SS: As of last month, Super PACS run by billionaires have poured nearly $1.3 billion into the midterms this year. And all of them expect something in return for their money. As well, contrary to popular belief, it is a bipartisan problem.
While the courts have refused since the 1970s to limit dark money in politics, that doesn’t mean nothing can be done.
Among other suggestions, forcing packs to disclose their top donors would make a huge difference.
Most PACs have generic and essentially meaningless names. Like Internet trolls dark money thrives on anonymity.
When people know who is behind the dark money however it substantially lowers the effectiveness of the person trying to buy political office or bribe candidates. Large sums of money, regardless of the situation, are rarely given without strings.
This is one of several suggestions made by the author to limit the power of the dark money which has flooded American elections for 50 some years.
[OP] bananaslingrider | 4 hours ago
SS: As of last month, Super PACS run by billionaires have poured nearly $1.3 billion into the midterms this year. And all of them expect something in return for their money. As well, contrary to popular belief, it is a bipartisan problem.
While the courts have refused since the 1970s to limit dark money in politics, that doesn’t mean nothing can be done.
Among other suggestions, forcing packs to disclose their top donors would make a huge difference.
Most PACs have generic and essentially meaningless names. Like Internet trolls dark money thrives on anonymity.
When people know who is behind the dark money however it substantially lowers the effectiveness of the person trying to buy political office or bribe candidates. Large sums of money, regardless of the situation, are rarely given without strings.
This is one of several suggestions made by the author to limit the power of the dark money which has flooded American elections for 50 some years.