In 2009 the supreme court heard the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At issue was the question of a ban on corporate electioneering communications ( 2 U.S.C. §441b ).

Citizens United was a non-profit corporation that had made a film about Hillary Clinton and wanted to release it for video-on-demand via cable companies. They were going to pay the cable companies so that the film would be free to viewers.

The Federal Election Campaign Act limited what a corporation or union could say.

Consider the situation, you and a few of your best friends want to make a movie about Brandon. You all put up money and pay to have it professionally done. That means hiring talent, directors, crew and a dozen other things. All of these people want a contract to protect themselves and to know what they are getting into.

Because of the FECA the situation is this, if one of you decides to be the front man, all the contracts are written personally between that person and every other person involved. That person is now liable for anything that happens. And since it is them personally that the contracts are with all of their wealth is also at risk.

In addition, since all the contracts are with them, if they decide to do something you don’t like, you have no legal voice.

The answer to this is to incorporate. This is the case for almost every movie made. Somebody decides to make a movie, they find somebody to green light the movie, they form a production company. That company exists for the duration of the creation of the movie. At the end of that time the corporation is dissolved. This protects everybody involved.

But under the FECA doing this the first way, as a personal project was legal, doing it as a corporation was illegal.

Citizens United expect to run afoul of the law so the asked for injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission. The case made its way to the supreme court, was argued in 2009 and the opinion was issued in 2010. 2 years after the election.

The Court noted that §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures and electioneering communications is a ban on speech and “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.” Accordingly, laws that burden political speech are subject to “strict scrutiny,” which requires the government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. According to the Court, prior to Austin there was a line of precedent forbidding speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity, and after Austin there was a line permitting them. In reconsidering Austin, the Court found that the justifications that supported the restrictions on corporate expenditures are not compelling.
Citizens United v. FEC

The Citizens United case became one of the boogiemen of the left. They claimed that because of Citizens United, the wealth would be able to buy elections. The implication being that the wealthy were Republicans and thus Republicans would be buying elections. They were projecting of course.

With very little research it is easy to see that many Democratic institutions have been funneling vast amounts of money into elections for years and years.

To get an idea of how bad it really is, just ask any Union Representative “Who was the last Republican that the union endorsed?” In most cases they have no answer.

Using their standard battle rules, the left immediately labeled that which they disliked with a pejorative and proceed to attack every time a conservative donated money to a conservative cause as “dark money.”

Dark money is the bugaboo of the left. The Koch Brothers were constantly attacked as dark money. Never mind the fact that people like Soros and Bloomberg spend much more, each, on leftist causes.

The definition of dark money is funding that can not be traced back to a person or entity. In general, if you give money to a political candidate above a certain level it is recorded and is a public record. Certain donations to nonprofits (PACS) are also reported.

The way around this is that money given to some funds are not required to be reported. That fund can then donate money to other nonprofits and that donation is reported. So you give $20,000 to a Republican candidate and you go to jail. You give $20,000 to a Democrat candidate and it is ignored. If you give $20,000 to a pro-republican fund and they in turn give $20,000 to a PAC working in support of that candidate and your name is never mentioned by that PAC and there are no laws broken.

If this is done by conservatives, it is dark money.

If it is done by leftists it is just business as usual.

A new group anti-gun group has shown up, Project Unloaded.

The mission of Project Unloaded is to create a new cultural narrative that guns make us less safe.

Research shows that teens and young adults are forming opinions and making decisions about guns. Through creative and cultural campaigns, Project Unloaded establishes safe spaces for open conversations about guns and provides accurate information about gun safety to inspire the next generation to choose on their own terms not to own a gun.

This group is almost entirely funded by a series of fund managed by Arabella Advisors. There are four major funds managed by AA and they are all receiving vast amounts of ‘dark money’, over $1.5 billion according to tax filings. LIBERAL DARK MONEY JUGGERNAUT RAISES $1.6 BILLION TO FLOOD LEFT-WING GROUPS WITH CASH, TAX FORMS REVEAL

All of this is to say that once again we are winning. As our rights are acknowledge by the Supreme Court, the left immediately pivots to a new way of attacking.

Spread the love

By awa

One thought on “Dark Money Exposed”
  1. Rule of law vs the divine right of kings.

    The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders.

    In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God’s mandation is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy.

    In today’s America, the Democrats appear to favor the divine right of kings—themselves being the royalty, of course—rather than the rule of law.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

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