Major Tea Party Group Was Backed by Billionaire Donors, Hacked Documents Reveal
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
The Arizona audit fought tooth and nail in court to hide it's funding and lost. Turns out Overstock ex-CEO contributed $3.25 million.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/07/29/thes...
It is also bizarre that the GOP would choose a no-reputation firm without any prior experience in elections to administer the process.
Not really. Nobody with any experience would touch the job and risk their reputation. The GOP had to go with what they could get.
While it certainly remains to be seen, my (conspiracy?) theory is that a percentage of the payment to Cyber Ninjas will make it's way back to the GOP in the form of campaign contributions.
The (apparently) recent drift of the executive into selective enforcement has been most worrisome.
Perhaps 'twas ever thus, and there is just more information about this passive tyranny in circulation now.
* donors are not anonymous but pacs aren't required to reveal them until the quarter after their donation, often after the end of the campaign. Even then a donor can create an anonymous llc and funnel the money through it to hide their identity.
* "Super PACs" are meant to be issue based. But your "issue" can simply be "elect candidate X".
* Super PACs can't coordinate with candidates. Unless they do it through the media. And SPAC staff can and do routinely meet with candidates to... Not coordinate. The SPAC to elect Mitt Romney was controlled by his family lawyer for instance. They mett regularly to... Not coordinate.
This is the system Citizens United and a few other cases give us.
I'm far from an expert. Maybe I've listen to too many conspiracy theories? I'd be happy to be corrected. But right now it seems pretty easy to anonymously drive a campaign and spend as much money as you like doing it. Ironically not even the candidate you support NEEDS to know who you are. Maybe Congress can find ways to make some of this work in practice without a major change to the 1st? I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Sup...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/01/mitt-romney-su...
Why?
Politically targeted violence in America is now a reality and police and prosecutors look the other way depending on the politics of their masters.
The Proud Boys and 3%ers and Oath Keepers that try to remain anonymous are following the KKK playbook.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-...
So did Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-and-the-value-...
Elect Biden and the street violence would end. Reelect Trump and it would intensify.
Biden was declared the winner. Big business and labour ordered the "sometimes destructive" protestors to stand down. And they, for the most part, did exactly that.
>The nation was braced for chaos. Liberal groups had vowed to take to the streets, planning hundreds of protests across the country. Right-wing militias were girding for battle. In a poll before Election Day, 75% of Americans voiced concern about violence.
>There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
I have always been curious what nefarious billionaire was funding it.
Are conservative-type groups somehow less morally clean for receiving support from wealthy patrons than progressive groups for receiving support from wealthy patrons of their own?
Does being a billionaire who feels an affinity for conservative or free market causes make that person nefarious because they decide to financially support them? Why except for reasons of purely political emotional dislike does it not apply equally when any number of billionaire pro-democrat types regularly fund projects and groups that share their affinities?
Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without.
From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them.
They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques.
This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is.
So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class.
This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening.
Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.
This is all perfectly fine, and good even but let's not keep painting them as some kinds of underdogs against the big bad conservative shady finance plutocrats.
The numbers don't even bear that out. In both ases, there is scheming in that someone with an agenda wants to promote that agenda by using their wealth to prop up those will help them support their posture. It's disingenuous to consider it relatively altruistic for the left but immediately a sign of trying to retain power when it happens with the other ideological tendency.
For real though, how is this surprising or even newsworthy? Look behind any large political movement and you'll see rich people funding them. And, as loathe as people are to hear the term "both sides", it's not like this is some sinister thing that only applies to the Tea Party folks.
The largest donor in this case was $1M...do you think there weren't any million dollar donors for BLM or Bernie Sanders?
In any event, big money just seems like a necessary evil for any impactful social/political movement, sadly.
But just because the traditional conservative party platform supports low business taxes and light regulation. Which are effectively the only things that truly matter to corporations (in an accounting sense).
They'll loudly support wherever public sentiment is, for PR purposes.
They'll make a show of donating equally to both parties (or neither), to claim neutrality.
But ultimately, people and businesses invest money into politics because they expect a return. The government taking less of your money (or the government giving you money in the form of business) are that return. And there are way too many dark routes to funnel money into politics without leaving a trail or disclosure.
Modern and Progressive Burger Company hires more Queer and Transgender people and still pays them half a living wage.