Read on Twitter
We’re going to hear a lot of misleading and disingenuous arguments against #HR1 in the months to come.
But citing the racial violence of the Jim Crow South to defend a broken status quo where an overwhelmingly white donor class buys influence in secret is really something.
But citing the racial violence of the Jim Crow South to defend a broken status quo where an overwhelmingly white donor class buys influence in secret is really something.
This guy is claiming that #HR1's anti-dark money provisions are an abandonment of civil rights principles.
But under HR1, wealthy donors would only be subject to disclosure when they give MORE THAN $10K to groups that spend the money on elections.
Let's be clear…
But under HR1, wealthy donors would only be subject to disclosure when they give MORE THAN $10K to groups that spend the money on elections.
Let's be clear…
…those who can afford to give $10K in political donations are not Amazon warehouse workers or teachers or grassroots organizers.
Instead, they are a largely white cohort of CEOs & lobbyists secretly buying influence to rig the political system in their favor.
Instead, they are a largely white cohort of CEOs & lobbyists secretly buying influence to rig the political system in their favor.
The Hill piece references a longstanding exemption from disclosure for vulnerable groups—like the NAACP in Jim Crow Alabama—that lacked political & economic power and whose members faced violent retribution if their names were disclosed.
HR1 does not change that exemption.
HR1 does not change that exemption.
Moreover, those $10K+ donors subject to disclosure under #HR1, such as the Mercers and other wealthy interests, are not like civil rights activists in the Jim Crow south. They are not marginalized at all. They are some of the richest and most powerful people in the country.
#HR1 takes aim at dark money because secret money in politics warps our democracy and tilts the system in favor of the interests of an elite donor class. The rest of us pay the price--marginalized communities most of all.
Take a look at Wisconsin: https://www.wiscontext.org/how-dark-money-almost-derailed-wisconsin-lead-poisoning-lawsuit
Take a look at Wisconsin: https://www.wiscontext.org/how-dark-money-almost-derailed-wisconsin-lead-poisoning-lawsuit
10% of black children in Milwaukee had lead poisoning, and some were suing a lead paint manufacturer. So a CEO secretly gave Scott Walker's dark money group $750K, and Walker signed a bill immunizing the CEO's company against the lawsuits.
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108899/witnesses/HHRG-116-HA00-Wstate-EarleP-20190214.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108899/witnesses/HHRG-116-HA00-Wstate-EarleP-20190214.pdf
“My clients – lead poisoned children – were not wealthy. They couldn’t possibly afford to match the money from this Texas billionaire. And because the money was given in secret, we couldn’t even call out this apparent pay-to-play.” https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/30/1854342/-Senate-Must-Act-to-Bring-Dark-Money-to-Light
That’s just one glimpse behind the dark money curtain: countless other tragic stories lurk behind the $1 billion in dark money spent in the past decade. #HR1 aims to make sure that stories like this one can’t happen again.
