Data shows that half of 2019 donations to ActBlue came from untraceable 'unemployed' donors

No it doesn't.....it changed nothing about campaign fin law.

 

Well show me how the OP is fake news.....was it or was it not untraceable?

 

I am like tRUMP. All news is fake news.

 

Show me where Trump has said "All news is fake news"

Oh you can't.

 

We can now see that the Court’s assurances have proven false and that the promise was broken. Rather, there has been an explosion in untraceable and unaccountable money in our political process, bending elected officials to the influence of unknown, and at times illegal, sources. Unfortunately, the Court’s decisions in the decade since Citizens United have only compounded the problem. At the same time, Congress has deadlocked on needed reforms and the agency charged with enforcing the laws still on the books, the Federal Election Commission, has been hobbled. While these government actors fail to protect democracy, private citizens are taking it upon themselves to do so by bringing their own lawsuits and are achieving noteworthy victories in the process.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/citizens-united-money-in-politics/

 

The Court assured nothing in their ruling.

So your link is BS

Read the opinion.

Nothing changed other then finding one part of a law that was only a few years old, was unConstitutinal

Let's face it, you don't know the law, you don't know the case, you are only pushing talking points from leftwing propgandaist that want to make you feel better about losing, because your policies fail

 

What was the rationale for the ruling?
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
...
In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.
...
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

 

Your article is...incorrect.


The only thing in front of the Court was the 2002, McCain/Feingold Act. there were case challenging the law...but the case your are referring to was decided just 7 years later. and said "if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech"

The case had, or has, nothing to do with financing a campaign

 

Because the "donors" said so?

Read the OP

 

Read the OP

 

RISE OF THE SUPER PACS
In a related 2010 case, SpeechNow.org vs. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit cited the Citizens United decision when it struck down limits on the amount of money that individuals could give to organizations that expressly supported political candidates.

Contributions to political action committees (PACs) had previously been limited to $5,000 per person per year, but now that spending was essentially unlimited, so-called “super PACs” emerged that would exert a growing influence on local, state and federal political elections.
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united

The article(s) aren't doing anything but posting facts.

 

I agree when it involves politics. Every bit of it should be ignored.

 

This goes for most anything.
Believe half of what you see, and none of what you read/hear.

 

Not denying people have exercised their 1st Amendment rights....since then

PACs aren't bad things in my opinion. It helps combat against people like Bloomberg that have a lot of personal wealth.

PACs allow the averge citizens to come together and make a effort

 

So you are ok with foreign interference in US elections?

 

Except when the R's are accused of it.

 

Time to investigate Act Blue.

 

You should be for that.

Republicans are.

Donald Trump’s last presidential campaign was partly financed that way.

It was the Roberts court that made dark money safe.

 

It's blatant hypocrisy. You can't cry about something totally insignificant because trump did it then excuse any campaign finance crimes because it benefits your side. Yes, that's hypocrisy. You can cry that it isn't all you want, but the definition isn't changing and it fits you perfectly....(over and over and over again)

 

I absolutely disagree.

But, was that sort of personally insulting ad hominem (directed at me) really necessary?

"Dark Money" is a fact of life in Politics (and benefits both parties).

 

Yes, of course! You have to pay with a credit or debit card.

Where do you seriously get the notion that you’re anonymous when you give someone your credit card number, or your email address, both of which are required in order to make a donation, regardless of your employment status.

This whole meme is ridiculous.

 

No splanation of “how' super PACs are able to receive donations from overseas while refusing to disclose the donors and where donations came from?”

Did not think so.

 

Did you even read the OP?

...But critics, including the Action Fund, contend that the website allows credit card donations that are not verified, so anyone from any country in the world can donate without a paper trail...

And they refuse letting banks verify these transactions.

 

If someone points out your actions and that insults you, that's your problem.

And if you think I'm going to care that your insulted, you're wrong. You can't display a double standard as blatantly as you do and expect people to 1) not point it out and 2) take you seriously.

We're done here.... (I'm sure you'll do this again soon though, and I'll call you out on it again)

 

Bloomberg himself is also going to donate $100 million specifically for Biden to spend in Florida.

Here's why

Bloomberg New Economy: Fund Managers Are Rushing Into China
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...-economy-fund-managers-are-rushing-into-china

In the good old days they used to hang people who sell out their country from the lamp posts. You know what is going to happen to your 401k when the big money leave America for China.... tsk tsk tsk... both hands in the cookie jar...