Ketanji Brown Jackson

When They Attack 'Dark Money,' They're Really Attacking Free Speech

Republicans take a page from the Democrats’ book by crying “dark money” during Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing.


By adopting Democrats' strategy of attacking so-called dark money groups at this week's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Republican senators are fueling efforts to undermine core First Amendment protections.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced the "role of far-left dark money groups like Demand Justice" in his opening remarks. And he wasn't the only one to do so. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) made vague references to "the most liberal people under the umbrella of Arabella." Prior to the hearing, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) criticized the "dark money" being spent to "raise [Jackson's] profile."

Predictably, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) responded to Republicans' dark money fear mongering by suggesting that they support his legislation to "get rid of it." No one should take the bait.

Whitehouse is a sponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that Republicans in Congress, including all those quoted above, have thankfully opposed because it would force advocacy groups to publicly expose the names and addresses of their supporters. In today's polarized political environment, that would be a recipe for disaster. This legislation, which is regularly included in Democratic voting reform proposals, is a direct attack on the First Amendment right to associate privately.

The American Civil Liberties Union also recognizes the threat, with senior staff writing that these provisions "could directly interfere with the ability of many to engage in political speech about causes that they care about and that impact their lives by imposing new and onerous disclosure requirements on nonprofits committed to advancing those causes."

Armed with donor lists, powerful politicians in Congress could shift the target of their name-and-shame attacks from groups like Demand Justice and the Judicial Crisis Network to the individual Americans who support them. The result would be a loss of donations to groups that speak out, a chilling of political speech, and a shrinking of civil society.

Whitehouse's proposed "solution" would dramatically expand the federal government's power over political speech by redefining many communications about legislation and judicial nominations as "campaign-related" speech. True campaign speech—which calls for the election or defeat of candidates—is already heavily regulated.

Under the DISCLOSE Act, however, a "campaign-related disbursement" would include "a Federal judicial nomination communication," which is defined as any paid communication effort "that is susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than promoting, supporting, attacking, or opposing the nomination or Senate confirmation of an individual as a Federal judge or justice." Such communications "shall be treated as campaign-related disbursement[s] regardless of the intent of the person making the disbursement."

In plain English, the bill would transform speech about nominations into a regulated form of campaign speech, even if neither a candidate for office nor an election is mentioned. Organizations that trigger the "judicial nomination communication" regulations would have to submit donor lists to the Federal Election Commission, even though judicial nominations and confirmation processes are not elections.

These invasive and misleading disclosure mandates would thrust the judicial nomination process even further into the realm of partisan politics. Organizations that have always maintained a nonpartisan position and have never participated in elections would likely be unwilling to engage in speech that may trigger the bill's provisions. Nonprofits could fall silent because they prioritize their supporters' privacy over their ability to call on lawmakers to support or oppose a nomination.

Partisan campaign groups won't be scared away. They may be the only ones still willing to speak about nominees besides politicians and major media outlets, because they are already legally obligated to expose their donors and comply with other reporting requirements.

The difficulty of complying with those laws and the risks of navigating new, vague regulations will be enough to silence many small groups. Groups that do take on those burdens will likely suffer a loss of donations from Americans who fear retaliation for their beliefs or simply prefer not to be publicly associated with "campaign-related" speech.

The end goal of such legislation is to force any group that speaks about the government to operate like a political action committee—leaving people who support a cause to defend themselves against whatever harassment comes their way. Democrats in Congress have long used the "dark money" smear to avoid engaging with their critics and to gin up support for extreme new speech restrictions. Republican senators, in seeking to turn the tables, risk empowering a movement that puts everyone's First Amendment rights in danger.

NEXT: A Dark Look at Modern Teen Culture Roots True-Crime Retelling of The Girl From Plainville

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It's got "creepy dude" Soros written all over it!

    1. I gotta agree with this sentiments. It is an outright campaign at this point.

      There were not this many articles attacking the slander of Kavanaugh, and that took weeks.

      What is the source of this unanimity? Libertarians are pedantic. Libertarians are antii-authoritarian. Libertarians are "a pox on both your houses".

      But reason reads as a DNC press release of late. I get being a pedantic cynic, critical of the Republicans, but they are not in power, they control nothing, and they are not going to be on the court.

      It is weird. Not really any scorn for rhe white house... not really any scorn for the Democrat senators, not really any scorn for the nominee.... but a heaping crapton of energy behind attacking Republicans who dare question her on her record.

      It isn't like they are questioning her backstory of oppression as a poor black woman who is ever the victim (she is a child of privilege and wealth who attended Harvard for undergrad and law school).

      No, they have questioned her professional actions. I mean... what else is there? Should they just say "yup... she passed the bar and got nominated! Good enough!"?

      If you are only opposed to Republicans, you really are not speaking truth to power, since they are not in power. You are being a partisan hack.

      1. Should have attached to lament comment below

        1. Don't worry. Sarc will mute you now. Not much lost.

          1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up...

      2. Some of the Republicans have had pretty dumb lines of questioning. Everyone knows that no nominee is going to answer a question about "what do you think the penalty for X should be?".
        But that's how senate hearings go. It's all about stupid political grandstanding. And not all of the questioning was that idiotic either (of what I actually heard, I thought Kennedy did a pretty good job).
        But it is totally weird how this is being made all about the Republicans' questioning. What the hell did anyone expect to happen? And where is the commentary on how she might actually be as a justice? I mean, it's probably a pretty safe assumption that outside of perhaps a few narrow areas she won't be anything that a libertarian or fan of small government would approve of.

        1. I just wonder where MSM was in not facing the "man-splainin" the Democrats did. Cory Booker was the worst. It seems they felt an intelligent dark-skinned woman was incapable of speaking for herself, and needed the politicians to speak for her.

        2. "And where is the commentary on how she might actually be as a justice?"

          Ketanji. Nuff said.

        3. What's really weird is making Republicans out to be the threat here, when all the actual proposals to create target lists are coming from Democrats.

      3. We need some smelling salts, butthurt salve, a linen hankie to twist and wipe away tearstreaks, a swastika or burning crucifix and 30 extra IQ points for a whining, persecuted, castrated Trumpanzee on aisle C.
        WHOA! Scratch the smelling salts. The DEA just banned those as a vice.

        1. Are you trying to say you smoke bath salts?

          1. It would explain a lot. Although my money is on Alzheimer’s.

            1. "STUPID" works, too.

  2. Attacking "dark money" is racist.

    1. A libertarian magazine would celebrate the attacking of dark money.

      1. We need an equity money policy. Obviously, there are some monies out there that have not been given the same opportunities to gain wealth from our political system as the light monies have.

        1. Can't we put all the political donations into a pot and split it up equally between all the national political parties with ballot access in enough states to win the Presidency? Wouldn't that be fair?

      2. I'm not so sure that's obvious. On the one hand, political transparency is good. But on the other, people have a right to do what they want with their money.

        1. "people have a right to do what they want with their money."

          Where did you get that fantasy?
          You WILL buy and wear masks.
          You WILL buy health insurance.
          You WILL pay to exercise your constitutional rights.

    2. I find your problem with dark money to be most problematic!

  3. What's Reason's motivation here?

    12 articles attacking Republicans for doing their jobs in less than a week.

    They merrily joined in the phony lynching of Kavanagh, and didn't make a peep over Amy Coney Barrett being subjected to religious tests, but actually questioning a candidates record and questioning dark money is somehow suddenly wrong?

    It can't be because it's important from a libertarian perspective, because there are currently real, massive assaults on free speech and civil rights happening in America and the West right now, that they're ignoring as hard as they can.

    1. I think they just hate Republicans. This is a big event in which a lot of Republican comments are hitting the news and they're just loving to bash everything about them. So far, the only ones I've found super objectionable were from Tom Cotton, though Cruz is pretty generally an ass. Hawley's been downright tame in his concerns despite being the target.

      I've found quite a bit objectionable about Democrats' statements during the hearings but those don't seem to come up at all.

      1. Hawley and Cruz had legitimate critiques (and Cruz had a right to be irked that she simply would not answer questions) which certainly trumps the normal outright character assassination Dems engage in with Republican nominees (can anybody name a decision by Kavanaugh or Comey the Dems disagreed with?)

        But those slanders on Kavanaugh were credible while Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton criticizing specific decisions are just pointless attacks.

        1. She got caught straight up lying to Cruz about CRT.

        2. This just proves that as bad as the republicans are, the democrats are a bunch of Marxist hyenas, they cannot be left in charge. Time is almost up for this country.

    2. After David past a couple of years ago, Charles Koch took a hard-left turn. Unfortunately, he has taken Reason with him. This magazine has been crap since. Every single person employed by Reason openly celebrated that, if they were not voting for Dr. Jo, they were voting for Biden. How's that working out for us, idiots?

  4. Whew. I was getting worried we wouldn’t have our anti-Republican, pro KJB article today.

    1. is it even Pro KJB? It just seems anti-republican. It is the most bizarre thing I haven't seen a single article make the case FOR or even AGAINST KJB. All I see are tons of articles bemoaning republican questions. It is so strange, and I don't get it at all.

      1. There's elections coming up this year and we have to make sure Republicans look bad as a collective. It's the only way to protect democracy.

        Reason just doing their part to Fortify.

      2. Yeah, I guess it’s not necessarily, but since she’s the nominee and Republicans shouldn’t ask her any mean questions, it’s in support of her being confirmed.

        1. This article just takes the insanity to a whole new level. It's ignoring the Democrats who are talking about dark money to focus solely on the Republicans who have mentioned it, when they weren't the first ones or main ones to bring it up. They're probably only using the term because Democrats have seeded it in their heads and they're using turnabout as fair play.

          This would have been a great but cheap example to both-sides the issue, but it's almost exclusively talking about the Rs on the committee. I seriously feel like someone is fucking with me.

      3. This is true, there has not been an article simply detailing her qualifications and giving examples from past cases that are positive and negative from a civil/individual rights standpoint. We got the bitch fest instead.

      4. Damon Root has put out a couple that pretty clearly advocate for her. That said, it's interesting how all of these articles are attacks on Republicans/conservatives when a libertarian should be concerned by her actions, statements, and affiliations

  5. >>Partisan campaign groups won't be scared away

    like you guys?

  6. Wow, it's bad when Republicans use Democrats weapons against them.

    So say the 'libertarians' at Reason.

    1. Republicans pounced.

      1. I thought it was a "seized on" week.

  7. When you have so much power consolidated in the hands of a few, due to a cap on the number of House members; a tax code written by and for lobbyists and no term limits in place, dark money is not remotely connected to free speech.

    1. Read the Hitler Platform and Enabling Act Speech. The Enabling act was the law that freed christian National Socialism from judicial review, constitutional restraint and competition from libertarian-leaning Jewish parties. In very few words those two documents are hard to differentiate from the Republican Party platform. Christian altruism and eugenic collectivism drip out of all three documents. Republicans want a nationalsocialist People's Court, bigger'n Dallas.

      1. Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz). This law gave the government—and in practice, Hitler—the right to make laws without the involvement of the Reichstag

        1. Hank loves any excuse to trash religion.

    2. "...dark money is not remotely connected to free speech."

  8. Democrats have been railing about how the court is ruled by Dark Money infiltrating the Federalist society and other l. Republicans turned around and pointed out that groups like Demand Justice have also gotten funding, and are involved in tracking/suggesting judicial nominees, and Reason jumps on the Republicans.

    Have you been watching the hearings at all? It's been Democrats primarily and substantially talking about the spectre of Dark Money infiltrating and corrupting the judicial system.

    No mention of Klobuchar using the term Dark Money, nor Dick Dubrin, nor Leahy, who are at least three other Democrats on the committee I have heard making stupid comments about how evil men are ruling the court from the shadows. Someone actually talked about how there's a backroom where money changes hands and there's a handshake and that's how Justices are being appointed. They don't realize that's there just an advocacy group that has private donors which makes public recommendations about judges they like.

    I've heard the name "Federalist Society" attacked at least a dozen times during these hearings. For some reason that name isn't mentioned in this article. The name "Demand Justice" has barely been mentioned to my recollection, but it does come up in this article.

    1. I saw this headline and I actually said out loud, "Finally!" Because I thought they were finally going to target the stupid things Democrats have been saying during these hearings, most of which are painful and rage inducing.

      But it's about Republicans using a term the Democrats coined! We must, apparently, attack Republicans at all points. I thought this was a libertarian publication, not a "Bash-the right" publication.

      1. “Because I thought they were finally going to target the stupid things Democrats have been saying during these hearings,”

        Not. Going. To. Happen.

      2. Libertarian publication, NOT a Republican publication. Meaning it's perfectly within the rules to bash Republicans for being stupid. Don't like go troll on the Republican forums.

        1. Apparently it’s a Democrat publication now.

          You realize it’s a Democrat nominee for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS we’re discussing here, right? Or what we should be discussing, anyway. But instead Reason is only reported on what those mean old Republicans are saying. And they’ve been doing it multiple times a day.

        2. "Libertarian publication"

          How? Aside from legal weed and hookers, how?

      3. I saw the headline and assumed the same woth how many times the federalist society was mentioned. Lol.

      4. You're right - I'm a newbie to this site and I had hoped for a balanced perspective. Silly/stupid me.

  9. Funny how it is only when Republicans fight back that orgs like yours get their panties in a twist. Go fuck yourself you partisan Leftist hacks.

  10. It’s only a matter of time before any illusion of privacy on the internet is gone. It just isn’t private.

    The only choice we have is how we get there. Kicking and complaining like a kid being dragged to the inevitable haircut. Or taking control of it ensuring we can still protect our freedoms when the inevitable is realized.

    We need to recognize that the internet is a public place, then all our rights will apply there.

    We need to criminalize lying so those who would violate our rights cannot hide in their lies.

    We need to empower everyone to voluntarily record our memories everywhere we go so those who would secretly violate our rights can be exposed and brought to justice.

    Without proactively taking control of the inevitable we’ll get shaved against our will,

    1. No thanks.
      Because we know who will decide what a "lie" is -- the same people who declare perfectly reasonable theories (often proven true later) to be "misinformation" and off-limits for discussion.

      1. Once again, Mizek can't get through the first 5 words of the First Amendment.

      2. Don’t you feel pathetic? I think you are.

        You have zero confidence in your ability to discern truth from lies.

        Whatever your reason or excuse is irrelevant.

          1. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

            You’re so terrified of being shown to be wrong, embarrassed of your opinion, that you can’t even try to refute what you deny.

            Poking fun at the concept of truth can only be comforting to those in the shallowest of gene pools.

            1. Do masks stop Covid?

              1. Your question is poorly worded which is expected behaviour from someone who doesn’t value truth.

                An ambiguous question like yours can be misrepresented by a bigot or a liar to appear to demonstrate truth when it doesn’t. Coercing people who value truth to make decisions in the liars interest instead of their own.

                Masks are a useful defence against the spread of COVID but are not 100% effective. They have saved countless lives allowing people to be vaccinated before contracting the virus.

                I’m sure that this is not the information you want people to have and I am happy to provide it.

                1. “An ambiguous question like yours can be misrepresented by a bigot or a liar to appear to demonstrate truth when it doesn’t.”

                  That was the point of the question.

                  1. You’re admitting that you’re a bigoted liar.

                    1. This from the guy who wants to exterminate the Jews. You’re a literal nazi.

                    2. Your a pathetic liar who can never cite proof for your lies.

                    3. You and the others should just begin your comments with the admission that you’re bigoted liars.

                      That would save everyone else the few minutes it takes to demonstrate it and destroy you.

                    4. Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.

                    5. "...You and the others should just begin your comments with the admission that you’re bigoted liars...."

                      This needs a special place in examples of "projection"
                      Here we have an anti-semite bigot who lies about the Holocaust making this claim.
                      The fucking piece of shit it entirely too stupid to see the irony here. Pathetic, but expected.

                    6. I’ve demonstrated that you’re a lying waste of skin by citing proof in your own words.

                      You nor anyone else has ever cited proof of your claim that I’m a Nazi. In fact I demonstrated that you, not I, advocate giving weapons to Nazis in Ukraine.

                      I have presented evidence that proves the blush it holocaust could not have occurred as self proclaimed witnesses have claimed. The whole story falls apart.

                      Neither you nor anyone else has ever cited any evidence proving your claim to have refuted my evidence.

                      You’re full of shit.

                      You should hang your empty head in shame, you lying waste of skin.

    2. "...We need to criminalize lying..."

      You'd never get out of jails Nazi shit.

      1. I’ve proven that you’re a liar citing your own words.

        You’ve never proven that I am.

        When lying is criminalized, you’ll either recognize that there was no holocaust or you’ll shut your ignorant pie hole or you’ll be punished fuckwit.

        1. You’ve never proven anything. You just rant and rave about Jews, give cover to Nazi Germany’s atrocities, and just generally gibber.

          1. This is “proving it”. Providing a cite. Proving at the same time that you are a liar.

            It’s something you never have done in any of your claims about me or my comments.

            This one shows that the retard with the moniker Sevo advocates arming Nazis and is a liar..

            March.19.2022 at 3:48 pm
            Fuck off and die, Nazzi scum.

            Rob Misek
            March.19.2022 at 5:59 pm
            You’re the fuckwit advocating funding Nazis in Ukraine.

            March.19.2022 at 7:54 pm
            Nazi scum is a liar besides; cite just one time backing your bullshit.
            Fuck off and die.

            Rob Misek
            March.19.2022 at 9:41 pm
            You are a lying waste of skin. What’s the matter, ashamed of yourself? You should be.
            You were chiming in with the “stepping up” spirit the other day.
            Sending bullets to the Jew Zelensky, puts them in Nazi guns fuckwit.

            March.7.2022 at 6:09 pm
            "NASCAR Team Owner Offers Ukraine 1M Rounds Of Ammunition"



            Rob Misek
            March.21.2022 at 2:01 pm
            Need I say it?
            What a pussy.


  11. This article really does read like gaslighting. I don't know how it's Republicans who are going nuts about dark money.

    1. It's too bad Long Dong has temporarily recovered. Imagine the apoplectic fits if that girl-bullier were to be replaced by a Kamala Harris nominee... Nobody could possibly be worse than another Republican National Socialist! (

      1. You are despicable beyond belief. There is nothing libertarian about you. You’re just a far left, infanticide obsessed, anti religious nutcase with advancing dementia.

  12. Oh fuck off.

    Money != free speech.

    One would hope they take the bait and do away with all this bullshit.

    1. Money doesn't equal free speech, but money does enable free speech (and more importantly press). You can't have press without money to pay for it. So a free press does require free funding of the press. And "the press" doesn't just mean mainstream news outlets. It's anyone who wants to publish or broadcast anything whatsoever. So yes, if money is being used to disseminate information, it is protected by the first amendment.

      1. Beyond that, let's just pretend minorities are being hunted and persecuted by racist, hateful bigots.

        Imagine one of those racist, hateful bigots is running against progressive black man, and you own a small restaurant. You want to donate $500 to support the campaign of the progressive black man. Do you want to have to your name on a list so the racist, hateful bigot can then see it and enact retribution against your business by changing health regulations, or revoking your liquor license, or even sending police to hassle your customers?

        You deserve to freely do what you would like with your money without fear of retribution.

        1. SOLUTION: vote Libertarian using the secret ballot. Contrived "lifeboat ethics" conundrum dissolved with nary a penny nor a vote going to the party that wants cops to shoot and rob people for no reason other than parasitism. "Vices are Not Crimes" is on the Grand Goblin's index expurgatorius so no Republican even knows it exists. But Lysander Spooner is fast being translated into other languages. It'll be increasingly hard to ignore.

          1. Tell me more about these “secret ballots” Hank.

            1. Have you ever noticed how "Hank Phillips" has the same initials as "huffing paint"?

              1. He’s a total nutcase. Not even libertarian. Just obsessed with abortion. He’s also a vicious, bitter atheist. I say this as an agnostic.


      Of course, money is not "speech." Money is money, a car is a car, and a ribbon is a ribbon. These are objects, not speech. But all of these objects, and many more besides, can be used to facilitate free speech. Consider a car. The government can lawfully impose all sorts of restrictions on how, when and where we can drive a car, and no one would argue that those restrictions implicate the First Amendment.

      But suppose a city enacts a law prohibiting any person to drive a car in order to get to a political demonstration. Such a law would clearly implicate the First Amendment, not because a car is speech, but because the law restricts the use of a car for speech purposes.

      Similarly, a ribbon is a ribbon. A ribbon is not speech. But a law that prohibits anyone to wear a pink ribbon for expressive purposes would clearly implicate the First Amendment, because it restricts the use of a ribbon for speech purposes.

      Like a car or a ribbon, money is not speech. But when government regulates the use of money for speech purposes, it implicates the First Amendment. Suppose, for example, an individual at an Occupy protest burns a dollar bill to convey her disdain for corporate America. A dollar bill is not speech, fire is not speech, but a government law prohbiting any person to burn money as a symbolic expression of opposition to corporate America would surely implicate the First Amendment.

      The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.

      1. That's a shockingly sensible take, given the source.

      2. But is a woman still a woman? Please, responses from only biologists.

        1. I moonlight as a biologist when I get shitfaced. So, I can weigh in the next time I am drunk.

          1. When you’re shitfaced may not be the best time to discern whether a woman is indeed a woman. Eddie Murphy had this problem I think.

            I guess it depends where you hang out.

    3. Banning speech bought with money == not free speech.

  13. "What's Aleppo" - hilarious, big scandal.

    "what's a woman?" - OMG why are those awful Republicans being so mean?

    1. What is a Leppo anyway? Jeepers that was a stupid ass controversy if there ever was one. But if you recall, immediately before that the media was pounding on him for refusing to state which country he would bomb.

      1. And they always managed to ignore the answer he gave:

        With regards to Syria, I do think that it's a mess. I think the only way to deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that to an end.

      2. Aleppo is a delicious pepper.

  14. Repubs should be careful about wanting to disclose all political donations. It has a chilling effect in California if people find out you're not a Democrat.

  15. Dark Money = some old lady who wants to donate thirty bucks to a campaign. By law her name must be public record. So she make a twenty buck donation instead. The reason there are PACs is to get around the reporting requirements so that you name isn't in the public record for donating twenty one dollars or more.

    Back when I was working on a campaign, I got curious and started looking through the donation list. For everyone. It was crazy. They were all there. Pick a celebrity name, look them up. Don't like your neighbors, look them up. For presidential campaign there were a LOT of celebs that give the max ($2000) to more than one candidate. But a helluva lot of $100 donations. Why the hell are your $100 donations part of the permanent public record?

    People don't like it, so they hide their donation via PACs and direct-to-party donations and other means. It's not "dark" but the media treats it like it's the worst sort of corruption ever. Screw them. I've seen who the donated to. Maybe that's why they all donate in lock step, because they know it's open access to their coworkers. No reporter dares donate to someone outside the approved list, they would be instantly outed and cancelled.

  16. "Dark money" is a red herring, and insulting arrogant one. to make.

    Whatever this dark money is, it isn't effective; they're 'onto it', so why wouldn't others be able to ascertain it's fraudlance as easily?

    If they are not fooled; why would others be fooled?

  17. Remember Eleanor McCullen? She's a prolife sidewalk counsellor who won a First Amendment case in the Supreme Court a few years back.

    Recently she testified in Judge Jackson's hearing to respond to Jackson's nasty characterization of prolife protesters. Her kindly and grandmotherly demeanor was a rebuke to demagogues like Jackson.

    1. Actually, this is good news.
      She should have to recuse from any abortion cases.

  18. This is GREAT NEWS for the Libertarian Party. Ours is the Pressure Group to End All Pressure Groups when it comes to repealing bad laws. A mere 2% to 3% LP spoiler vote count packs all the clout it took to add the two Force Amendments Lysander Spooner warned against. Any math-equipped person can vote libertarian without fear of Army of God snipers, bombers or cowardly girl-bulliers, and the law-changing effect is greatly leveraged. Same goes for contributions to individual candidates or county LPs (but NOT to the LNC).

  19. And if and when that "Dark Money" ever gets exposed the #1 source with be the federal Nazi-Regime itself printing money and packing Gov-Guns of theft.....

    Funny how anyone with 1/2 a brain already knows that...

    Why it wasn't even a month ago; there was a bill to FULLY FUND Nazi-Journalism.. Oh look water is wet!? No..... Who could've guessed that.... We need to open the books and make sure! /s

  20. Yet another "reason" switcheroo -- start off talking about dark money, then switch to the DISCLOSE act, as if dark money and DISCLOSE were exactly the same thing and anything said about one automatically applied to the other.

  21. Anonymous billionaire donors dictating the policies of major political parties = first amendment.

    Teachers reading Heather Has Two Mommies =.BANNED.

    1. So you’re against Bloomberg, Soros, etc.?

      1. I'm against the bad things but I'm even more against only Republicans using them.

        1. Tony Paraphrased, "Nazism good; Individual Liberty bad..."
          Move Tony.............. You do not belong in the USA.

        2. So it’s totally cool that Soros has given over $200 million to his Democracy PAC since it was founded in 2019? It gives money to democrats and democrat groups.

    2. The public should have no control over what is included in g0overnment school curriculum?

      No one is banning a teacher from reading anything on their own time. The employer has some control over what is appropriate for an employee to do in carrying out their job duties.

  22. Putting the column aside, if you think dark money is bad, support democrats, Not only was the Citizen's United ruling passed in the SC by GOP appointed "conservative" judges and opposed by Democratic appointed judges, but ever since, overturning it by legislation has been in the Democrats platform. Just like changes to athletic rules - whether you agree with them or not - even those who disapproved of the changes play by those rules, or lose, and so Democrats now take it, but it corrupts our democracy by giving too much power to the rich few at the expense of the not-rich many.

    "Money doesn't talk, it swears".
    Bob Dylan, "It's All Right Ma (I'm Only Bleeding".

    1. "but it corrupts our democracy by giving too much power to the rich few at the expense of the not-rich many"

      No Joe; Allowing "too much power" of the State is EXACTLY what Democrats have pushed and have turned the USA into...

      Funny how postmortem blaming is the only card left to play... STOP selling out Individual Liberty and Justice for [WE] mob democracy POWER!!! That's gang-land politics and traitorous to the USA's foundation (A CONSTITUTIONAL Union of Republican States).

      1. Tjj, decision about how much power the state has is set by the Constitution with input by voters through elected officials. Your comment is irrelevant to the issue of whether unnamed rich people and interest groups should have more power over our elections.

        1. And exactly what I said; The Democrats have killed the Constitution and championed unlimited Democratic National Socialism instead..

          If the Constitution was still honored there wouldn't be enough Power centralized in D.C. for "unnamed rich people" to even care to be funding mail-in election fraud.. (Yet another Democrat's flagship).

          1. Tjj translated:

            I have nothing to add to the discussion of this issue, so I'll fall back on hyper-partisan attacks that have nothing to do with it.

            1. Project much? Are you going to pretend your original comment wasn't loaded with hyper-partisan bias? Of course you are; I mean heaven forbid you conclude your beloved Democrat party gang-loyalty be Nazi's (National Socialists) and traitors of the USA... I thought the left had already embraced who they are a few years ago.

  23. When They Attack 'Dark Money,' They're Really Attacking Free Speech

    In politics, money is not 'speech'. Money is influence. People like this author will cry out that regulating donations and spending to political groups is going to chill the speech of ordinary Americans. But that is never the issue. How many people even donate nominal amounts like $20 to political advocacy groups? I'm not talking about the ASPCA or churches, but Greenpeace, the Judicial Crisis Network or Demand Justice? The real issue is always the people that donate in the thousands or millions. Those are the people that really fear being exposed for their donations, not you or me. They already have the ability to speak as much as they want, but what they want with their anonymity is to buy influence with government without the average voter knowing that their votes mean less than the money those people are giving.

    1. Jason, +1

    2. Remember that day OBAMA stole the income tax donations to general election campaign funds???

      Yep, Me too; because that's how the Nazi's Roll.

      1. Remember that day OBAMA stole the income tax donations to general election campaign funds???

        I don't "remember" it, because that didn't happen. Whatever you are on about with that, you are clearly distorting reality past the breaking point. I think it is past time I mute you. You just aren't worth listening to.


          Between 1976 and 2012, funds from the program also went to presidential nominating conventions for Democrats and Republicans (along with partial funding going to qualified minor parties), according to the FEC. But in 2014, then-President Barack Obama signed legislation to stop the conventions from receiving these funds.

          These funds have been reallocated in the past. In 2014, the money that would have gone to the presidential nominating conventions was redirected to a 10-year pediatric research initiative from the National Institutes of Health, according to Anna Massoglia, the investigative researcher for OpenSecrets.

  24. Futebol, basquete e tênis são esportes muito emocionantes. Gosto de ver futebol ou ténis e apostar para apoiar a minha equipa favorita. o melhor site onde você pode apostar e apoiar seu time de futebol ou basquete favorito.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.