Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
I haven't had time to search out the particulars, but here is something I found.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinio...r-labor-money/
I haven't had time to verify it but the claim is that there are loopholes which allow unions to bypass reporting if individual member donations are less than 10k. The aggregate isn't what counts. Is this true?
So, uhh, even McCain engages in dishonest fantasy scenarios?
Organizations that engage in political conduct are only required to disclose payments to it that exceed $10,000 in a two-year election cycle. Meaning, the local union chapter will not be required to disclose the payments of individual union members to the union, even if those funds will be used for political purposes. What is the final difference between one $10,000 check and 1,000 $10 checks? Other than the impact on trees, very little. So why should one be free from having to disclose its origin?
Yeh- it *could* happen, and is about as likely as Bigfoot holding a press conference, too... Unions haven't gone out of their way to conceal their spending or the source of the money, at all- they wear it all as a badge of honor. That can't be said of Repub groups, at all.
So, uhh, what sort of amendments did Repubs offer that would demand more disclosure rather than less? None, as near as I can tell, which makes McCain's offering a concern troll...
Repubs are adamantly opposed to extensive disclosure requirements, because their funders are opposed, but they'll say anything to make it appear otherwise.