Could Super-Pacs be used to launder money?

[Motown_Johnny]

Purely as a thought experiment......


Lets say you and I were partners in crime and we had several hundred million dollars of ill gotten gains in off shore accounts. What to do, what to do?


Well, we could set up a bunch of shell companies that were things like think tanks and consulting firms and maybe even a production company or two.

Then we could have a lawyer create some anonymous Super Pac out of a P.O. Box somewhere so we could dump all our off shore money into it and never need to disclose where we got the money from.

Lastly we could then transfer that money to our shell companies and say we received valuable advice about the crappy attack ads our production companies make against policies we don't like.



Since there are no disclosures about where the Super Pac gets it's money how would anyone ever know?


I hope I am missing something.

[JoePhilly]

1. I think you have it right ...

You pay way to much for a couple ads, and the money becomes salary or better "fees" for BS that you don;t actually buy. YOu just pass the money through a succession of companies, each of which takes some fees for its services. And then poof, the money is gone.

Except its not gone. Your shell companies own the companies through which the money passed.

[MichiganVote]

2. Hey, super pacs are people too.

[madrchsod]

3. i`d say yes

and i think it`s already been done

[freshwest]

9. Mittens is a perfect example. No accountability, offshore, and 'IDK' works for him.

[Aerows]

4. Do bears

poop in the woods?

[freshwest]

8. Only if their first name is Stephen...

Stephen Colbert vs. Karl Rove: Who's better at 'money laundering'?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / September 30, 2011

Stephen Colbert has taken his mockery of campaign finance in the US to a new level by showing he can funnel unlimited, anonymous cash into his Colbert Super PAC.

Stephen Colbert is setting up something that’s pretty close to a money laundering operation. Why? So that rich folks and corporations can anonymously channel money into his "super PAC" – a political action committee that in turn can spend unlimited funds advocating for issues and candidates it likes.

Again you ask, why? What’s the point of a comedian setting up such sophisticated campaign-finance apparatus? The answer to that seems obvious – he’s making fun of it. As we’ve said before, Mr. Colbert is a performance artist as much as a comic. What he’s highlighting here is the absurdity of US campaign finance regulations – or rather, how they may be regulations in name only...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/0930/Stephen-Colbert-vs.-Karl-Rove-Who-s-better-at-money-laundering

Tricky Dick (Nixon) was caught laundering PAC money overseas. Like Mittens. But there were laws and regulations in Nixon's day, so they got rid of those.

[alittlelark]

5. I wish I could rec this 100 times.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. they could get a mail drop in Bermuda like Romney

all you need is an address or a PO Box

[SoutherDem]

7. I though Money Laundering was the purpose of Super Pacs

The whole reason was to get as much money to Republicans as possible without any transparency.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. I am talking about a way to make illegally obtained funds appear legitimate.

Because there is no way to know where the money came from you should be able to donate it to a Super PAC that you have control of without any way for it to be tracked. The PAC then "spends" the money with companies you own.


You now have your illegally obtained funds in your corporate account and they appear to have been earned legally.

[SoutherDem]

15. I was actually being sarcastic

But, your point is very true.

[HiPointDem]

10. Sounds like it. It would be ideal, bribe your politician and launder your money simultaneously.

[Mopar151]

11. What do you think Gingrich has been up to? n/t

[KT2000]

12. Excellent point

since there are no requirements for how the money is spent, it is surprising that this got past Homeland Security.

[The Magistrate]

14. Smart Thinking, Sir: It Is Probably Being Done....

The best sort of shell company would be a direct-mail firm; you could actually do something for show, with hugely inflated costs to keep losses down below what normal charges for laundering are....

[Motown_Johnny]

16. I figured a "Think Tank" which did nothing more that parrot your own thoughts

would be even better.


It does nothing and gets paid for it, plus it has the appearance of legitimizing your views.

[The Magistrate]

20. Giving People Something To Look At, Sir, Is An Important Element Of Camouflage

Best to do something that can be looked at. Routine racket laundering costs money, in a new form you are still ahead of what you do costs less than standard.

[KharmaTrain]

17. The Fleecing Of Ricketts...

All this money pouring into the political system is begging for millions to be diverted into personal profit. We now endure a non-stop election "economy" of "consultants" and other hanger-oners who make a nice buck off of the non-stop political campaigns. The Ricketts fiasco of a couple weeks ago looks like a prime example. Two rushpublican "consultants" saw a $10 million dollar payday here and found a sucker that was close to writing the check. They'll probably find another fish. You gotta bet that if they land that big of a deal they'll be getting a good chunk of change for their "work".

The verdict on SuperPacs will be decided in November. If those who use them win, the system will be codified in stone with little to no chance of ever putting this evil genie back in the bottle.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Yes I believe they could and do.

Thanks for the thread, Motown_Johnny.

[malthaussen]

19. Sounds good to me! Let's get started!

First, we need to steal our billions...

-- Mal

[DCKit]

21. If I had an extra $20K of dirty money, I'd donate it to you. nt