 'dark money,' report says

 

For years, Democrats have railed against anonymous campaign contributions as a uniquely corrupting political force — even as President Biden benefited from a record-shattering amount of "dark money" donations during the 2020 election. 

A report published by Bloomberg News shows that Biden raked in about $145 million in donations from anonymous donors to outside groups backing him, far outstripping the $28.4 million spent on behalf of his rival, former President Donald Trump. It also tops the previous record of $113 million in dark money donations spent on behalf of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. 

For instance, Priorities USA Action Fund, one of the most prominent Democratic super PACs supporting Biden, used $26 million in funds originally donated to its nonprofit arm, called Priorities USA, to back the then-candidate, according to Bloomberg. The donors of that money do not need to be disclosed.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-white-house-victory-fueled-by-record-shattering-145m-in-dark-money-report-says

 

 

   It's one of those things in the political system, kind of like filibusters and reconciliation, that people should be against and more vocal about at all times, and not only when their chosen party loses. If we don't make it an issue of something that is inherently unacceptable when our party wins, we can be sure it will come back to bite us down the road when we lose. 

[Dashinka 24,735]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   It's one of those things in the political system, kind of like filibusters and reconciliation, that people should be against and more vocal about at all times, and not only when their chosen party loses. If we don't make it an issue of something that is inherently unacceptable when our party wins, we can be sure it will come back to bite us down the road when we lose. 

Yes, because everyone in DC is a hypocrite.  Vote against incumbency. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Yes, because everyone in DC is a hypocrite.  Vote against incumbency. 

 

   We can certainly make it an issue prior to voting for a candidate. That is one way to address an issue. Then we also hold them accountable. Variations of draining the swamp/cleaning up have become popular phrases. Following through is another story.

[Dashinka 24,735]

34 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   We can certainly make it an issue prior to voting for a candidate. That is one way to address an issue. Then we also hold them accountable. Variations of draining the swamp/cleaning up have become popular phrases. Following through is another story.

The problem is the power of the Parties in most states.  Since the numbers show how successful incumbents are to getting re-elected, they are generally loathe to run a primary against them, so we end up with the lesser of two evils choice most times.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

8 hours ago, Dashinka said:

The problem is the power of the Parties in most states.  Since the numbers show how successful incumbents are to getting re-elected, they are generally loathe to run a primary against them, so we end up with the lesser of two evils choice most times.

The problem with dark money is the Citizens united case establishing that dark money is protected speech. Congress needs to act to countermand the ruling.

[Dashinka 24,735]

7 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

The problem with dark money is the Citizens united case establishing that dark money is protected speech. Congress needs to act to countermand the ruling.

I would be fine with that if any laws passed included Unions and PACs, and eliminated Lobbying.