"Dark money," of course, simply refers to contributions given to politically active nonprofit organizations. I wonder: In promising to "end the dominance of money in politics," did Nancy Pelosi have in mind the $30 million pledged this year to progressive candidates (read "Democrats") by a group of liberal organizations led by Planned Parenthood. The $37 million spent by pro-abortion rights group EMILY's List? Or the 23-1 Democrat-Republican advantage in contributions from employees of tech giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft?
And the "the shell game of big-money donations to super PACs" the two Congresspersons want to "shut down" couldn't possibly refer to the $90 million in 2016 political gifts from liberal billionaire Tom Steyer's company — or the 21 of 24 races that Michael Bloomberg influenced this year with $41 million in spending that were won by Democrats?
Fixing "corruption," according to the Democratic leader, apparently involves "closing the revolving door between government and private industries, and imposing strong new ethics laws to stop officials from using their public office for personal gain."
Oh. That revolving door wouldn't include the lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which earlier this year hired Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi's former chief of staff, would it? And those "officials … using their public office for personal gain" wouldn't have encompassed the Clinton Foundation, whose donations have plummeted since its founders have been set out to political pasture?
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker/
And the "the shell game of big-money donations to super PACs" the two Congresspersons want to "shut down" couldn't possibly refer to the $90 million in 2016 political gifts from liberal billionaire Tom Steyer's company — or the 21 of 24 races that Michael Bloomberg influenced this year with $41 million in spending that were won by Democrats?
Fixing "corruption," according to the Democratic leader, apparently involves "closing the revolving door between government and private industries, and imposing strong new ethics laws to stop officials from using their public office for personal gain."
Oh. That revolving door wouldn't include the lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which earlier this year hired Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi's former chief of staff, would it? And those "officials … using their public office for personal gain" wouldn't have encompassed the Clinton Foundation, whose donations have plummeted since its founders have been set out to political pasture?
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/nancy-pelosi-house-speaker/