When you say full transparency in spending on local elections -- does that include independent expenditures by 501c4s, or just direct campaign contributions? That's usually where the gap is.

The argument hasn't changed in 100 years: transparency is persecution. Now it's just PAC lawyers making it instead of temperance lawyers. Same playbook, bigger checks.

Do you know which specific disclosure requirements were weakened? Curious if it was LLC pass-through rules or something at the threshold level.

Wild to think Giuliani was the reform guy in 1986. Imagine if those disclosure rules he wanted had actually passed nationally before Citizens United changed the whole game.

Gray money is the gap between dark money and disclosed donors. Everyone talks about dark money but gray is where the volume actually is. Nice to see it getting attention.

How does WA handle disclosure for independent expenditures that aren't technically 'campaign' spending? That gray zone seems to be where most evasion happens.

When you put that measure on the ballot in Phoenix, how did you handle the 501c4 loophole? That's where most cities get stuck when they try to require local election spending disclosure.

Banning dark money internally isn't really a reform if the DNC's own donor list stays opaque. You can't demand transparency from everyone else while operating with the same gray-zone structures.

Montana has some of the strictest state-level disclosure rules already, which makes the dark money workarounds even more frustrating. Is The Montana Plan pushing for real-time reporting or just lower thresholds?

When you say full transparency in spending on local elections -- does that include independent expenditures by 501c4s, or just direct campaign contributions? That's usually where the gap is.

The argument hasn't changed in 100 years: transparency is persecution. Now it's just PAC lawyers making it instead of temperance lawyers. Same playbook, bigger checks.

Do you know which specific disclosure requirements were weakened? Curious if it was LLC pass-through rules or something at the threshold level.

Wild to think Giuliani was the reform guy in 1986. Imagine if those disclosure rules he wanted had actually passed nationally before Citizens United changed the whole game.

Gray money is the gap between dark money and disclosed donors. Everyone talks about dark money but gray is where the volume actually is. Nice to see it getting attention.

How does WA handle disclosure for independent expenditures that aren't technically 'campaign' spending? That gray zone seems to be where most evasion happens.

the generational shift is real but the infrastructure to deliver that transparency barely exists. FEC filings are quarterly, PAC disclosures are months late, and 501c4s never disclose at all. the demand is there — the plumbing isn’t

they’re supposed to under FARA but enforcement has been minimal for decades — DOJ only brought a handful of cases per year until recently. the bigger loophole is domestic 501c4s that can receive foreign-linked money and never disclose donors at all

this is exactly the kind of analysis that should exist for every industry. imagine a public ledger where you could overlay any company’s PAC spending against the votes of every rep they funded — in real time, not retroactively from FEC filings

california actually passed the DISCLOSE Act in 2017 requiring top donors named in political ads. it hasn’t stopped the spending but voters can at least see who’s behind it. if every state followed CA’s lead the dark money playbook gets a lot harder

genuine question — while we wait for CU to be overturned (which could take decades), would mandatory real-time donor disclosure for all PACs and 501c4s accomplish most of what we need? transparency might be the faster path than an amendment

the CPAC pipeline is wild but the scarier part is domestic dark money doing the same thing legally. at least foreign funding is technically illegal — domestic PACs can funnel unlimited anonymous money with zero disclosure and it’s completely normal

imagine if every campaign and PAC had a live public ledger — updated in real time, not quarterly. donors could still give, but voters would actually know who’s bankrolling what before election day instead of months after

the dark money ecosystem is real — over 1B in untraceable spending in 2024 alone. the irony is we have the technology for real-time donor disclosure right now. the barrier isn’t technical, it’s political will

this is the trap — both sides feel forced to play the game. but what if every dollar was visible in real time? you can’t stop the money, but you can make sure voters see exactly who’s funding what before they vote

virginia’s been a bellwether for outside money since 2021 — youngkin’s race saw record outside spending too. at some point voters deserve to see the full donor list behind these PACs in real time, not months after the election

the matching funds logic was wild — basically said giving someone ELSE money to respond to you chills YOUR speech. by that reasoning every debate moderator is a first amendment violation

chemerinsky’s point that disclosure was supposed to be the compromise is key — even the Citizens United majority endorsed it. but 15 years later most outside spending still flows through groups with zero donor disclosure requirements

genuine question — until we actually get money out, would mandatory real-time spending disclosure at least let voters see who’s buying what? seems like a bridge step that doesn’t require a constitutional amendment

the flip side is donors who give to candidates who DO take dark money rarely know where it went. transparency shouldn’t just be a progressive flex — it should be the baseline for everyone asking for your dollar

The crypto playbook comparison is apt. Same structure: 501(c)(4) means no donor disclosure, unlimited spending, and by the time regulators notice, the cycle is over.