Forum Post: Keep this on your radar: undisclosed campaign spending.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 1:41 p.m. EST by hairlessOrphan
(522)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Dozens of other GOP-allied 501(c)(4) groups -- and a smaller number of Democratic ones -- are on spending sprees fueled by donor secrecy and the Supreme Court's historic Citizens United vs. FEC decision last year. That ruling gave the green light to corporations, unions and individuals making unlimited contributions for ads and other political tools that back specific candidates, provided there is no coordination with campaigns or party committees.
As a result of this secrecy, voters will never know how much money is manipulating the 2012 elections.
...
Gaining c4 status is increasingly popular because it provides 'quite a bit of flexibility in structuring activities with minimal reporting to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission,' Marc Owens said.
...
Another example is Americans for Prosperity, the grassroots goliath that was launched with funding from the billionaire Koch brothers. Tracy Henke, AFP's chief operating officer, said the group spent about $25 million on issue advocacy last year that focused heavily on cutting regulations and federal spending. Of that sum, only $1.3 million was publicly reported to the FEC as political activity."
Democrats and Republicans comprise a two party system designed to take you away from the real issue. The debate is staged between the two fictional sides while the real culprits and real issues fly under the radar. That is why the libertarians and OWS ought to be one group.
No.
It is true that the existing power structure intentionally advocates and enforces a system that is inherently unjust.
Unfortunately, libertarians accidentally advocate and would enforce the same system. It is true that accidentally fucking up is better than intentionally fucking up. But I set the benchmark for "good" a little higher than that.
Insofar as libertarians are willing to act in their interests as human beings - and not as libertarians - to get money out of politics, I am personally willing to work with them. I don't speak for anyone else here, but I have a strong pragmatic streak.
But I also have a realist streak, and libertarians have yet to demonstrate that they can stop themselves from trumpeting their political agenda. I can't even order a pizza with a libertarian without him turning it into an argument over Ayn Rand. So I don't realistically expect that they can or will add anything to the greater good.
Post-edit NB: you will note that a few weeks ago I was advocating working with libertarians. But they changed my mind during the period when they came to this forum en masse and couldn't stop themselves from spamming the board with Ron Loffles campaigning. Congratulate yourselves on a job well done. Your spam campaign changed hearts and minds.
Occupy Wall Street is accidentally advocating the same system!!!!!!!!
At least if libertarians and OWS RESOLVE their differences to find a common ground, a truth that is higher than both points of view, a truth that integrates and transcends, instead of reinforcing the shadow of the green meme which is the lack of inclusion which leads a potential community to become a pseudo community instead of achieving true community by including EVERYONE who wishes to be a part of the community. The truth sits in the center and knows. The truth is higher then EVEN OUR bickering. The tao te ching and the art of war and the Bhagavad Gita all say Alchemy is the ONLY way to save an empire on the verge of collapse. WAKE THE FUCK UP This is not about partisanship. This is about RESOLVING partisanship once and for all. Anyone who disagrees with that BRING IT... I am THE LEADER.
Reminds me of a certain grass roots political movement that accepts donations but doesn't disclose where and how the money is being spent with transparency and accounting.
Hypocrisy - applying to others standards which you are unwilling to apply to yourself.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/52806922-68/report-expenses-protesters-occupy.html.csp
Shh.
Solving problems isn't always dependent on understanding the source, especially where Human variables are involved, since they're often unknowable. If you're building a strong system, you don't build it against just the present threats, you also build it against future threats.
I don't know what you're referring to here. I support organization and hierarchies within the OWS as a unified front. Intentional disorganization is a massive weakness, despite the threat of co-opting and media distortion. They're doing that anyway. My concern is with the cockroaches within that disorganization could be stealing from the donations without oversight and transparency policing them. But anyway, onto the next thing which is the important bit.
I do get you and I appreciate the logic. As I said, though, it doesn't really account for the Human variable. What if I want to obfuscate but say I don't? What if I say I want intentional disorganization to protect against co-opting and media distortion, but really I just want to exploit the situation and steal all the donations like an 80s televangelist? Or what if I am genuine in wanting to end the obfuscation, but others aren't?
Then it would be beneficial for you to attack the obfuscation. But it would be even more beneficial to ignore the source and take the human variable out of the equation. The solution in that case, and what I have proposed from the start, is total transparency and proper accounting methods. This is how every other donation accepting organization on earth handles their accounting, is it not? It is in line with the supposed values of OWS, is it not? If all of the data is accounted for and made available online; including withdrawals and receipts, then what room is there for theft and fraud? What room is there for obfuscation - regardless of source - when it all goes onto the books live on the internet for the world to see?
As for getting from here to there, that requires even more solutions, and the cockroaches might well oppose those efforts, but with the goal laid out, it can't be resisted for long. I don't see what's so controversial about that to the point that I'm either stupid or a troll. I'm not in NYC, and I probably won't come since I have seen so many unsavory people at work within the movement with ideologies I find as sickening as those belonging to the ones in control of our landfill economy and murdering government.
Maybe all I can do is criticize, but there's another reason why I might criticize which is conveniently ignored by those who cry troll. Maybe I want it to become something I can believe in; and something a whole lot better than the joke it is now. Maybe I want it to get rid of those cockroaches and embrace liberty and transparency. If there was universal demand for it from within, it would be done tomorrow. The sad truth is that no one seems to care. They care so little that those who do care are trolls or idiots. So be it.
Excellent. A step towards transparency. Very good news. When will the accounting be made available online? Who are the executive financial officers who are able to withdrawn funds? Who verifies the receipts to ensure no one is skimming?
This is a fascinating ethical dilemma for me: On the one hand, I don't want to defend the existing disorganization, because I think it's poison to the movement. On the other hand, your infinite regress is not a valid criticism.
And then there's another pair of hands to consider. On one of these new hands, I'm feeding a troll. On the other one of these new hands, it keeps the actual content of the thread bumped.
Oh, what to do?
It's not infinite regress. It stops at the accounting of receipts. There can be no discussion beyond that, once all money flow is fully accounted for.
Then the answers you're looking for:
GA decides when and for what purposes funds can be withdrawn. The Finance working group, with an assist from the Accounting and Transparency working group, draws the funds and audits the receipts. As for when the statement will be available, the request is already in to the Finance group. Which means whenever GA gets around to voting that Finance can release it, and decides where it will be released, and who's going to post it, and what languages it's in...
This, according to you, is the point beyond which there is no discussion. Hooray! I'll miss you.
And indeed it is. If all of those things are true and can be shown to be true when the request is fulfilled from the Finance group, then there will be no need for any further criticism.
Why are you so hostile? There should be transparency. If there isn't, people have every right to demand that it be provided.
Join the Finance working group and verify it for yourself. That's the point of the working groups. You don't need an invitation.
I'm hostile because I have no patience for stupidity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're generally stupid. But it is certainly a stupid act to pre-emptively accuse others of hypocrisy when the information that debunks that accusation is and has been publicly available.
You can criticize that the information is hard to find, and that is certainly valid. The process isn't purposefully obscured; it is obscured accidentally by disorganization. Ok, criticize that all you want. But maybe you want to take a look at your first comment in this thread with a little objectivity.
Your post was the first time anyone had ever answered those questions, the article was published on the 28th -- just a couple days ago, and there is no satisfactory proof as to its accuracy. So give me a break.
Even if the article is true, which remains to be seen, you've already admitted that there is a lack of transparency which is what that post criticized. Whether it is purposefully obfuscated or accidentally is irrelevant. You can't make a post about spending sprees spurred by secrecy and then shout me down for calling out OWS on its own financial secrecy.
It is the job of the cynics to force the rose glassed idealists to make sure there is no room for the cockroaches to work behind the veil. There has already been fraud and corruption, and until there is full accounting and transparency it will continue to happen, all the while getting more sophisticated in its systems of theft.
When I get called a troll for wanting transparency, that just tells me the cockroaches are having a feeding frenzy and want to keep the prying eyes of the public off of them for as long as possible with stalling and stonewalling.
Good news and bad news. Bad news is I don't feel the need to give you a break; that you conflate intentional obfuscation with accidental disorganization tells me you don't actually understand what's wrong, you only understand that something is wrong. Ok, so far so good, but at the point where you admit you don't understand the process but go ahead and criticize it anyway is when you waver into stupid. Stop doing that, and you'll get a break.
The good news is you clearly aren't interested in getting a break, anyway. So this is just smoke and mirrors.
You'll also notice I didn't shout you down. I did call you names, but I addressed your points anyway (granted, I waited until you demonstrated a good-faith effort. But that's the pragmatist in me).
The point of this isn't you in particular. The point is that Occupy, as a movement driven by kids mortally terrified of the boogeymen of media distortion and corporate co-opting, has enough actual problems that it needs to address. For example, accidental disorganization is a problem that needs to be addressed. But the accusation of intentional obfuscation is clearly false, and your throwing it out there anyway is not only manufacturing non-existent problems, but it actually distracts from the real problems.
As far as you in particular, I have to make a guess. Are you doing this intentionally? Then you're a troll. Are you doing it accidentally? Then you're just dumb. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I assume you're doing it on purpose.
Then don't give me a break. You're right, I don't need a break. I just thought you were being pedantic.
Compared to the other people I'm arguing with, you're a saint. Better at arguments, too. However, you lose points with the strawman that I don't understand the process and therefore I'm stupid since I'm not being intentionally inflammatory. So you didn't build that house on a very strong foundation.
I have defended the validity of my post, and if you don't agree then you can cry about it. You failed to defeat the point I made about the source of obfuscation being irrelevant. If the story you posted about a lack of transparency fueling spending sprees is valid, then so is my post criticizing the lack of transparency in the finances of OWS. It just doesn't matter what you suppose the obfuscation to be caused by. I haven't seen any evidence that cockroaches can't steal from the warchest. When and if the accounts are made available online, I will look at them. I pessimistically expect it to never appear, but I am hopeful that you are on the level and it will.
If you're concerned with actually solving the problem of obfuscation, then the source is absolutely relevant. In fact, the source is the most relevant. It is all of the relevant. I don't know how you propose to solve problems without understanding its source. Doesn't that approach strike you as just a little bit stupid?
If you're only concerned with criticizing, then you can fall back on a claim to irrelevance. But that also seems like trolling to me. So let's not go there.
Instead, let's talk about the difference between what I posted: intentional exploitation of law to intentionally obfuscate - versus what you posted: intentional disorganization to defend against media distortion and corporate co-option, with the unintended consequence of obfuscation.
My thinking goes like this, tell me if you're on board. If you're intentionally obfuscating, then I can say the cause of your obfuscation is that you want to obfuscate. Then my next step can be attacking obfuscation, since that becomes the foundational conflict.
If you're accidentally obfuscating, then I can not say the cause of your obfuscation is that you want to obfuscate. Instead, it is incumbent on us (as parties interested in solutions rather than just criticisms) to identify the reason there is obfuscation even though we don't want it. We would have to identify it as a cost paid for some other end - this is the source, and it is relevant. We need to know that source if we are to attack the assumption that the cost is necessary. In this scenario it makes no sense for me to attack obfuscation - we would both already agree that it is bad. Get me?
money out of politics!