TheAgitator.com
We’d Like You To Anonymously Donate to Our Efforts To Expose Anonymous Donations
Thursday, September 15th, 2011I’ve pointed out that Mother Jones, a magazine with a clear political perspective and clear political agenda*, keeps secret the identity of its donors. So I was clicking over to read this excellent Adam Serwer piece on the new federal bill that would allow for the deportation of domestic abuse victims, and I got this pop-up ad.
So they’re now explicitly requesting you donate, anonymously, specifically to their efforts to expose people who anonymously donate to political causes.
(*Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
But don’t you understand. We’re the people – the good ones. It’s the those others over there, yeah the ones that disagree with us that need to be watched.
Yea, I wonder if they wouldn’t explain it away by saying it doesn’t matter if many individuals give, it only matters for large donations. You have a point that its still slightly hypocritical, though.
I do wonder why these organizations constantly feel threatened by money. Do you know where there’s a decent breakdown in spending and fundraising by party in each district? I can only really find articles like this ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27money.html ) where the NYT is commenting how outside spending is closing the gap between the financially-advantaged Democrats and poorer Republicans. In that article they point in one instance where campaign spending was $1.5m Dems vs $0.4m Reps, but total political spending was $1.7m Dems vs $1.1m Reps.
I also recall how Republicans are generally raising much of their funds from smaller individual donations, while Democrats raise most from large donations from fewer people. I was shocked that this was completely against the stereotype yet not discussed much.
and it’s been that way for at least a decade that I’ve been aware of (I didn’t pay much attention before that).
On the original post, the ad doesn’t say that YOU’LL be donating anonymously… so at least they’re not being painfully obviously hypocritical. Wait, maybe that makes it worse.
Yeah, it’s US vs the guy from Monopoly!
Can class warfare really be this tonedeaf and stupid?
Yea, I wonder if they wouldn’t explain it away by saying it doesn’t matter if many individuals give, it only matters for large donations.
Except that they and other progressive groups who make a big deal about disclosure won’t release the names of their big-dollar donors, either.
Tolly,
Yes, class warfare can really be this tone-deaf and stupid. Usually is, too. Which, frankly, says a great deal about the kind of people who fall for it.
It’s like the “Taxpayer’s Alliance” (an far-right economy lobbying and press release group) in the UK then, 99% of the groups they bash on disclose their donations, and they don’t.
I wish folks would stop hatin on me. Also, use AdBlock.
Radley, these liberal groups only advocate strict disclosure for those donating to political parties, either directly or via PACs set up for that purpose, right? If so, then your criticism is very sloppy– it is not hypocritical to advocate one set of rules for those who directly control government than for those who seek to influence it via argument.
Radley, these liberal groups only advocate strict disclosure for those donating to political parties, either directly or via PACs set up for that purpose, right? If so, then your criticism is very sloppy– it is not hypocritical to advocate one set of rules for those who directly control government than for those who seek to influence it via argument.
Why not click through the links and see for yourself? The criticism is broad. Yes, it includes direct contributions to PACs and Super PACs. But MJ and other progressive groups have also been highly critical of the Kochs and other free market types for “covertly” giving to non-profits like Americans for Prosperity, think tanks like Cato, and free market economics departments like George Mason University.
501c3s cannot donate to candidates nor run third party ads for candidates. No donating money to PACs of Super PACs either, it’s in the rules as well. MJ and Reason/Cato are equally beholden to that.
There’s an exemption for limited lobbying but MJ nor FNP have no registered lobbyists.
It’s an important and very succint distinction you’ve either purposefully or ignorantly left out twice now when you try to compare it to where the Koch seminar money goes.
The cognitive dissonance of so many in politics never ceases to amaze me.
The difference is that when I send money to MJ I know what positions and lobbying their doing, But as a shareholder corporate execs are spending profits on positions or lobbying that I have no control over, and these actions are not noted in an annual report or prospectus. And lay aside the old saw about just dis-investing. Can’t do that in times like these when you’re to holding a cash position in a money market fund waiting for the market to hit bottom bottom or are long in mutuals. Going to morality mutual route is like taking a knife to gun fight. I’d rather just have open info on who’s doing what.
Preferably if widget inc. wants to donate to the Rent’s TO High! guy they can send the money to me and ask me to donate to him, or I can elect to keep it. That ‘ll bring some rationality to politics.
But as a shareholder corporate execs are spending profits on positions or lobbying that I have no control over, and these actions are not noted in an annual report or prospectus.
Unless I’m misunderstanding it, the people in that MJ article did not invest money from their corporations, they invested their own. Koch Industries, by the way, is privately held.
1) The problem outlined in this post would be a problem if shame were alive. But we live in a world in which China once flatly told France (in front of all their G-25 buddies!) that the whole concept of hypocrisy is irrelevant. No shame, no problem.
2) As a long-time reader of that publication, it strikes me that MJ has a particular perspective, but its particularity is like that of chili con carne: a mish-mash of competing pork-and-bean causes rather than a singular hunk of beef. (Chili con carne is the food of incoherent ideologues; coherent ideologues tend toward rare steaks.)
3) Is there any data ballparking the amounts of secret money balancing on the Gilded Scales of Free Speech? Unless the direction the overall balance tilts is clear, there’s no point in arguing that MJ is doing society a disservice, either by exposing the other side or concealing its own. If MJ somehow raises enough money to expose a pattern of The True Evil in the spending on the other side, that’s not a bad thing insofar as it implies that a right-wing pork-and-beans magazine might also expose The True Evil behind the left’s evil-exposing campaign.
4) Somewhere, a man reading my comment, a straw man, is plotting to springboard off into class warfare or the imaginary virtues involved with bringing secrets into publicness. I will kick that man’s ass if he abuses this comment for those purposes. The only useful point to make here is the one about how much worse life would be if nobody were allowed to spend or earn a small fortune making political advocacy advertisements not completely suck from a graphic design standpoint.
Can you imagine a world in which The True Evil Pennybags was drawn in 2D? I can’t. I won’t.
Sorry, Radley if I’m misunderstanding something. I didn’t read the article and assumed by the term “corporate cash” the issue is corporations using company funds as opposed to private individuals. I have a bug up my posterior about the self dealing corp. management engages in, sitting on each others boards and voting each other raises and making donations/expenditures against the wishes of stockholders who have technical majorities but don’t own the “preferred stock” that is held by the companies themselves. This is will be made worse with the SC’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. My opinion, which I don’t think you agree with, is that it is going to allow foreign government controlled corps (China, Saud) to influence our politics. Influencing government to create a market is venture capital 101.
Right now there’s 100′s of billions of speculative dollars sitting tight looking for the next bubble. This money’s not looking for long term investment opportunities, it’s looking for a quick score and pull out.
But back to the subject, in theory I’m for total disclosure of the identities of anyone involved in our politics, but I recognize that’s not optimal. The 501 regs are a piece, and if but what will be effective is hard limits on donating and receiving before disclosure is required. That should ensure that movements actually have grassroots support and is not just an attempt by a small group to drown out the debate.
To refer to your response to Mike. If Americans for Prosperity is funded by tens of thousands of Americans @ 25 bucks a pop, they should be allowed their privacy, if 75% of MJ’s budget is provided by Soros, people should know that.
Money isn’t speech, it’s power, and power is always trying to protect itself and expand it’s scope. You of all people should be concerned about our massive security apparatus and untraceable money. The last 15 minutes of Frontline’s “The Man Who Knew” describes a cluster of depts. so vast the heads of the NSA doesn’t even an idea of what it all does.