NYT article: Democrats were originally strongly opposed to dark money in campaigns, but then embraced it as a means of beating Trump.
OK. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s like a rich guy can oppose tax breaks for rich people while at the same time taking advantage of currently legal ones.
Is your question, is that the dumbest article this year or the dumbest article ever?
I mean, if the Republicans and Democrats were AL teams and the Democrats opposed the DL rule, they would be stupid not to use it while it’s still the rule.
If the Democrats beat the Republicans with the same “dark money” the Republicans loved so much when it seemed to help them perhaps Republicans will finally vote to ban this immoral meddling in politics by the filthy rich and everybody will be better off.
If the Democrats became better than the Republicans at gerrymandering, supressing voters (white rural voters, in particular) and Electoral College thumb-scaling those problems would be solved too pretty quickly, I reckon.
The idea seems to be, “We refuse to be ethical if being ethical puts us at a disadvantage.”
Or, “The cost of losing clean is greater than that of winning dirty.”
Anyhow, though - does anyone dispute the facts (or claims) as alleged in the article? The NYT is a pretty reputable source, generally speaking. Not likely that they are making things up.
Looks like you got em. Dems are hypocrites.
If the cost of losing clean is another four years of Trump, I’d say that’s a very high cost.
It’s more like, “unilaterally disarming is a fool’s game.” I mean, I’m generally opposed to nuclear weapons, but I don’t think the US should just give up our stockpile.
You’re asking the Democrats to play by extra special rules while Republicans get to play by the regular rules. It makes no sense.
Democrats: I will abide by regular boxing rules in the MMA ring.
Republicans: [kick democrats in the head, elbow them when they’re on the ground, etc.]
Yeah you play the game as it exists and as the rules are. Just because you want the rules to be different doesn’t mean you just play under your ideal rules.
Is somebody not liking getting a dose of his own medicine*? I must admit I mostly like it when it happens to other people. I will not tell you what my own medicine ist, though.
* Own medicine in ths case: dark money and being a hypocrite. Two for the price of one!
Democrats were opposed to the legality of dark money financing, and still are. There’s nothing hypocritical here – dark money financing should be made illegal, but until it is made illegal, Democrats should do everything they can within the law to win elections.
It’s the same as gerrymandering – gerrymandering is terrible and should be outlawed; until it’s outlawed Democrats with districting powers should do everything they can to advantage Democrats.
Furthermore I would say that Democrats using dark money is the best way to succeed in their goals of making it illegal.
It’s clear that the Republicans policy view rests entirely on the premise that anything that helps them is good policy anything that hurts them is bad policy. If Democrats eschew dark money on ethical grounds then there is absolutely no reason for Republicans to ever support efforts to stop it. If on the other hand Democrats up their game to the point that Dark money is hurting Republicans election chances then there is a chance that its elimination could be supported in a bi-partisan manner, by Democrats on ethical grounds and by Republicans on strategic grounds.
I’d love to peruse this article for the facts/claims, but it’s paywalled. I don’t doubt that the NYT did the due diligence to ensure this article’s factuality (or at least sufficiently where it’s not wildly apocryphal). But I think the reaction you’re going to get from just about everyone (except Sam) is a resigned shrug.
What is going to be interesting relates to @Pardel-Lux’s post above: who is going to be the Repub’s sacrificial lamb in decrying the Democrats’ acceptance of Dirty Filthy Dark Money? Because the inevitable question “Did you have any undisclosed donors in 2020, Senator/Congressman?” is going to bring a lot of bad press in a midterm year. The R’s have enough trouble with Trump Hangover and their constituents dropping from COVID.
Unpaywalled gift link to the article in the OP.
And it would be hilarious if the Democrats start pointing out in their ads that it was paid for by dark money.
“I’m Bob Democrat, and I approve this message, which was paid for by a donation from Foreign Perverts and Socialists, Inc!”
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
You misspelled “bribery”.
All of this boils down to saying, “We trust that they’re trying to do the right thing in the long run.” But it ignores the matter that we’re already in the long run. It’s not 2020, it’s 2022 and the Democrats have put forward election reform law. We don’t have to wonder whether they’re hypocrites nor do we have to defend them as though there’s no way to know whether they’ll do the right thing.
Is dark money on the chopping block in the proposed legislation? We can all just go to Google and find out the answer.
For the record:
In 2019, the DISCLOSE Act requirements were incorporated into the broader For the People Act (H.R. 1), which passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on a party-line 234–193 vote, but did not advance in the then Republican-controlled Senate.
DISCLOSE Act - Wikipedia
In 2021, in the 117th Congress, congressional Democrats reintroduced the act as H.R. 1 and S. 1.[14] On March 3, 2021, the bill passed the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote of 220–210, advancing to the Senate, which is split 50–50 between Democrats and Republicans (Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has the tie-breaking vote[15]), and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to bring it to the floor for a vote. On June 22, 2021, a vote on the bill was held in the Senate. It received unified support from the Democratic caucus, but Senate Republicans blocked the bill with a filibuster, as it lacked the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture after a party-line vote.
For the People Act - Wikipedia