General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

81. Actually, yes, SuperPACs are required to report their donors.

Thu Apr 20, 2017, 04:22 PM

Apr 2017

It is possible to funnel "dark money" into a SuperPAC. They way to do that is to create some kind of shell organization that doesn't disclose its donors, and then have the shell donate to the SuperPAC. Then the SuperPAC would have to disclose the name of the shell company, but not who is behind it.

But you can see from the disclosures of the largest Democratic SuperPACs that corporations of any kind, shell or otherwise, only account for a small fraction of the donations. Almost all of it is from wealthy individuals.
Here are the donors to the biggest Democratic SuperPACs last cycle (Priorities USA Action and Senate Majority PAC).

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00495861
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00484642

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When a friend is addicted to something that is harmful to them [View all] ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 OP

There is no such thing as "corporate campaign cash." Corporations cannot, by law, DanTex Apr 2017 #1

Thank goodness they can't influence the outcomes ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #2

Who said that? DanTex Apr 2017 #3

Are you implying that you've pointed out ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #11

I've pointed out that this OP contained false information. DanTex Apr 2017 #14

OK you are right, corporate superpac cash is a ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #18

There is very little corporate SuperPAC cash backing Democrats. DanTex Apr 2017 #21

Well, that is quite an assertion ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #24

It's public record. Look at the donors, they are individuals, not corporations. DanTex Apr 2017 #25

What color is the sky on your world ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #27

My world is based on facts. Yours is not. DanTex Apr 2017 #31

I'll let treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #32

Sure, have him speak about Dodd-Frank, the strongest set of financial regulations DanTex Apr 2017 #35

Ah yes, the fearsome teeth of Dodd Frank ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #41

"Fearsome" isn't really the right term. DanTex Apr 2017 #48

No Glass Steagall were much more stringent regulations ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #54

Glass Steagall was passed before WWII. And it wasn't necessarily more stringent, DanTex Apr 2017 #72

Who would you appoint as Secretary of the Treasury, Mike Ditka? Rachel Ray? Stephen Colbert? George II Apr 2017 #85

what are you talking about ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #87

We have either ignorant progressives who dont understand your points or Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #52

Anti-Democratic worldview? Them's fightin words! ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #56

On one memorable occasion, the money going to a SuperPAC actually came from one of the campaigns! Kentonio Apr 2017 #49

Let me correct this for you. Corporations can Exilednight Apr 2017 #6

Yes, they can. But that's not "corporate campaign cash" it's corporate SuperPAC cash. DanTex Apr 2017 #7

The line between campaigns and SuperPacs become more blurred Exilednight Apr 2017 #8

That's true for presidential campaigns, and maybe some high profile state campaigns. DanTex Apr 2017 #13

SuperPac contributions are not public record. By law Exilednight Apr 2017 #74

Actually, yes, SuperPACs are required to report their donors. DanTex Apr 2017 #81

There are plently of avenues to funnel cash to where campaigns can use it... so annabanana Apr 2017 #119

Would you like to name them? Or is this just something you read on the internet? DanTex Apr 2017 #129

If you are going to use analogies, use ones you are fully educated on. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #4

I bow to your superior understanding of addiction ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #9

I wasn't attempting to articulate my superior understanding of addiction. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #12

Indeed you did not articulate your superior understanding ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #15

I want to call democrats addicts. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #19

Thanks for once again asserting something without ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #23

The assertion was yours. That is where it started. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #33

I know I'm laughing ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #37

I love smiles and laughter. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #40

OFFS! Foamfollower Apr 2017 #5

FOFS! ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #10

It costs money to win elections...we have a good shot...so no to your entire post. Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #16

Some people believe in bringing a plate of cookies to an all out war. Foamfollower Apr 2017 #17

Yes, you've boiled down exactly what I was advocating ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #20

I don't think you read my post fully. Foamfollower Apr 2017 #26

Oh I read it all right ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #28

you're....not a real professor, are you? Skittles Apr 2017 #43

Indeed...I am appalled at the multitude of these very divisive posts... Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #39

Wow, you don't say. Money? Huh. Who'd da thunk it? ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #22

I saw your many posts on the subject... Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #38

I do consider Trump the danger ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #46

but not Republicans BainsBane Apr 2017 #55

No one is discussing the corporate puppets ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #59

It's a tax designation BainsBane Apr 2017 #69

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #95

Tl;dr ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #98

Yeah, that would require caring about the issue BainsBane Apr 2017 #113

What's wrong with bumber stickers? ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #114

It is people who assume things, speak in bumper stickers Vesper Apr 2017 #120

yeah, I know about bumper stickers ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #123

Yes, many use them when they have no point and are easily confused by simple typos. Vesper Apr 2017 #128

+1 Skidmore Apr 2017 #105

BainsBane: False assertion truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #115

I don't know why this point is so difficult to understand BainsBane Apr 2017 #125

My mouth is getting full of all of the words ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #84

no, corporations are NOT the only source Skittles Apr 2017 #44

That's like, your opinion man ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #45

You seem to think ignorance of the issue is cute BainsBane Apr 2017 #53

sorry, busy spitting out the words you are attributing to me ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #88

Provide evidence truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #116

Considering you haven't followed my points in this thread at all BainsBane Apr 2017 #124

I agree. The glibness adds nothing. Demit Apr 2017 #130

Actually, no private money is best BainsBane Apr 2017 #51

Which is precisely why the solution you just suggested will never be implemented in this country. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #73

it would take a monumental effort, to be sure BainsBane Apr 2017 #76

I cannot craft a universal standard/principle that would apply to both sides fairly. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #77

The OP is arguing to make the field even more unequal BainsBane Apr 2017 #79

Tend to agree. AtheistCrusader Apr 2017 #82

I am? ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #89

Campaign finance reform is enormously important BainsBane Apr 2017 #29

+1000000000 treestar Apr 2017 #36

Enjoyed reading and on point. +1 nt. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #47

You have patience, well said. JHan Apr 2017 #64

Yet we see pride in refusing to know any of it BainsBane Apr 2017 #70

Well said. n/t emulatorloo Apr 2017 #94

You might find some interesting information at this link. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #108

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #111

Yes, this, and it is set back by all the other Trump insanity Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #122

You're not much of a politician if you can't take their money... yallerdawg Apr 2017 #30

Yes, and if you give them the finger ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #99

How are they going to win without money? treestar Apr 2017 #34

No no you are off script ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #42

Do you even care about this issue? BainsBane Apr 2017 #50

Telekinesis. Duh! grossproffit Apr 2017 #92

Kick NCTraveler Apr 2017 #57

Sadly you don't understand Federal Campaign Finance Laws. George II Apr 2017 #58

Just for the record, I think this OP makes a very good point. Stonepounder Apr 2017 #60

Many of us fully understand how relevant it is. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #62

yes, there are some Democrats who have been fighting to improve the system and hooray for them. ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #91

Interesting reading if you have time. NCTraveler Apr 2017 #86

thanks ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #90

Yet somehow the other party controls all 3 branches of federal government IronLionZion Apr 2017 #61

lol ++++++++++++++ JHan Apr 2017 #63

Freedom isn't free IronLionZion Apr 2017 #65

Clinton had a billion dollar warchest killbotfactory Apr 2017 #75

Sounds like a bad investment IronLionZion Apr 2017 #78

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #112

Saying that you have to be an "earner" to be part of the Democratic stable isn't a purity test. That Guy 888 Apr 2017 #66

Yep you and Sanders are martyrs mythology Apr 2017 #67

Cool. I guess that puts you in the pro-corruption camp ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #103

That's truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #117

geeez,,,, Cryptoad Apr 2017 #68

I heed your command, Cryptoad ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #102

We Democrats know who our friends are. johnp3907 Apr 2017 #71

Are Democrats human? oldcynic Apr 2017 #80

Seriously? All that arguing over whether lexington filly Apr 2017 #83

Well put! oldcynic Apr 2017 #93

Why not give examples of corporate influence? Is it too much to ask for some evidence to back up betsuni Apr 2017 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #101

Again with the insults. I knew it! betsuni Apr 2017 #104

Oh, the insult-filled post I was replying to was self-deleted, good call. betsuni Apr 2017 #109

Are you honestly truthaddict247 Apr 2017 #118

What? betsuni Apr 2017 #121

Oh wait, get it! truthaddict247 -- when a friend is addicted, accusing me of being dishonest. betsuni Apr 2017 #127

Why did so many White Men vote for Trump ? JI7 Apr 2017 #97

Racism? 30 years of GOP lies about Clinton? ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #100

Because Democratic Emphasis on Equal Rights for All was Succeeding delisen Apr 2017 #107

Who or what is financing The Outreach Tour? The first step is to make sure "corporate" delisen Apr 2017 #106

Good point. betsuni Apr 2017 #110

Lol. Squinch Apr 2017 #126