Politicians would be much more responsive to their constituents if these dark money donors had to show their game faces to the world instead of surreptitiously subverting the public’s health, fortunes and wellbeing.
But here’s good news. A workable strategy is emerging that can rip the masks from the faces of would-be oligarchs and force their deeds into the sunlight, the best disinfectant. Change for the better has already begun to work without the help or hindrance of Congress...
Eventually, citizens working together can find cracks in the campaign finance system and keep adding pressure until something gives way. This is precisely what democracy needs in this country now—added pressure so that campaign finance and our political system can work for all of us, not as a gamed system driven by the demands of the greedy among the wealthy. - DCReport
Tuesday, June 28, 2022
Doing something about dark money
This article gets into some recent efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Side comment ... there have been a few stories about Members of Congress violating the STOCK Act (last tally I heard listed 64 Members) ... but at least Members (and federal candidates) must file disclosure reports of their stock holdings ... but that does not include other family members ... like Cameron Collins, the son of Chris Collins the former NY Congressman who got 26 months for insider trading.
ReplyDeleteThat got me thinking of Ginni Thomas and her influence on Clarence Thomas ... which reminded me of the Laurie Coleman/Nasser Kazeminy story (you remember when reportedly she was given $75,000 through the company that she worked for) ... and now I see on some Personal Disclosure Forms the listing of spouses working in the "consulting" business. Sure makes ya think it would be awfully easy to "hire" the spouse for "consulting" work just to get to the Member. I raised this question in a post over Jeremy Munson being employed as a "consultant" for Anderson Inc of Bayport MN and AON Insurance of Bloomington MN ... did he get the work because of his expertise or because he was a member of the state legislature?
IMO, there should be a cap on how much money can be spent in an election based on the previous election ... but that will never happen ... unless candidates agree to do it themselves.