Type to search

Public Has Dark Opinion Of ‘Dark Money’ In Elections

Politics Tribune News Service

Public Has Dark Opinion Of ‘Dark Money’ In Elections


By Laurie Liles, Cronkite News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Bethany Braley heads a nonprofit organization promoting cowboy culture, a job that has everything to do with preserving a slice of American heritage and nothing to do with politics.

But get the Prescott Valley, Ariz., resident talking about the current state of campaign finance, and it’s clear she has been giving politics a lot of thought lately.

Braley uses terms like “disgusting” to describe the record-setting influx of so-called dark money into this year’s elections, a trend that has left her feeling “dirty and personally degraded.”

“It seems to me it’s no longer a democracy,” said Braley, who says she make it a point to keep her politics out of her day job. “It’s a political machine dominated by the wealthy.”

Braley is not the only one who feels that way.

As dark-money spending reached what appeared to be record levels this fall, and with little sign of abating, polls showed staggeringly high numbers of Americans deeply troubled by the practice.

A recent bipartisan poll found that 80 percent of voters have a problem with what they see as “political operatives, wealthy donors and organizations abusing and taking advantage” of unclear IRS rules governing political activities of nonprofit organizations.

That worry stretched across party lines: 88 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of independents and 72 percent of Republicans in the poll were concerned about the consequences of unclear IRS rules for campaign spending.

The survey of 800 likely voters was conducted in late July for Public Citizen by Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners and its Republican counterparts at Chesapeake Beach Consulting.

“We were surprised by how robust the reaction was,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, a consumer-rights advocacy nonprofit.

The technical term for the “dark money” groups that Braley and others are worried about is “social welfare” organization. Set up under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code, nonprofit social welfare outfits can engage in political activities as long as they spend less than 50 percent of their funds on politics.

But unlike traditional campaign accounts, nothing in current campaign-finance or tax laws requires 501(c)(4) groups to make the names of their financial backers public — hence the “dark money” label.

The groups have their roots in the Eisenhower era, but became increasingly influential after recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions — Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — that chipped away at federal laws limiting outside election spending.

The result is a lot more money going to elections with a lot less certainty about where it came from.

“People agree the IRS should do rules that will deal with the issue,” said Gilbert, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.

“Disgust is at an all-time high with government, with the process,” she said. “People are more aware and more disenfranchised.

“It almost doesn’t matter what you talk about … people think it’s not working and they want it to work,” Gilbert said.

But some people disagree. Concerns about the influence of dark money are “significantly overblown” in the media and among the public at large, said Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute.

He said the public perception that Fortune 500 companies are buying elections is “100 percent wrong,” noting that for-profit corporations are reluctant to risk alienating candidates by getting involved in campaigns.

“I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding … about how much money there is and how elections work,” said Shapiro, Cato’s senior fellow in constitutional studies. He noted that Americans typically spend more on Halloween candy than is spent on elections, for example.

Shapiro concedes that while “there might be some of that” activity where corporations contribute to politically active nonprofits, it is already possible to follow the money through publicly available corporate filings.

“You look at their accounting to see how much they spend on political campaigning or social welfare organizations, you can piece it together,” Shapiro said, rejecting calls for more reporting.

Some Arizona voters agree with Shapiro.

In a response to an online query from Cronkite News’ Public Insight Network, Julie Them of Peoria said mandatory disclosure of dark-money contributors “stifles freedom of expression and can be used to harass the donors by radicals.”

Tucson resident Bob Benzinger shares that worry.

“If it becomes unsafe, if you’re getting fired or harassed for your political opinions, you start to think anonymity is your preferred option,” he said.

Despite such worries, Gilbert and others cite the recent polls as evidence that voters consistently oppose the influence of money in politics and support solutions to curb it.

In a 2013 poll by MFour and Tulchin Research, for example, 92 percent of voters said it is important that “our elected leaders reduce the influence of money in political elections.”

“There is no question that Americans oppose the influence money has on our electoral system — from which candidates appear on the ballot to what elected officials do once in office,” said ReThink Media’s Scott Swenson in a memo summarizing several years’ worth of polling on the topic.

Braley said it became clear to her during this year’s campaigns that voters are “in a losing battle” against wealthy contributors who are bankrolling political advertisements.

Benzinger said that, on principle, he strongly supports the idea that political donors should be disclosed.

A retired Foreign Service officer with an accounting degree, one of his jobs at the State Department was inspecting embassies all over the world. He said his views on dark-money reforms are a product of that background.

“The devil’s in the details,” Benzinger said of proposals calling for more transparency in political donations.

“Whether I would be for it would depend on how it’s written and how it could be interpreted or abused.”
(Sources in the Public Insight Network informed the reporting in this story through a partnership with the Cronkite PIN Bureau.)

Photo: Protesters outside the Supreme Court in 2012 rally against the court’s decision in Citizens United, one of two rulings that has helped boost the influence of so-called “dark money” groups in elections. (Photo by Jordan Krueger via flickr/Creative Commons/Cronkite News Service/TNS)



  1. Dominick Vila December 26, 2014

    I don’t have a positive opinion of far right or far left political organizations, but I’ll be darned if I endorse denying anyone the freedom to express their opinion.
    Disagreeing with the political opinion of others is the centerpiece of democracy and must be preserved at all cost. What is poisoning our political process is the influence of money, and the ability of special interests to write or influence legislation that benefits or affects their ability to profit.

    1. charleo1 December 26, 2014

      I agree of course with the Right to dissent. The Right to speak one’s own version of truth to power. And the power of a truly representative gov, to promote all of that and more. But I don’t believe that’s what’s happening. Suppose for a minute, you and I strongly disagree on some core issues. And we’re invited to make our respective cases in a large expansive venue. You begin by speaking eloquently on the virtues of your cause. When I drag out my enormous bull horn, and start kvetching about high taxes, the bloated over sized Federal Gov. that is enslaving the working folk, to feed the parasitic underclass. And you naturally object to the interruption, and my use of a bull horn. No one can hear you, and I pay you absolutely no attention, as I carry on with my diatribe. You appeal to the moderators, and they rule my bull horn as it was paid for with my dollars, is simply an extension of my Rights to free speech. And, is perfectly acceptable. While they remind you, your Rights to say anything you want have not been effected in the least. That’s what I believe is going on.

      1. dtgraham December 26, 2014

        Great analogy charleo. To complete it, Dominick would not be able to afford to buy a bullhorn in your fictitious debate with him. He’d like one too so his case can also be heard, the way yours can, but you’re one of the few who can afford a bullhorn. However, Dominick has not lost his right to speak and debate with you even if virtually no one can hear him.

        Just my opinion, but I think that the supreme court has purposely engaged in a tremendously flawed reading of the first amendment. In ruling that money equals free speech and free speech can be partly defined by money, they’ve struck down historical reforms that were designed to prevent corruption and to ensure that the voices of the powerful did not drown out “We the people” in the halls of democratic institutions.

        A political and electoral system that has lost all credibility among many voters is a serious matter. Freedom of speech should not mean the freedom to buy the United States government.

        1. ps0rjl December 26, 2014

          I have to agree wholeheartedly. If corporations and or people want to contribute to these 501 entities, their names should be also attached so people can see who is contributing. Furthermore all campaign contributions should also be public information. The idea that money is speech is one of the dumbest things ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Our government should not be bought buy the highest bidders. Corporations should only be viewed as people only for taxes and accounting purposes.

        2. idamag December 29, 2014

          Tell me if you think this is right. California had a maximum campaign limit. The “supreme” court struck it down. Since the 1920’s Montana (historically having had big money corrupt the state) had a law on campaign financing and the “supreme” court struck it down. Our legislators are not only owned, but our “supreme” court as well.

          1. Independent1 December 29, 2014

            You’re absolutely right. And that was even demonstrated clearly when a number of the ‘right-wing nutjob 5’ on SCOTUS allowed themselves to be wined and dined by Sheldon Adelson one of the big contributors to the GOP. It doesn’t take much imagination to visualize Adelson slipping these 5 corrupt judges money under the table during these wining and dining sessions.

          2. dtgraham December 29, 2014

            That is truly amazing. How on earth are Supreme Court justices allowed to attend Republican party events and get taken out to dinner by billionaire Republican donors? How can that be allowed?

          3. Independent1 December 30, 2014

            Good question!! How have 14 treasonous Republicans gotten away for more than 6 years with plotting to sabotage the U.S. economy on Obama’s inauguration night and then followed up in doing just that by obstructing everything Obama has attempted to do to move our economy forward??

          4. dtgraham December 30, 2014

            I know Independent. What they’ve been trying to do seems apparent, but I guess there’s nothing unconstitutional about blocking various policies in order to stall a recovery for political gain. That voters haven’t punished them sufficiently for that can largely be explained by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the matter with Kansas” I think. His thesis also explains a number of the bizarre comments you see here by Republican posters. That being said, it’s not that clear who should really be in control of the Congress due to the rigged congressional districts. The popular vote no longer matters there.

            As to the Supreme Court, there were some revisions made to the American model code of judicial conduct in 1990. Among the revisions was a change in canon 2 by the addition of section 2C. Added was , “the test for an appearance of impartiality is meant to be an objective one, whether an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the relevant facts would entertain a significant doubt that the judge in question was impartial.”

            Who believes that the conservative members pass that test? Clarence Thomas’s wife openly campaigned for Romney in 2012. Those 5 have been seen at Republican party events more than once and now they’re getting wined and dined by Republican billionaire donors. This is in addition to their extremist rhetoric and rulings of the past, where they appear to have no problem completely contradicting the logic and reasoning of their past constitutional interpretations whenever it will advance the hard right agenda. This is now clearly a fourth branch of government in control of the far right and meant to achieve their goals.

          5. idamag January 3, 2015

            Because, intellectually the country is devolving.

          6. idamag January 3, 2015

            Our entire state legislature was flown to our city on our resident billionaire’s jet and dined – I am not sure about the wine. Shortly afterwards, they passed a rule that a person cannot leave a company and take the same kind of job in another company.

          7. dtgraham January 3, 2015

            I don’t know where you live but I would never have imagined that a law like that would be constitutionally acceptable in any of the democracies, especially the United States. That’s a headshaker. Where are all the conservative constitutional heroes on this one?

          8. idamag January 3, 2015

            I had a lady, from Germany, tell me once, that a German policeman is not even allowed to accept a cigarette from a person as it might be construed as trying to bribe a policeman. Wining and dining and under-the-table perks are just that, bribes.

          9. dtgraham December 29, 2014

            They also struck down a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on election spending as unconstitutional. In addition they ruled that Vermont’s contribution limits were “unconstitutionally low.” Yes, unconstitutionally low. Roll that one around a while. This was just before Citizens United so they couldn’t even use that for justification, which they regularly do now. This SCOTUS is simply re-imagining the constitution. That’s about the size of it.

            The Montana case seems particularly egregious because those (struck down) laws banning corporate election spending and the “Corrupt Practices Act of 1912” (also struck down) were put into place during Teddy Roosevelt’s time to prevent wealthy mining interests from owning newspapers and bribing judges and politicians. Even John Mccain recently remarked that a Teddy Roosevelt type of revolution is going to have to return.

          10. idamag January 3, 2015

            We do need a Teddy Roosevelt, except TR had something that we don’t have today. The media was owned by many, instead of a few and it was the media who helped TR clean up Washington. McClure Publications helped TR expose the corruption that had taken over our Congress. McClure and Frank Norris said, “Writers have a responsibility to the public – not simply to entertain, but to address contemporary problems and expose injustice.” Some of the media is helping to keep greed, avarice and power hunger politicians covered up in their dishonesty.

          11. dtgraham January 3, 2015

            Good observation. The problem is that there is now an entire subset of media entirely dedicated to promoting and covering for the far right and all of their policies, and if they have to they’ll just make it up as they go along to achieve that. Perhaps close to half of of the country pays attention to that, and only that, media. So does most of the Republican party.

            You couldn’t sell that kind of political philosophy to the average working person normally, so one of their many tactics is to redefine populism through the use of straw men and the heavy use of wedge issues, mostly social.

            During the Christmas season, John Stossel of Fox News devoted an entire hour to exposing the supposedly hypocritical political views of those “elite rich Hollywood liberals.” The message was clear…stick it to those elite Hollywood liberals by voting Republican, you common folk red-state heartlanders. You’re the real Americans, they’re not. Never mind that they’d like to preserve your Medicare and Social Security and we want to “reform entitlements.” We won’t talk about that.

            Whenever that is talked about, it’s always in the context of pensions and health care for the aged bankrupting the country. Why don’t those things bankrupt other countries? We won’t talk about that either.

      2. Dominick Vila December 26, 2014

        The problem affecting the Democratic party is not that they can’t afford to buy a bullhorn, but that they don’t know how to use the ones they have.
        If a Republican president had accomplished one fourth of what President Obama has accomplished, you can bet every single Republican would be lauding his achievements and elevating him to deity status. How do our Democratic candidates react to what President Obama has achieved? They run away from him. We didn’t lose the 2014 midterm election because of our record or our vision, we lost it because we allowed the GOP to influence public opinion without even a feeble attempt to challenge their claims, and a “liberal” media too afraid to offend the sensibilities of their wealthy owners. The problem is not Citizens United or any of the other far right organizations that engage in the most bizarre political tactics in U.S. history, tactics that convinced millions of Americans that the economic prosperity that should be evident to everyone is a chimera, that our GDP and the DOW Index records are not evidence of economic strength, but manifestations of economic Armageddon; that deficit spending and accumulation of debt are going up, instead of down, the same for unemployment and for every other economic indicator. The same goes for foreign policy – and Benghazi in particular. You would think that the party that was in full control of the Federal government when 9/11 occurred and eleven U.S. diplomatic facilities would refrain from highlighting a single terrorist attack against a U.S. consulate, but that’s not what they did. They managed to turn the last in a long string of terrorist attacks against U.S. interests into an unprecedented tragedy…and most Americans swallowed that con job without hesitation.
        No, the problem is not that they have a bullhorn and we don’t, or that theirs is bigger than ours. The real problem is that when it comes to electioneering, they are masters at that game, and we act like cub scouts.

        1. dtgraham December 26, 2014

          Excellent points. No one here will disagree with the GOP pushing false narratives and the Dems not responding. In this new era of big money though, when you have almost unlimited funds to push those narratives with in the media, it exacerbates the situation.

          The 2014 midterms were the most expensive in history by a mile. $333 million more was spent than the 2010 midterms. That’s going to be increasing substantially now with the personal donation limits raised by 15x due to that omnibus bill of a few weeks back, which now worsens the effect of the Mcutcheon case.

          The thing is, when you keep pushing the dollar ante up like that, you put the Democrats in a position where they have to rely increasingly on big money donors. If they have to rely on them, they also have to do more and more of their bidding if they want to see another dime out of them. I know the Dems have always competed well enough with the Republicans money-wise, but that’s mostly at the macro level as a party and it doesn’t take into account the money explosion era that we’re moving into.

          A populist has still been able to make it at the local level in a small blue state as Bernie Sanders has shown, but that’s a lot of caveats. His average donation is less than $29.00. He can make that work in Vermont, but he couldn’t in most states and he also can’t at the national level. I’ve read analysts who’ve extrapolated projections of his Vermont fund raising nationally. They feel that he would only be able to raise about $20 million for a Presidential run. That’s in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Hillary Clinton would certainly raise. One political science professor remarked that an amount like that might be enough to get him to the first debate…that’s it.

          The reason is because a democratic socialist would never, ever be able to attract the kind of money from corporations, millionaires and billionaires needed to run at that level in modern day America. His message and platform would kill their interest and they’re what matters, nationally anyway.

          Much the same would probably apply to Elizabeth Warren nationally. I’m quite aware of the success she had at fund raising against Scott Brown but, again, that’s a local election in one small very blue state. She would likely raise more money than Bernie Sanders nationally, but she would be at a tremendous disadvantage against the Hillary Clinton’s, Jeb Bush’s, Chris Christie’s, and Mitt Romney’s of the world. ‘I’ll break up the banks and regulate them, and I’ll fight the wealthy plutocracy on behalf of the common man’, doesn’t exactly loosen the wallets of those she needs to have loosened.

        2. charleo1 December 26, 2014

          Your comment is music to my ears. And you’re so correct, I’m getting embarrassed about the last election all over again! When the toughest question of your campaign goes something like this: Says here, you’re a Democrat. I see that you’ve served as a Democrat in State politics in KY. for some years. And, you’re now running for the Senate in Ky. as a Democrat. So tell me, did you vote Barack Obama?
          It seems the lady had just ask about the two sets of books she keeps on her coffee shop/meth lab. But,
          there’s a second component to this money, that is really doing the most damage, that, “dtgraham” covers for us very well.

          1. Dominick Vila December 26, 2014

            Money, the influence that lobbyists exert on our elected officials, and the fact that corporations often draft the legislation that apply to them, is turning our electoral process, and our institutions of government and our freedoms, into tools used by corporate America, from Wall Street to the arms industry, and everything in between, to achieve their narrow goals.
            Like someone else said, we should top the tax exempt status granted to political and religious organizations, we should ban lobbyists from Congress, and remove elected officials caught talking to them. I would also ban all political contributions, and limit campaign funds to equal amounts given to the main candidates by the Federal or States governments. If they run out of money early, they disqualified themselves on the basis of financial management ineptitude. Term limits may also help.

          2. Independent1 December 26, 2014

            I agree totally with what dtgraham brought out in the last post. I’m certainly not going going to suggest that the Dems have done as well as they could have in these last elections, but I think we need to put things in perspective.

            Given that despite what the GOP likes to tout “a liberal media’ nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of media outlets are controlled by right-wing interests – even forgetting about Rupert Murdock who owns the loudest fake news outlet in America – Clear Channel dominates the air waves with well over 220 million listeners weekly.

            So no matter how positive a message a Dem candidate may push about Obama’s great accomplishments, because of the enormous money the right-wingers are throwing at the public and the right-wind dominance of the media – for every positive a Dem brings out about Obama – the right-wing brings out 10 fake counter negatives.

            And unfortunately, although the negatives that the right wing brings out are often fabrications, it costs tons of left-wing support dollars just countering these negatives -forget about bringing out the positives. The right-wing spews lies upon lies, because it knows by the time the left has worked to counter the lies, they’ve spent a lot of their money doing just that – and have very little left to push the positives. And even if the Dems counter the negative – a large portion of those who heard the lies, are not going to be listening when the Dems counter those negatives – leaving a large portion of the electorate still believing the right-wings lies even after spending thousands and millions countering them

            So it’s not even just the money – it’s the fact that the right wing has absolutely NO ETHICS, it lies purposefully in order to get it’s way. And when you add the money onto their willingness to lie, I think the whole process has become very discouraging for left-wing candidates. It’s really tough to battle against someone who has no ethics and is willing to spew one lie after another.

            I’m sure Obama learned that big time during his debates with one of the most prolific all time political liars – Mitt Romney. I don’t think most of those watching the 1st debate in the run up to the 2012 election realized just how much Obama was taken aback, but how profusely a candidate running for president of the U.S. was willing to outright lie, time and time again; in front of millions upon millions of Americans. And even then, the majority thought the LIAR was the winner of that 1st debate – totally unaware that during that entire debate, MITT ROMNEY HAD NOT UTTERED ONE COMPLETELY HONEST STATEMENT IN ALMOST AN HOUR AND A HALF OF DEBATING. EVERY STATEMENT HE MADE INCLUDED EITHER ONE OUTRIGHT LIE OR DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH!! AND YET, THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BOUGHT IT!!! WHAT A SHAME!!!!!!

          3. Dominick Vila December 26, 2014

            Unfortunately, this situation is not going to change any time soon. As long as people continue to ignore the realities that ought to be evident to everyone, and continue to accept the distortions of reality and outright lies repeated daily by far right demagogues via the “liberal” media, they will continue to use the same strategy.
            Bear in mind that President Obama is not the first or only Democrat to endure this level of scrutiny and relentless attacks. Bill Clinton did too, and you can bet the same tactics will be used against Hillary. The only difference in 2016 is that I doubt Hillary will turn the other cheek.

          4. Independent1 December 26, 2014

            I agree. It’s sure not going to be easy figuring out a way to counter the lies and distortions out of the right wing. And just hoping that Hillary’s up to really giving it back to them; she has more of the temperament for that than Obama has.

          5. Independent1 December 26, 2014

            Just one more thought to consider. Our forefathers made considerable effort in setting up our government deliberately trying to not let the majority have too overwhelming a voice in running our government. That’s clear from the fact that despite how many people live in a state, there are only 2 representatives per state in the Senate which can by itself nullify actions taken by the House which does have proportional representations. (I remember seeing an example between Montana and New York – where each senator from Montana represents a couple hundred thousand constituents- whereas a senator from NY tens of millions.)

            Therefore, if the founding fathers even conceived of the notion that ‘money equals speach’, their efforts of creating the Senate to counterbalance the House would have been moot. So it’s certainly clear to me that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United is nothing more than one more Conservative effort to steal our Democracy.

            Had our forefathers truly wanted to allow Money to equal Speach, they would simply have turned the Senate into a free-for-all, by allowing each state to seat as many legislators in the Senate as they could afford to pay for.

            Yes, everyone has the right to say what they want, but as Charlie pointed out, that shouldn’t give those with money the right, to use that money to promote their opinion to excess – which is exactly what is happening when he Koch Bros are allowed to brainwash the American public by repetitively shouting their opinions via numerous media outlets 24/7.

          6. idamag December 29, 2014

            Our founding fathers warned about what is happening now. Thomas Jefferson cautioned Congress not to let monied persons take over our government. When it became obvious as to what they were doing during the late ’90’s and early 20’s. Teddy Roosevelt went after them with a passion. He had the journalists behind him. Now, there are few real journalists left.

          7. Independent1 December 29, 2014

            What is one of the things most puzzling to me, is why someone on the DNC, hasn’t kept abreast of Obama’s many accomplishments; and kept the Democrat candidates around the country updated on just what to respond when someone poses that question to a candidate “So tell me, did you vote for Obama?” So the Democrat candidate could respond positively with “Of course!! And this is why I’m proud that I voted for Obama ….” with Democrats them being able to bring out his many accomplishments.

            From what I’ve read, it’s almost like most Democrat candidates have been as ignorant about all of Obama’s accomplishments as the tunnelvision, brainwashed RWNJs.

          8. charleo1 December 29, 2014

            Yep! As I often say, and believe, there is a reason for everything. And the reason for this will not be found in the empty heads of Democratic Candidates. But in the campaign money that now rules the hallowed halls of Congress. And the idea that espousing support for the poor, And that the Middle Class is protected, and empowered, thru FDR, type Gov. programs. Or asserting that Keynesian economics works. That it produces wide spread wealth, successful businesses, and better paying, and more secure jobs, is out in this big gov. tax averse, electoral atmosphere. That’s what they say. And they’re paid a lot of money to say it too! You wait, the Democratic Party is about to have one knock down drag out over just this issue.

    2. PolishEagle_2 December 26, 2014

      Write a letter to the editor of any newspaper in the country and see if you can post as anonymous. The letter to be published must have your name and address. Your name will published, but not your address.
      So this all that is being asked of the “dark money” groups. Publish the name of the entity that provides the funds at the lowest level.
      If the entities do bot want their names published, then they do not have to contribute.
      All that is being asked is that large donors live by the same rules that a letter to the editor follows.

  2. Grannysmovin December 26, 2014

    Overturn Citizens United, do away with Tax Exempt status except for Charities. Religious entitites are too politiical and should have to pay taxes. They do not have to be tax exempt to exercise their right to free speech and voice their political opinion.

  3. Theodora30 December 26, 2014

    The public may hate this but they don’t see that this is the result of people repeatedly electing Republicans who put right wing corporatists in charge of our courts. We have gone from “we the people” to “we the sheeple” in my lifetime. Now that the mainstream media has also sold out its role of informing citizens to make bigger profits it is hard to see this changing anytime soon.

  4. Budjob December 27, 2014

    After volunteering three years of my life in the military,I really don’t have anything positive to say about our alleged Democracy concerning the United States of America! There seems to be a lot of money being thrown at this so called “Democracy”.

    1. idamag December 29, 2014

      Actually, it looks like the money is being thrown about to eliminate Democracy. Democracy is of the people, by the people, for the people.

  5. Wayneo December 27, 2014

    I often wonder who are the real people (flesh and blood) and the power groups who are supplying the money for the ads. Are they even USA sources? It would be easy to hide over seas money. How about middle-east groups; oil supplying countries and companies; drug cartels; Russia; China; and others who are effected by US polices. Many of the dark money ads can not be trusted to be truthful in what they say and/or imply as they are not accountable.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.