Home | About | Donate

Think Dishonest Politics and Dark Money Elections Bad Now? Court Ruling Opens Flood Gates for 'Scam PACs'

Think Dishonest Politics and Dark Money Elections Bad Now? Court Ruling Opens Flood Gates for 'Scam PACs'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

A federal judge on Thursday struck down FEC regulations barring unauthorized political action committees from using a candidate's name to mislead voters and attract donations, a ruling critics warned could lead to the proliferation of "scam PACs."

1 Like

One way to determine if an organization is a scam or not is whether or not they ask for your money.

For example, there is an organization available for citizens to join that provides a website for citizens to commit to only vote for small donor candidates in 2020 (www.onedemand.org). Citizens can also pledge to contribute to small donor candidates.

There is a difference between a small donor candidate and a small contribution candidate. A small donor candidate limits the total contributions from an individual while a small contribution candidate receives small contributions from donors that make many small contributions that total in the hundreds or thousands of dollars up to the legal limit.

A donor could make a 50 dollar contribution every week from now until this time next year and have an average contribution of 50 dollars but total contributions over 2000 dollars and up to the legal limit.

This is not a small donor.

And a candidate that touts their average contributions while still having large donors making many small contributions is trying to pass off a small contribution campaign as if it were a small donor campaign.

A candidate that makes the commitment to run a small donor campaign should be able to get 5% of voters to contribute 100 dollars to their campaign.

For example, Bernie Sanders could declare that he will run a small donor campaign in 2020 limiting total contributions from any one person to 200 dollars per campaign (200 primary, 200 general).

He should be able to get 5% of voters to contribute an average of 100 dollars in small contributions.

After all, does any candidate that can’t get 5% of voters to contribute around 100 dollars to their campaign deserve to be president?

And if 5% of citizens will not contribute 100 dollars to a candidate that would make this commitment do we deserve to have small donor candidates instead of small contribution candidates pretending to be small donor candidates?

Bernie could return all contributions already received in excess of 200 dollars and encourage those donors and others that can afford more than 200 dollars to instead contribute this money to candidates for Congress and the Senate that join him in making the small donor commitment- even to his primary opponents that make this commitment.

While the large donors to a campaign like Bernie’s may have the best of intentions in mind, they are providing cover in some campaigns for large donors with nefarious purposes in mind.

As there are no large donors to a small donor campaign there is no concern about the intentions of the large donors to that campaign.

By encouraging the large donors with the best of intentions to instead make small contributions to many small donor candidates it increases the chances of success for many small donor candidates making it more about changing the whole system rather than just a presidential campaign. And instead of unintentionally providing cover for large donors with nefarious intentions those able to afford more than 200 dollars will only be helping those that can only afford to be small donors or can’t afford to be donors at all.

The big money interests work across state and district lines so there is no reason small donors can’t help each other out across state and district lines.

If 10% of voters were to pledge 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates at the One Demand website it would total over 1 billion
dollars. If this happened before January of 2020 there would be many candidates that might make the small donor commitment to get some of this money and the votes that go with it.

And this where we finally return to the subject at hand- is this a scam to get citizens to send One Demand over 1 billion dollars?

If so it’s the stupidest scam of all time.

Because the participants will only pledge on the website to contribute to the small donor candidates. The participants will send their actual contributions DIRECTLY to the candidates and not through the organization to spend for them. This gives the participants control of who they support and relieves the organization for the responsibility for all that money.

Citizens can choose to support scam PACs and candidates or take action now to create and demonstrate demand for honest small donor candidates.

I can understand why a proliferation of scam PACs would have the effect of diverting donor money away from real PAC’s and reducing public confidence in PACs, thereby reducing the ability of authentic PACs to influence elections and buy political power.

The part I’m a bit fuzzy on is why this would be a bad thing.


The Theater is Kabuki

I’m beginning to think that the system is SO RIGGED at this point, we will never fix it. It’s impossible. And any "happy talk’ or optimism is a sign of pathological delusion

1 Like

The billboards to impeach the perverts and other right wingers on the Supreme
Court should be going up NOW!
Clarence Thomas – sexual harasser of females at the OOEC –
and Joe Biden who put him on the Court by preventing the dozen or more women
who would have testified to their knowledge of, or personal experience of harassment
by Thomas. Biden promised Prof. Anita Hill’s legal representatives that these witnesses
would be heard – they were standing by at 12 am when Biden entered a ridiculous
conversation with an AA male who was there to lie about Prof. Hill. Even the lie was a dud.
But at 4am, Biden then shut down the hearing without calling the women to testify.

As Sen. Paul Simon made clear afterward, had the Congress known the full information
that the Hearings had produced, Thomas would never have reached the SC.

And, I’m sure that Brett Kavanaugh is also fresh in our minds- the second GOP pervert
put on the Court.


It would seem that the collapse is intensifying. This might very well get worse before it gets better. Gotta laugh - and the more we do and get others to put an absolute end to contributing to what sound like likety split … “scumbags”. I mean you can go with “scam pacs” or you can go with “scum bags” … you can go with this or you can go with that
The rappers Black Sheep nailed this one back in 2009 …

1 Like

Obviously, they need to tap into and steal the direct contributions that
have been going to Bernie Sanders and other liberals –


And the reason all presidents are unimportant is because they are quislings and fawning parasites for the MIC that president Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech. They are… and have been war criminals, at least since JFK who decided to start the Peace Corps. and stepped on the toes of the CIA, which probably had him assassinated.


For the most part, small donor, versus small contribution donor, seems a false distinction with little or no relevance for the most part, and making that distinction seems unduly restraining and without positive significance or benefit to anyone except for, perhaps their opponents.

I’m much more interested in getting big money, corporate money and bundled money removed from American politics. Legislating public election financing which outlaws spending any money not received from public election financing by individuals, campaigns or parties.

1 Like

I agree. The trite and banal saying that if you don’t vote; don’t complain is a sign of pathological delusion especially so when it comes to POTUS.

Like many have said, if voting for the president made any difference…it would be illegal!


Here’s another on donation scams and what one can do to avoid getting ripped off.

The judge is Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed by that alleged Constitutional scholar Barack Obama(scam). Just imagine what a Trump appointee could do.

1 Like

At what point will the Courts become Moot?

We created a few things to make things more fair in the banking and political worlds. We passed McCain-Feingold, Glass-Steagall, and the Consumer Protection Bureau. All have been overturned or weakened. The money monsters can’t live with even minor regulation. They may be on the march to suck us completely dry, and abscond with the loot.

People wanting to donate should contact the candidate by their websites. Most have a website. But someone calling you on the phone I would say no. Tell them you have already donated already and you’re not interested in donating again at this time. Or just hang up you wont hurt their feelings they dont care.

The money monsters support the republican party and the republican party supports them by getting rid of rules and regulations. You can blame all the corruption on the republican party. You got a few democrats also but mostly republicans. Not one republican will ever vote for anything that helps anyone who is a working american. I dare any Trumpylizard to tell me what the republican party has done to help anyone who works for a living. Quoting from the GOP handbook of rhetorical redundancy does not count.


If you can’t see the relevance of the difference between 200 dollars and 2000 dollars, I would guess that you may not be someone that can only afford to be a small donor.

Legislation for public (government) financing of elections is not the answer. And outlawing money from individuals would require a constitutional amendment.

We don’t have that much time to solve the problem.

Legislation of any kind is not the answer.

The reason we need to get the big money out of politics is that when the big money legislators pass legislation it is designed to benefit the big money interests and not ordinary citizens.

The big money interests have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.

In order to pass legislation to get the big money out of politics the big money legislators first have to be replaced with small donor legislators.

The problem has to be solved BEFORE legislation to solve the problem can be passed.

The only approach with any possibility of success is for citizens to take action now and demand that the candidates be small donor candidates now to earn the votes of citizens instead of voting based on promises for future legislation that the big money candidates have no intention of keeping once they are elected.

If you keep voting for big money candidates you will keep getting big money legislators.

Democracy 101.

If the American People demand that legislation is created, passed, and enforced making any political favors at all felonious, perhaps then, and only then, some sense of equality will prevail.