Should a Special Counsel inestigate Democratic Party Election Meddling

[NorseThing]

If you read the thread title, you know that this is about the Democratic Party and perhaps they need to be looked at as no better than the Russians.

A mystery super PAC that spent nearly $2 million meddling in the Arizona Republican Senate primary was revealed to be funded by Democrats after the group's August Federal Election Commission report was published last weekend.That super PAC, blandly titled "Red and Gold," was able to conceal its donors -- and thus its links to national Democrats -- and avoid disclosure until after the election with a tactic increasingly used by other Democratic super PACs this cycle.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/polit...tic/index.html

Read the full article at the link.

Seriously, this is CNN.com and they are not and have not been particularly friendly toward the Trump Administration. But Dark Money hides the donors.

The identities of many political donors can no longer be hidden behind a nonprofit shield, a D.C. Circuit judge recently ruled, in a case that started in Ohio.The Supreme Court's decision not to issue an emergency stay on that ruling sent election groups scrambling to comply with new disclosure rules just weeks before Nov. 6.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/inde...n_may_ill.html

Once again read, please the full article at the link.

from the article this is the important bit:

The DC court's ruling, by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, said that by failing to require disclosure of donors the FEC had blatantly undercut Congress' statutory goal of "fully disclosing the sources of money flowing into federal political campaigns, and thereby suppress[ing] the benefits intended to accrue from disclosure, including informing the electorate, deterring corruption, and enforcing bans on foreign contributions being used to buy access and influence to American political officials."

To be honest, this is how and why any real meddling of our elections is even feasible. Of course the FEC failed miserably with transparency. We could close the Russian Meddling investigation with a stroke of the FEC Chair's pen on this issue right now. But....

https://www.fec.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/

Of course the FEC has two vacant seats with the current balance being 2 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and one independent (whatever that means). They meet in secret (so much for transparency) and the current chair is of course a Republican. I do not think either main party wants to shut down all of the dark money -- just the money donated by the opposition.

If the President is still serious about draining the swamp, this may be a good are to start draining.

[TheDarkKnight]

I mean, aside from not revealing where the money is coming from (something that I think we can all agree needs to stop no matter who is doing it) I'm confused as to how exactly the party "meddled". What exactly consitutes meddling in this case, because all I see is donations being made anonymously.

(Legitimately confused, not trying to start an argument on this one)

[NorseThing]

I mean, aside from not revealing where the money is coming from (something that I think we can all agree needs to stop no matter who is doing it) I'm confused as to how exactly the party "meddled". What exactly consitutes meddling in this case, because all I see is donations being made anonymously.

(Legitimately confused, not trying to start an argument on this one)

A fair question. Later in the first link:

In Arizona, like in West Virginia, the super PAC avoided disclosure by forming on August 1, within a month of the August 30 primary, and electing to file monthly FEC reports. Per FEC requirements, that meant the group wouldn't file a report detailing its fundraising and spending until September 20, nearly a month after the contest took place.

Now the donors are not the official party, but registered Democratic Party supporters. But part of this it the rules the FEC allow this to be hidden. In this modern age of the internet, email, and other electronic wizardry - we are still using rules and ideas from the pen an paper days and acknowledging the difficulty of organizing the paper flow to have accurate reporting. But the organization are relying on this to keep things secret until it is too late for anybody including a dedicated reporter to investigate before the votes are cast.

When you combine this with the social media which are trying to get a handle on their contributions to this mess, secrecy with dark money is just too easy to achieve. I am certain the Republican Party is doing the same mischief but they have not been caught by the media pouring over the FEC filings yet. If not, I am positive they are quick learners.

[conon394]

If the President is still serious about draining the swamp, this may be a good are to start draining.

So you want the democrats investigated for using dark money. That's funny since all the evidence shows dark money has long be the tool of the Republicans cough Koch brothers... Shine the light fine but shine it on everyone - hey who funded the ghastly swift boat campaign? Or are you asking for democrat to play with a arm tied behind there back. The SCUS gutted campaign finance law, made corporations people, allowed dark money. Even if you are against it that is the playing field. THe FEC did not fail it has been castrated by unfortunately Norse Thing Republican appoint and conservative judges who think money is free speech. Which I be fine if they would not whine when unions do the same but oh got save our corporate citizens.

[the_mango55]

Have a problem with this? Overturn Citizens United. That's what allows these shady superpacs to exist.

But it was the consevatives who voted for it, because superpacs are more often than not consevative leaning, since the megadonors who support them want less taxes and fewer regulations.

[[Tar]Naru33]

Have a problem with this? Overturn Citizens United. That's what allows these shady superpacs to exist.

But it was the consevatives who voted for it, because superpacs are more often than not consevative leaning, since the megadonors who support them want less taxes and fewer regulations.

Exactly, but Norse don't care about that.

I mean, aside from not revealing where the money is coming from (something that I think we can all agree needs to stop no matter who is doing it) I'm confused as to how exactly the party "meddled". What exactly consitutes meddling in this case, because all I see is donations being made anonymously.

(Legitimately confused, not trying to start an argument on this one)

It isn't meddling, OP is just extremely biased and grasps at anything he can. Citizens United pretty much screwed any chance at decent campaign finance reforms.

let me know when Democrats are getting major help from rival foreign entities OP, then we talk, because the Republicans are doing far more than just getting aide from the Russians in an attempt to keep power. When an entire party relies on lower turnout of votes, it is an abomination.

[NorseThing]

So you want the democrats investigated for using dark money. That's funny since all the evidence shows dark money has long be the tool of the Republicans cough Koch brothers... Shine the light fine but shine it on everyone - hey who funded the ghastly swift boat campaign? Or are you asking for democrat to play with a arm tied behind there back. The SCUS gutted campaign finance law, made corporations people, allowed dark money. Even if you are against it that is the playing field. THe FEC did not fail it has been castrated by unfortunately Norse Thing Republican appoint and conservative judges who think money is free speech. Which I be fine if they would not whine when unions do the same but oh got save our corporate citizens.

Perhaps you misread my first post and my response to Gen Chris.

The Supreme Court ruled based upon the constitution and existing Congressional laws when 'Citizens United' was decided. Congress wrote the rules on how the FEC appointments are made. Trump and the Republicans are dragging their feet on filling the empty posts
according to Congressionally set rules. This is really a matter for both Congress and the Trump administration to resolve. I am not waiting patiently for any resolution since both political parties view this as a political football to simply score points with.

An I still repeat that if there was any sincerity to the candidate Trump wanting to drain the swamp, this is a good place to start. For example, Pres. Trump could propose two appointments completely separate from either major party with the purpose of pulling the FEC back from major party control. That would mean 2 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 3 independents. Now who could these appontments be?
Anthony Pollina who is a Bernie guy and also a man clearly behind the Ralph Nader perspective of activism. He is clearly leaning toward the Democratic Party so he might be one possible appointment.

Pollina served as a Senior Policy Advisor for then Congressman Bernie Sanders from 1991-1996.^[3] He worked as policy director and executive director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group in the late 1990s and early 2000s.^[3]
During the 1997 and 1998 sessions of the Vermont Legislature, Pollina advocated for campaign finance legislation that established public funding for statewide political campaigns. In 2002, when his campaign for lieutenant governor failed to qualify for public funding, he filed suit in federal court to overturn the law.
In 2003, Pollina started Equal Time Radio, a political and current events radio show broadcast on Waterbury's WDEV.^[3] He quit the radio program in 2007 in order to run for governor.

The same angle could find somebody from the conservative side as well without being a dyed in the wool party activist for the Republican Party.

Get two nominees that keep the ideological balance but upset the major party domination and just watch the Senators deny the appointments. Well, at least that could be a first step.

[Condottiere 40K]

Yes, give it to Mueller, after he's concluded the Russian investigation.

With luck, he will indict Soros and all his cronies on Wall Street.

[Sir Adrian]

So you want the democrats investigated for using dark money. That's funny since all the evidence shows dark money has long be the tool of the Republicans cough Koch brothers... Shine the light fine but shine it on everyone - hey who funded the ghastly swift boat campaign? Or are you asking for democrat to play with a arm tied behind there back. The SCUS gutted campaign finance law, made corporations people, allowed dark money. Even if you are against it that is the playing field. THe FEC did not fail it has been castrated by unfortunately Norse Thing Republican appoint and conservative judges who think money is free speech. Which I be fine if they would not whine when unions do the same but oh got save our corporate citizens.

One party using dark money does not excuse the other. They should both be investigated and heavily sanctioned.

[the_mango55]

One party using dark money does not excuse the other. They should both be investigated and heavily sanctioned.

Or alternatively, the rule that allows this dark money to be used could be overturned.

But until that happens, I for one hope that Democrats use whatever shady money they can get, even if they can't get as much as Republicans can. One side shouldn't be expected to fight with one arm tied behind their back just because they are opposed to the current rules.

[Geleco]

Yes, I am sure the rich men who regularly get away with murder, extortion, kidnapping, and embezzlement (in the counts of thousands, if not millions) will be harrowed by said sanctions, and promptly reform into a beneficial system.

Or alternatively, the rule that allows this dark money to be used could be overturned.

But until that happens, I for one hope that Democrats use whatever shady money they can get, even if they can't get as much as Republicans can. One side shouldn't be expected to fight with one arm tied behind their back just because they are opposed to the current rules.

Would it not be better to throw the whole damn thing out, rather than support one of the bad guys out of spite?

Perhaps I am mistaken (and this is by no means a personal attack), and those who think this way are simply the beneficiaries of the system they live under (i.e., upper class), in which case it is perfectly understandable why they would espouse such opinions.

But in the case I am not, which is statistically pretty likely (even though most internet users are better off in general, they aren't usually that rich), I just don't understand why anyone could take a look at this system and think to themselves, "Yes, this is what I want for my children, in spite of all the evidence that has been presented to me, I believe that this is the correct path and that it can be fixed". I just don't understand. Again this is not a personal attack, or an attack on intelligence, or trying to belittle anyone.

My roommate is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool politics guy, he supports the government or at least the process (won't get into which party). And what he told me was, "I agree with [the theoretical destruction of the system], but I want to make the world a better place in the current system" or something to that effect. Basically, the ideas I presented him with (rejection of temporal authority, alter-globalism, etc.) were too idealistic. They were too scary.

I think people are afraid of change, and so they will gladly accept the half-truths and broken promises of their masters. They will do this even while the evidence piles up around them, and they will even read books like 1984 and go on about how Orwellian things are, but still vote and support the system because they don't know what else to do. And I totally understand that point of view, I sympathize with it, but it is not sustainable and will not ever accomplish anything positive. Neither is supporting one bloc against another out of some sort of nihilistic spite for the whole thing, because those people you support would just as soon sell you out as the rest of them.

What I am trying to say is, most of us here really should keep an eye on proceedings like this, but realize at the same time that the current system is perpetuated by our participation in it. And I know that a damn large amount of Americans think the system is broken right now, just from personal experience. But the answer is non-participation, and not the kind that involves sitting on our butts and doing nothing until we die. The answer is not voting x person into y office to pass z law. The answer is to break it all, permanently.

Note that none of this is incitement to any illegal activity, as that would contradict the site/forum rules.

[Sir Adrian]

Or alternatively, the rule that allows this dark money to be used could be overturned.

That goes without saying.

But until that happens, I for one hope that Democrats use whatever shady money they can get, even if they can't get as much as Republicans can. One side shouldn't be expected to fight with one arm tied behind their back just because they are opposed to the current rules.

That's just ed up on so many levels man. Corruption Olympics is the reason your country had to choose between an incompetent baffoon and an incompetent corporate condom as its president. You're supposed to fight it, not encourage it.

If the democrats stoop to the same level as the party they are accusing, they're not better, they're worse. At least the republicans are not hypocritical about their corruption.

[Gaidin]

Have a problem with this? Overturn Citizens United. That's what allows these shady superpacs to exist.

But it was the consevatives who voted for it, because superpacs are more often than not consevative leaning, since the megadonors who support them want less taxes and fewer regulations.

Citizens United isn't going anywhere. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you focus on the right thing instead of focusing on what's a good campaign speech by the Democrats.

It was, however, recommended in the ruling of Citizens United that Congress pass a law such that the money couldn't be hidden in anonymous donations. Basically, the money is speech ruling will forever be around. But now Congress has to get off its ass and do something about the "Now take your mask off dickheads!" part of it.

NorseThings complaints are literally already addressed and chalked up to Congressional laziness.

[conon394]

If the democrats stoop to the same level as the party they are accusing, they're not better, they're worse. At least the republicans are not hypocritical about their corruption

I think your over reacting. The playing was altered and there is nothing to be in short term. I don't see a contradiction in say advocating for publicly funded campaigns and say somehow not equating money with political speech while still having to play in the existing world if you want elect people in order to have reform.

[Gaidin]

That goes without saying.




That's just ed up on so many levels man. Corruption Olympics is the reason your country had to choose between an incompetent baffoon and an incompetent corporate condom as its president. You're supposed to fight it, not encourage it.

If the democrats stoop to the same level as the party they are accusing, they're not better, they're worse. At least the republicans are not hypocritical about their corruption.

I like your attitude. Come down from Cloud 9 while we get people into office.

[[Tar]Naru33]

Citizens United isn't going anywhere. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you focus on the right thing instead of focusing on what's a good campaign speech by the Democrats.

It was, however, recommended in the ruling of Citizens United that Congress pass a law such that the money couldn't be hidden in anonymous donations. Basically, the money is speech ruling will forever be around. But now Congress has to get off its ass and do something about the "Now take your mask off dickheads!" part of it.

NorseThings complaints are literally already addressed and chalked up to Congressional laziness.

This won't happen with Republicans at the helm and Citizens United, while Congress can alleviate it, is still a SC decision that should not have happened.

That's just ed up on so many levels man. Corruption Olympics is the reason your country had to choose between an incompetent baffoon and an incompetent corporate condom as its president. You're supposed to fight it, not encourage it.

If the democrats stoop to the same level as the party they are accusing, they're not better, they're worse. At least the republicans are not hypocritical about their corruption.

Democrats need to be in serious power to do this. They won't get that required power by tying their hands behind their backs. You must not have been paying attention to politics long to say "at least Republicans are hypocritical about their corruption". They have always pointing to big corporation among the Democrats and the Democrats to them as well. This didn't become a campaign issue until U.S the insane record campaign spending.

Also trying to call Hillary "incompetent" is odd, she wasn't incompetent, but she was definitely "corporate" in my view.

I think your over reacting. The playing was altered and there is nothing to be in short term. I don't see a contradiction in say advocating for publicly funded campaigns and say somehow not equating money with political speech while still having to play in the existing world if you want elect people in order to have reform.

I don't get why people have a hard time understanding this.

[Sir Adrian]

If your people get into office by corrupt means they will have no intention to fight corruption when they're there. You can give the Democrats all the power in world and they will still do jack , just like the republicans did jack when they got it 60 years ago. Let's not forget that the Democrats walked over their main guy to promote the face of human greed and corruption as their candidate for 2016.

This change has to come from grass-roots level of both parties, from the voter, and from the justice system. Elect judges who will actively harass and prosecute politicians known to be on the take, don't vote for Joe Jerkoff in the midterm if you know he took money, support non-partisan projects like represent.us, protest party headquarters and politican's homes.


"Our guys need to get in power before we can fix things" is a catchphrase invented to trick the gullible into keeping sleazeballs in power. It's been used in Romania for the past 30 years and look where it got us.

[conon394]

promote the face of human greed and corruption as their candidate for 2016

I believe you mistaking Trump for the Democratic nominee. What corruption what greed.

[Heathen Hammer]

I believe you mistaking Trump for the Democratic nominee. What corruption what greed.

LOL Trump is a billionaire, he doesn't need to step down to level of Hillary or McCain to make an extra buck.

[The spartan]

LOL Trump is a billionaire, he doesn't need to step down to level of Hillary or McCain to make an extra buck.

Oh, have you seen his tax returns?