the record is built. people can follow the money. at least super pacs are required to disclose the names of the donors so we know where that money is coming from. sheila is executive director of the center for responsive politics, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks political spending through its website opensecrets.org. according to her, the money unleashed by citizens united has also flowed freely into nonprofit social welfare groups that are not required to make their donors public. we think of a group like planned parenthood or the national rifle association, which has a social welfare purpose. they are not organized primarily to influence politics, but they re allowed some political activity. there has been a huge spike in politically active social
the money unleashed by citizens united has flowed into nonprofit social welfare groups that are not required to make their donors s public. planned parenthood or the nra has a social welfare purpose. they re not organized primarily to influence politics, but they re allowed some political activity. there has been a huge spike in politically active social welfare group. there are some that seem to have no purpose other than to allow dark money to flood into the political system. they sometimes are spending tens of millions of dollars, but they have no bricks and mortar. they operate out of p.o. box. these are the trademark qualities of a political community. what is the difference between what you re describing
separate, that it s independent is an absurdity. this is why disclosure is so important. the record is built. people can follow the money. at least super pacs are required to disclose the names of the donors so we know where that money is coming from. sheila is executive director of a nonpartisan research organization that tracks. the money unleashed by citizens united has flowed into nonprofit social welfare groups that are not required to make their donors s public. planned parenthood or the nra has a social welfare purpose. they re not organized primarily to influence politics, but they re allowed some political activity. there has been a huge spike in politically active social welfare group.
being a 501c4, these nonprofit social welfare organizations, you don t have to disclose your donors. if you look at what these groups were asked, they were asked for donors, membership lists. they wanted to know members of congress who supported these specific groups. maybe they were trying to determine whether they were political in nature. by the way, i don t think anyone will disagree with you even if they think they should be looking at them that they shouldn t be looking at groups on the left, too. it should be even-handed, of course. this is not about republican versus democrat or irs versus tea party or tea party versus barack obama. this is about our first amendment rights as americans. every american should be concerned right now because it doesn t matter what side of the aisle you stand on, the shoe could be on the other foot next cycle. you could have a republican president using is your tea party organization a social welfare organization? our tea party organizati
republican senators seemed to wait to see which way the wind was tweeting before climbing aboard. while the nrsc was raising money, this morning, it said, if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than fire up impressionable college kids in their dorms, he needs to know what he s talking about. organizing for action has received blistering criticism for offering potential access to big donors. today former obama campaign manager in the organizing for action national chairman jim mesena, cites, it doesn t get to the larger criticism that campaign advocates are upset about. while organizing for action is a nonprofit social welfare