10 ms·

Yeah, just conveniently they were ‘dark’, so can’t be substantiated.

• jafo 4y ago
  How are 'dark' donations not afoul of campaign finance laws?? Or is this just another SBF lie?
  • rhaway84773 4y ago
    Citizens United. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
  • hotpotamus 4y ago
    It's some Supreme Court interpretation of free speech plus legislation. I remember Al Franken talking about this a bit in the context of a law requiring disclosure that he supported but was not successful. Looks like the dynamic hasn't changed much since he talked about it. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-make-remarks-tuesday-election-transparency-bill-2022-09-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-make-remarks-tuesday-...
• jasonhansel 4y ago
  Why would he be lying about this?
  • nverno 4y ago
    It seems like a potential way to derail criticism coming from Republicans, doesn't it? Or perhaps make them look shady- this guy is an adept social engineer, after all
  • listenallyall 4y ago
    Because his Democratic friends told him to. They want to remove the label "Major Democratic Donor" from all of SBF's negative press. How do you not see something so obvious?
    • jasonhansel 4y ago
      Do you think that this article (the OP) qualifies as positive press? I don't even think any Republicans have changed their minds.
      • throwawaylinux 4y ago
        It is for the political party that controls the DoJ and other federal prosecuting agencies.