●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
178913850
story
Posted
by
msmash
ust 28, 2025 @09:40AM
from the influencing-the-influencers dept.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal dark money organization, is paying Democratic influencers up to $8,000 monthly through its Chorus Creator Incubator Program, Wired reports. Contracts prohibit participants from disclosing their payments or identifying funders, the publication added. The program launched last month includes over 90 creators with a collective audience exceeding 40 million followers. Influencers must attend advocacy trainings and messaging check-ins while Chorus retains approval rights over political content made with program resources. The Sixteen Thirty Fund distributed over $400 million to left-leaning causes in 2020.
You may like to read:
Apple Pulls iPhone Torrent App From AltStore PAL in Europe
Apple Warns UK Against Introducing Tougher Tech Regulation
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
This has been a tactic on the opposite side of the aisle for decades. At this point why should we care in the slightest?
twitter
facebook
byTablizer ( 95088 ) writes:
It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
It has been used by both Democrats and Republicans for decades. It's wrong no matter who does it.
Why should you care? Because how you fucking win matters, shithead.
It's remarkable how Machiavellian certain liberal elements became when we lost to Trump. It's pretty disheartening.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byregistrations_suck ( 1075251 ) writes:
At this point why should we care in the slightest?
I don't care in the slightest.
byShaitan ( 22585 ) writes:
The opposite side of the isle? I think you are confused, this tactic has been on the same side of the isle all along. Advocate billionaires are mostly a leftie thing. That's why the top 1% experienced more wealth growth under Biden than at any point in modern history while the middle to upper middle working class all had their jobs insourced and the entire working class were told they 'can afford it' as inflation soared 26% in 4yrs. They only want class migration to happen in one direction and want the popu
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Because if this group is a foreign government its literally illegal.
I remember that same busted-ass talking point during the 2000 presidential campaign, levied without evidence against Gore.
If you don't like it, why don't you push for Citizens United to be overturned through legislation. Otherwise shut up or get some new material.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
You mean this case? https://www.latimes.com/archiv... [latimes.com]
byrta ( 559125 ) writes:
That's a good article. I didn't know/remember about it.
one paragraph from it, about the $710K in fines levied:
The total in fines would have been significantly higher except that some of the corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries. Foreign individuals and organizations are barred from contributing to federal elections. In some cases, foreigners who would have been subject to fines could not be located and served with papers. In other cases, which sometimes produced minor news coverage, the individuals pleaded guilty in criminal cases and are bankrupt.
byShaitan ( 22585 ) writes:
Should mod up informative. The claim was not only without evidence but resulted in fines being levied because it was true.
bywhoever57 ( 658626 ) writes:
If you don't like it, why don't you push for Citizens United to be overturned through legislation. Otherwise shut up or get some new material.
You would have more credibility if you actually understood what happened with Citizens United. The law limiting campaign contributions was largely overturned in Citizens United on constitutional grounds. So new legislation will change nothing. This leaves two possibilities:
1. Stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn it (like the fate of Roe vs. Wade)
2. Change the Constitution.
Neither are likely to happen for decades.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byWCLPeter ( 202497 ) writes:
I'm Canadian, but I'll write it as though I'm in the US - or at least try to - so as to reduce confusion.
1. Stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn it (like the fate of Roe vs. Wade)
2. Change the Constitution.
3. Elections are now publicly funded.
(一)1. Media, both physical and digital, organizations are required to provide a reasonable amount of free advertising space to local, and federal leadership, candidates starting six weeks prior to the election date. No campaign advertising is permitted outside this timeframe; yeah yeah, First Amendment, but if we're already modifying the Constitution might as well add some language regarding election campaign speech.
(二)2. All campaign paraphernalia: posters, signs, buttons, etc... will be provided to the potential candidate by both the state and federal government.
(三)3. To prevent an unfair advantage to any one candidate, they will receive the same predetermined stipend to be spent on incidental items not covered as campaign paraphernalia: food, hall rentals, music licensing, safety inspections, transportation costs (I'm thinking presidential and senate races should be government covered due to the large amount of travel they need to do during the campaign).
(四)4. All candidates will provide a detailed account of how the allocated incidental campaign funds were used, any significant expenses outside of typical campaign activities are fraudulent and will be prosecuted; I don't want to see someone who swiped the wrong card at dinner get busted, but we also want to make sure people don't have a way to transfer the funds offshore and bolt.
(五)5. Any candidate who has failed to win three consecutive elections will be barred from participating for ten years.
(六)6. Should any successful candidate elected to office create, and have passed, legislation which is later adjudicated to have violate constitutional rights and no appeals are remaining will immediately be removed from office and barred for life from running for office. If the next election if more than six months away after this occurrence, a new election will take place in the affected area within six months. Additional campaign funding will be provided due to the shorter timelines a "snap election" calls for.
Unfortunately I'm not sure how we cover off independents, potential new candidates, or the creation of new parties. You can't make people pay to run for office, though the system is largely pay to win anyway, since anyone is supposed to be able to run. At the same time we also don't want thousands of people applying to be a candidate, we'd need some way to weed out the "joke" candidates from the ones who are actually serious. I'd also like to see a proficiency test which proves candidates have a general idea of the existing laws, both at the state and federal level, and what the Constitution does and does not allow but again I'm not sure that would be legal since anyone is supposed to be able to run.
Either way, when it comes to elections, the only way to fix the problems we have now is to get private money taken entirely out of campaigning and elections.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) writes:
3. Elections are now publicly funded.
Well, yes and no. Candidates can opt-out of that public funding. Obama did exactly that (he was the first to do so [npr.org]), as did Trump.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by2TecTom ( 311314 ) writes:
great conclusion, maybe people should start a 'defund politics' movement
bytendrousbeastie ( 961038 ) writes:
How is all that not a violation of the US constitution?
byNabeel_co ( 1045054 ) writes:
You would have more credibility if you actually understood what happened with Citizens United.
Ditto. The whole premise of Citizens United v. FEC is that corporations are people who are engaged in speech.
Corporations are NOT people, and CAN NOT engage in speech.
People pushing for corporations do be seen as people who have speech, simply want to have more than one voice, as the rest of us do.
Next they'll be lobbying that corporations should be able to vote in elections.
It's an insane argument to make.
byShaitan ( 22585 ) writes:
A corporation must be registered and formed under state law and then provides state granted liability protection to the owners. That makes it a state created public entity not a private one.
That's the reality and that is why corporations have basis to claim constitutional protections. But you won't find many pro-business republicans who want that to become recognized and the billionaire cabal that runs the global liberal regime certainly doesn't want that either. The magnitude of the disruption of ruling wi
byjrifkin ( 100192 ) writes:
Sorry. I don't follow. Are you arguing that corporations should have the same rights as people? And, if so, why? And if not, why not?
bykenh ( 9056 ) writes:
A corporation is comprised of people, the corporation should have the same, not fewer rights as a person does.
It simply lets PRIVATE corporations do the same things as labor unions can - should unions be kept out of politics? If you say yes, I'll consider repealing citizens united for PRIVATE corporations.
(Public corporations are not covered by CU)
byjbengt ( 874751 ) writes:
A corporation is comprised of people, the corporation should have the same, not fewer rights as a person does.
OK. As soon as you eliminate the limited liability of the shareholders, giving those people comprising the corporation the same responsibilities as other people, then we can talk about the corporation comprised by people having the same rights as a person does.
byoneiros27 ( 46144 ) writes:
Corporations can have free speech once someone can figure out how to apply the death penalty to a corporation. Until then, it shouldn't have the rights of people.
Let's consider for a moment:
Imagine if a corporation can outright lie to you about what they're selling, and then claim free speech when they're found to be lying.
"Made in America!"
"Gluten Free!"
"Does not contain rodent droppings or insect parts above the legal limits set by the FDA"
"Will not cause hair loss"
"Does not cause birth defects"
"Will not
bykenh ( 9056 ) writes:
Why do you imagine a corporation can lie and escape liability because of Citizens United?
byoneiros27 ( 46144 ) writes:
It has nothing to do with Citizen's United. It's a push by some groups (likely people who control corporations) to try to claim that corporations should have rights that we give to people.
If you give freedom of speech to corporations, then truth in advertising laws fall apart.
byArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) writes:
Corporations are NOT people, and CAN NOT engage in speech.
Does this treat all corporations equally? Because if so that also includes charities, labor unions, newspapers and interest groups like the American civil liberties union, all of which are corporations in every sense of the word.
byalexgieg ( 948359 ) writes:
there was no historical basis supporting the supposed 'right.'
I thought Constitutional rights in the US were eternal and self-evident, not historically determined, aka, the 9th Amendment's "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When did the US legal tradition transition from jusnaturalism, that is, recognizing rights as having always existed irrespective of previous government having been aware of their existence or not, to juspositivism, in which rights are arbitrarily grante
bykenh ( 9056 ) writes:
(Hit send too soon)
When Roe v Wade was overturned the abortion debate was delegated to the 50 states, exactly where it should be... If you want to change that, if you want to amend the constitution go for it! But fair warning, it's non-trivial.
byalexgieg ( 948359 ) writes:
What part of "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" isn't clear?
If the people have had from eternity a right granted by nature/a god, they have that right. No legal system can remove that right legitimately. They can remove that right illegitimately, but then that makes the law that removed the right simply an invalid law.
If you want, look into the Bible. It makes it clear there that abortion isn't murder, but loss
bysimlox ( 6576120 ) writes:
Who oversees the judges making political rulings? We have the same kind of problems in Europe with the EU court and the human rights court, which both keep broadening the interpretation of their charter.
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
You [TWX] are so cute when you feed the AC troll or sock puppet. Maybe its hairdresser knows for sure, but why should anyone care?
As for the story, the obligatory joke I was looking for is the fresh Subject. Also lots of joke turf around not getting any value from their investments. At least if that "Democratic" is referring to the large-D political "party" in America, they sure ain't bought much influence that I can detect anywhere.
But there is a related joke floating around here, if only I could execute h
byrsilvergun ( 571051 ) writes:
When Tim pool got outed as a Russian asset. Tucker Carlson too but I mean at that point we already knew it was just getting formalized.
And there were a couple dozen other popular right wing YouTubers and pundits who got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars directly from Russia State media without disclosing it.
I'm not really calling out right wing hypocrisy because the right wing is completely incapable of the emotions of shame and self-awareness that are associated with hypocrisy.
I mo
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
You mean this - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r... [cbsnews.com] - where all of six podcasters were deceived by an intermediary about where funding was coming from? Those six (not dozens) say they didn't know RT was providing the funds, and it looks like at least a couple of them were also suing the intermediary for lying to them.
Russia seems mostly concerned with widening the partisan gap and tossing monkey wrenches into whatever they can. They throw money at some right-wing podcasters, throw some more to BLM. They aren't trying to bolster one side or the other, they just want to make a mess. They want to discredit our political system so Russians won't want to try voting for someone other than Putin.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Did any of them have the cognition to recognize that if an adversarial nation was bolstering what they were espousing through a cut-out that meant no direct instructions, that perhaps what they were blathering is bad for our nation and good for that adversary?
bygoldspider ( 445116 ) writes:
It speaks volumes about who MAGA looks up to as their thought leaders, and it's perfectly on-brand that those people are as easy marks as their followers.
bygoldspider ( 445116 ) writes:
I maintain that boast remains objectively true (yes, in spite of Biden's decline) every time your guy opens his fool, lying mouth.
byjacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) writes:
If you read the bipartisan reports on interference in 2016 while there is some both sides stuff Russia was largely working to the support of Trump which logically tracks, Hillary was far more hawkish on Russia.
Also let's not forget that Roger Stone working with Trump was in contact with Russian state actors to slow drop the release of hacked DNC info and when caught proceeded to both ignore Congressional subpoenas, intimidated a witness to not testify and then received a full pardon from Trump.
Also those podcasters are either complicit or so goddamned stupid to not consider why this org was paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars for mere hours of content on a channel that received views barely into the tens of thousands. Tim and Benny are clowns.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bystrikethree ( 811449 ) writes:
They want to discredit our political system so Russians won't want to try voting for someone other than Putin.
Anything that Russia is doing regarding propaganda is utterly useless compared to the actual damage being done by the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. They have discredited themselves all on their own.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymemory_register ( 6248354 ) writes:
Receipts please. Also calling someone a Russian asset means nothing to the average person. I assume you said it because it probably carries a lot of emotional weight for someone who really follows politics, but for the rest of us it sounds like inside baseball that does not change the price of eggs or gas.
byArchangel Michael ( 180766 ) writes:
Russia is a nothing country with Nukes. That is the ONLY thing that gives them any strength. Pakistan might have just as much influence as Russia at this point for the same reason.
If you think Russia propaganda has any influence on 162 Million voters enough to change anything (2024), please keep spewing that opinion.
byKsevio ( 865461 ) writes:
It's pretty well documented that Russia runs troll farms spreading propaganda and pushing messages - AND that people are listening to them. You can keep sticking your head in the sand or come to realize that there are people (no not everyone gullible enough to vote for Trump) swayed by Russian influence.
byKsevio ( 865461 ) writes:
That's a great example. Lots of people that ended up voting made Hunter's laptop their top issue because that was a big fake scandal that Russia pushed. Normally sharing private photos from a stolen laptop would result in criminal charges, but Republicans/Russians worked hard to normalize that in a last ditch effort to swing the election.
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
Yes, because there's absolutely no foreign influence coming in on the right.
How about we get all dark money out of politics and remove all the corruption at once? Sounds good, right? Then let's overturn Citizens United.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
It wouldn't have that effect. All Citizens United did was restate the 2000+ year old definition of a corporation - a single legal person comprised of multiple individuals organized for a specific purpose. Or to put it another way, corporations have always been legal persons, that's their definition and purpose. Pick a group that supports the same causes you do. Maybe it's The Sierra Club or Greenpeace, doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are incorporated and donate to support their causes.
byChaset ( 552418 ) writes:
My opinion is that this is stupid. People who comprise corporations already have a voice as individuals. They can always take money out of their own pockets to support the causes they want to support. If they want, just have the corporation pay them additional salary/fees that they can then donate. Allowing corporations to donate money gives those who control corporations influence above and beyond their influence as individuals. In effect, they get to leverage the resources of all of the shareholders
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Contribution limits still apply. Just because you control a multi-billion-dollar corporation doesn't mean you can use it to violate those limits. And your idea of giving employees extra to donate would also violate campaign finance law. You weren't the first to think of it.
Also, keep in mind that the eponymous Citizens United is not a business. It's a 501c4 nonprofit corporation, like the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and AARP. (https://nonprofitlawblog.com/501c4-social-welfare-
bystabiesoft ( 733417 ) writes:
Pity we don't take it that literally. Otherwise many would have been executed now for murder. Boeing comes to mind off the top of my head. Tesla too I guess with their self driving murders. The opiod people, the asbestos people, the cigarette people. Why are they all still alive? I vote for a lethal injections for them.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Well, it would be a revocation of their corporate charter and business licenses, not lethal injection. That said, there is some merit to the idea of dismantling a corporation for wrongdoing. The downside, which I think is why we don't do it, is that there could be thousands of completely innocent employees who would lose their livelihoods. And God only knows how many unrelated retirement accounts could be wiped out. Might be better to slightly limit the limits on executive liability. As it stands (to m
byNagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) writes:
Because they don't want to get rid of "dark money" they just want to use whataboutism to justify using it themselves. And by "they" I mean everybody.
bywiggles ( 30088 ) writes:
Rule 1 of politics: Accuse the other side of what you yourself are in fact doing.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byabulafia ( 7826 ) writes:
You seem to believe this is still a country of laws. That's only illegal if the money flows to Democrats.
Planes, crypto, buckets of cash - well, when King Shitlizard does it, it isn't illegal, and will stomp on you if you disagree in public.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygoldspider ( 445116 ) writes:
Let's start with Russia. [cbsnews.com]
bydmomo ( 256005 ) writes:
Big Dark Money on both sides of the aisle.
One Nation — boosts Republican/Conservative Senate allies.
Majority Forward — boosts Democratic/Liberal Senate allies.
Americans for Prosperity — Koch network; backs conservative/Republican causes.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — pro-business; often Republicans, sometimes centrist Democrats.
All of these have strong digital outreach spending. It's hard to pin this to actual "influencers", but it definitely funds advertising, and influencers are definitely paid, if not directly. Though, if I had to wager, i would put my chips on the fact that they are also being paid directly by both sides. But i'm willing to admit I cannot cite direct evidence of that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byjenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) writes:
I see. Can you name any of the dark money orgs funding right wing influencers? If we're going to be pointing fingers, let's get them all out in the open so everyone can be more aware.
How about AIPAC? PAC payments don't have to be under the table in order to be 'dark'.
Israel is paying many American politicians and influencers lots of money to soft-peddle Israel's actions and to deny that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Israel lets these people know in no uncertain terms that they have to say certain things and vote in certain ways if they want the gravy train to keep rolling.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
AIPAC is not funded by Israel. It's funded by Americans that support Israel.
There are infinite reasons why some Americans would support Israel no matter what they did. The largest are ethnic and religious.
The US has a huge religious component that believes the coming of Christ requires certain Old Testament messianic prophecies coming true. These generally require the Jews to triumph in The Holy Land.
The US also has a huge ethnic component- Jews who came here fleeing genocide and persecution, who have Zionist beliefs.
I wouldn't send a dime to Israel, personally, or if I were King of the US- they're an Apartheid state that needs to feel the isolation their decisions should be bringing them if not for the US.
You are walking dangerously close to "A Jewish Cabal Runs The US".
It was antisemitic trash when certain members of the Squid intimated it, and it's antisemitic trash now.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Holy shit. That's quite fascist of you.
It has an entire world of difference, you degenerate wannabe.
Americans have the right to support Israel. Israel does not have the right to influence our elections.
byregistrations_suck ( 1075251 ) writes:
Why doesn't it?
From whence does such a right derive?
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Why doesn't it?
Why does it?
No country has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of another.
There are accepted exceptions to this (democratically on the world stage- UNSC for example, its major flaws notwithstanding)
Are you actually arguing that countries have the right to interfere in each other's regime selection processes?
byregistrations_suck ( 1075251 ) writes:
Why doesn't it?
Why does it?
No country has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of another.
Says who?
Are you actually arguing that countries have the right to interfere in each other's regime selection processes?
Of course they do.
It's also been going on ever since more than one country existed.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Says who?
That's literally how sovereignty is defined.
Of course they do.
You're an idiot.
It's also been going on ever since more than one country existed.
Indeed it has.
People have trampled upon the rights of others for as long as rights were recognized. Sovereignty has been trampled upon since the dawn of sovereignty.
People disrespecting the rights of others doesn't somehow indicate that those rights don't exist.
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
AIPAC is acting on behalf of Israel and everyone recognizes that. If you still insist there is a difference, then go start PAC for any country that is designated by US a State Sponsor of Terrorism and write from jail when they jail you for that. Yet, you can still march in support of any of these countries.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
And I have a feeling that you're likely an antisemitic piece of shit, because Israel is not acting on behalf of Israel.
AIPAC is acting on behalf of Americans who wish for their country to support Israel.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Bah- AIPAC is not acting on behalf of Israel.
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
AIPAC is not acting on behalf of Israel.
This simply does not pas the laugh test.
byCan'tNot ( 5553824 ) writes:
I think you've gone overboard here. Yes, the distinction between working for and working on behalf does matter a bit in the technical sense (though this is the same excuse that's used to justify super PACs...), but it's not such a big difference and the line is blurred here anyway.
For example, AIPAC spent $40 million to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. That's explicitly pushing Israeli policy goals. Or maybe I should say Netanyahu's policy goals, he thanked AIPAC explicitly for their help when
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
I think you've gone overboard here. Yes, the distinction between working for and working on behalf does matter a bit in the technical sense (though this is the same excuse that's used to justify super PACs...), but it's not such a big difference and the line is blurred here anyway.
It matters entirely. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
This is how the Committee of Unamerican Activities came to be.
For example, AIPAC spent $40 million to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. That's explicitly pushing Israeli policy goals. Or maybe I should say Netanyahu's policy goals, he thanked AIPAC explicitly for their help when he gave a speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference. It's hard to argue that these are just independent Americans acting independently. Even super PACs are seldom that blatant about their coordination.
Americans have the right to agree with Israeli policy.
Do you think those elected are the only ones allowed to have opinions on foreign affairs?
Also, you said something above that was a little thought provoking. "Americans have the right to support Israel." ... Do they? I don't see why Americans would have the right to support a foreign country. I guess this depends heavily on how you're using the word "support," but ultimately Americans are expected to have allegiance to one country only. As you point out, someone who has allegiance to another country can't be trusted to vote.
Of course they do, insomuch as at least to have a political opinion about them. Lobbying is an extension of your first amendment.
Material support is another matter. This is not material support.
Claims that AIPAC is a front for Israel are as o
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Opposing it isn't antisemitic. That's not what I said.
I oppose the fuck out of it.
I said that calling it a "front for Israel" is likely the uttering of an antisemitic piece of shit.
That's pretty standard Cabal of Jews bullshit.
What you call "obviously", the parent is literally arguing against.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Also, there are many PACs that are pro-[state sponsor of terror].
There is nothing illegal about that.
Pro-Cuba PACs come to mind.
This is the United States, our citizens are allowed to have opinions. You cannot provide material aid to a state sponsor of terror, but that doesn't somehow turn into, "you're not allowed to have a political opinion about them".
Seriously- you are human fucking trash.
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
You are conflating individuals voicing opinions and AIPAC enacting (in coordination with [timesofisrael.com]) Israeli government's agenda.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
It is entirely consistent to love and respect a mix of all 3 elements. But equally we shouldn't turn a blind eye to a barbaric war on Gaza, every soldier is responsible for the lives they take - look it up it's one of the 10 commandments about killing.
Nobody said that.
Rather, the barbaric war in Gaza should not be used to try to impugn the political rights of Americans to disagree on whether its barbaric.
You and I agree that it's barbaric.
Those that support AIPAC do not. And that's their fucking right.
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
Completely ignoring the very public outing of several Tighty-Righty "influencers" taking direct money from Russia [npr.org] to spread their talking points, we can also probably include the $1.6B or so that Leonard Leo got for his SuperPAC through Federalist Society contancts, where that same Society's tax status forbids political activism. [politico.com]
But yeah, let's try to "bothsides" it like absolute morons rather than fix the problem, which is mountains of money being dumped into elections from many questionable sources.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bysg_oneill ( 159032 ) writes:
I see. Can you name any of the dark money orgs funding right wing influencers? If we're going to be pointing fingers, let's get them all out in the open so everyone can be more aware.
Koch Brothers
Americans for liberty
Heratige foundation
ALEC (that ones a more direct polticians, rather than influencer one, but its super pernicious)
Thomas W Smith foundation
Tenet Media (russian inflence op)
Atlas Network
Fraser Institute
The list goes on..
byZ80a ( 971949 ) writes:
Specially given it's a country that has literally just two parties.
twitter
facebook
bydwpro ( 520418 ) writes:
Literally not true, but certainly the two parties have the bulk of the power. I vote for the apparently non-existent libertarian party candidate whenever he or she is not a nut job.
byTheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) writes:
So... never?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPowercntrl ( 458442 ) writes:
I vote for the apparently non-existent libertarian party candidate whenever he or she is not a nut job.
If you're just going to vote for the candidate who is going to step aside and let the oligarchs do whatever they want, you may as well vote Republican. Libertarian voters mostly tend to be in the same circus tent with Republicans, they just can't stomach the freak show.
byawwshit ( 6214476 ) writes:
We have multiple parties, just two that dominate. They have successfully convinced people that they need to get on their team to beat the other guys. We end up mostly voting against things and people rather than voting for things. Ranked Choice voting would be an improvement.
bypolyp2000 ( 444682 ) writes:
If they are being funded by "Dark Money" then they are not democratic.
Article is using the wrong term to describe them.
byDamnOregonian ( 963763 ) writes:
Conflating Democratic with democratic (big D vs. small D) is not clever.
You know better.
byalgebrat ( 6236948 ) writes:
My idea is to create a grassroots version of ALEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
ALEC is a billionaire-funded organization that creates 'model legislation', hands it to representatives at all levels of government, and says: "introduce this or we will fund your primary opponent". Famous examples which passed include the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, Right to Work in Wisconsin, and the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
My idea:
1. Web app where users enter a bill idea for the local/county/state level (federal is hopeless)
2. Runs it through an LLM trained on a corpus of laws for that jurisdiction
3. Generate a model bill with references to existing laws, similar to what a legislative aide would do
4. Once complete, pick a representative you'd like to introduce it
5. A GoFundMe-type interface which fundraises to get the bill introduced
6. If the rep introduces the bill, the donated money goes to their next campaign. If not, it goes to their primary opponent (if there is one, obvs)
Anyone is free to run with this independently if they want.
twitter
facebook
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
You would have company, as you're not the first to have the idea, and eventually your organization would be dominated by wealthy donors. ALEC was not founded by billionaires, just review the paragraphs on its history in the wikipedia page you linked, but over time any such organization is going to be funded more and more by the wealthy as they are the ones who can do it.
Just keep in mind that they are generally going to donate because they agree and want to help, rather than doing it to take over and red
byi_ate_god ( 899684 ) writes:
This is how America works. Spending money in the name of political promotion is protected speech in America.
twitter
facebook
byMax_W ( 812974 ) writes:
Because of these dark money organizations and paid influencers the articles, discussions, news stopped being interesting.
Normally a person have doubts sometimes, change mind from time to time, but not anymore: everything sounds on the same note to please a supervisor.
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
everything sounds on the same note to please a supervisor.
Zampolit.
bythrasher thetic ( 4566717 ) writes:
Gotta replace that USAID funding somehow.
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
... the reincarnation of ShareBlue? Because those people have shuffled money and personnel around between organizations faster than a Soviet spy changed passports trying to make it over the border.
twitter
facebook
byTony Isaac ( 1301187 ) writes:
Calling it a "dark money organization" is pejorative and meaningless. There is no definition of what makes an organization a "dark money" organization, other than that it does something you (the author) disagree with.
And if the funding is so secret, how is it a slashdot headline? Clearly, it's not a secret.
The political affiliation isn't relevant here, the same principles would apply whether the organization was left-aligned or right-aligned.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
The idea is that "dark money" networks don't necessarily identify who is putting up the money. If any part of the org deliberately obscures who put up the money or who gets the money, then there is a potential problem. Reread the summary at the very least, maybe it'll make more sense in that light.
Apparently Sixteen Thirty is less interested in shielding the identities of its donors and more interested in hiding who actually gets the money. Did you suspect that George Soros is involved with this group? I
bygoldspider ( 445116 ) writes:
What, did you think Citizens United would only allow conservative organizations to conceal their funding sources?
byMirnotoriety ( 10462951 ) writes:
Notable donors include billionaires like Hansjörg Wyss, George Soros, and Pierre Omidyar.
byDuroSoft ( 1009945 ) writes:
Funniest phrase I ever heard
bydamn_registrars ( 1103043 ) writes:
You forgot to tell us how this ties in to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, to Hillary Clinton's email server, to Hunter Biden's laptop, to Benghazi, to the Iluminati, and to pizzagate. But it's still enough to get us to forget about the thousands of illegal acts that have been partaken or endorsed by the current administration, right?
Yes, I know I'm going to get downmodded into oblivion on this. Go ahead, bring it.
byBaloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) writes:
Don't have to be a Democrat, just not a fan of antiamerican asshats like fascists or white-collar felons, or as they're known when they're elected, Republicans.
byPowercntrl ( 458442 ) writes:
Nope, the author of the article is one of those folks who believes the Democratic Party needs to position itself further to the left. Never underestimate the ability of liberals to make perfect the enemy of good. People on the far left complaining about the Democratic Party can often sound indistinguishable from the criticisms of the right.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Sounds like she's on her way to Owensville, if you catch my drift.
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
Who's to say we're OK with it?
Unfortunately based on both written law and interpretation by the court setting precedent, it is the way it is. At some point you're a fool to not use the tools available to you when they're demonstrated to be effective.
I would love for Citizens United to go away, and I'd love for lobbying to be determined to be bribery where campaign contributions are involved, but that's not the way it is right now, and the political right has been using this tactic since the Dubya's administration. At this point the Democrats may as well use it too.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
More than that, if you want it to ever change, one party cannot unilaterally "disarm" and put themselves at a disadvantage by ceding the electoral ground in order to hold a morally superior position.
The way the electorate votes in the current climate is that moral superiority doesn't win. And nothing changes if the current power holders stay in power, as the current situation was completely structured by one particular political party, and more specifically by 5 unelected guys wearing black robes striking
byoldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) writes:
fascism? really?
byGlennC ( 96879 ) writes:
Here's the definition of Fascism:
A far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist political ideology. Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Which parts do not describe the current occupant of the White House?
Source: ahref=https://en.wikipedia.org/wik [slashdot.org]
byoldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) writes:
really?
byGlennC ( 96879 ) writes:
Doing away with fascism is good.
Reverting back to oligarchy is only setting the stage for fascism's return.
We can't just relieve the symptoms. We have to remove the underlying disease, which in this case is the rampant corruption that has been infecting the United States for generations.
byPowercntrl ( 458442 ) writes:
The "Big Beautiful Bill" passed. Might be time to get over that whole tire particles thing if you're even slightly considering upgrading to an EV, because both the new and used EV credits are going away as part of that.
What isgoing on right now that the Trump administration might want a distraction from is the drama at the CDC. Something about making America healthy again by letting most people go unvaccinated against Covid. *rolls eyes*
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
Every time I see a flood of press attacking the Democrat party
Oh how the left screamed when the likes of Rush Limbaugh called it that.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
211 commentsHow Democrats and Republicans Cite Science
●
206 commentsDemocrats Warn Their Party May Try To Unravel Any Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal
●
173 commentsRepublicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Allegations of Organized Bias
●
163 commentsMichael and Susan Dell Donate $6.25 Billion To Encourage Families To Claim 'Trump Accounts'
●
110 commentsAn Independent Effort Says AI Is the Secret To Topple 2-Party Power In Congress
Apple Warns UK Against Introducing Tougher Tech Regulation
Apple Pulls iPhone Torrent App From AltStore PAL in Europe
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
The Force is what holds everything together. It has its dark side, and
it has its light side. It's sort of like cosmic duct tape.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Apple Warns UK Against Introducing Tougher Tech Regulation
45comments
Apple Pulls iPhone Torrent App From AltStore PAL in Europe
31comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...