• return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision — a development decades in the making — triggered the flood of dark money by ruling that politically active nonprofits such as 501©(4) “social welfare” organizations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. Such nonprofits are considered “dark” because they don’t have to disclose their donors, allowing them to bombard Americans with political ads and messages without revealing the identities or motives of the people funding them.

    Both parties have come to rely on dark money, but critics say such behavior from Democrats is especially hypocritical. The party has repeatedly introduced legislation to stop anonymous political donations, including a 2019 bill co-sponsored by Harris, and its 2024 platform pledged to “end ‘dark money’ by requiring full disclosure of contributors and ban 501©(4) organizations from spending on elections.”

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Money is kinda important when running a political campaign. Now that the floodgates are open, it’d be shooting yourself in the foot not to use it, even if it’s not the “right thing to do”. Is it somewhat ironic that one needs to accept dark money to have a chance at ending it? Absolutely. But that’s simply the reality of the situation now.

      How about we save the cries of “Hypocrite!” until she has the opportunity to end it, yet still doesn’t.