IRS won't require NRA, other groups to disclose donors to tax officials

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 02:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't understand how a foreign "entity" is capable of influencing our elections if they're giving money to established groups. Say Russia gives a billion dollars to the NRA. How is that influening our elections? It's not like the NRA isn't already doing what it can to effect public policy. Giving them more money isn't going to make them all that more effective than they already are - it's not like their issues have to do with funding or the lack thereof.

I disagree with this part.

If you have $1000 to spend on a campaign or $1,000,000 on a campaign you can do a lot more with more money.

Also, and I could be wrong about this, if they get that kind of money from a foreign country there is probably some kind of legal wrangling about reporting it.  So maybe they do that above and beyond the IRS reporting they they don't have to do now?

[*PhilHos*]

(07-25-2018, 02:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: I disagree with this part.

If you have $1000 to spend on a campaign or $1,000,000 on a campaign you can do a lot more with more money.

Sure, they could do a lot more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than they are with a $1,000 budget.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 02:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, they could do a lot more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than they are with a $1,000 budget.

If it means they can reach more gullible people it does.

A television ad on at 10am or 3am versus one running in primetime on multiple channels is just one example.  The more resources the more reach.  If you only need to confuse convert a small percentage to swing an election (or anything) then you need to get your message to the maximum number of people possible.  It increases you chances of hitting the ones that are susceptible to you.


Quick edit: I'm commenting on this and coming from a purely advertising perspective.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 02:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, they could do a lot more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than they are with a $1,000 budget.

Take out your hand. Write a message on it. Whatever message, it doesn't matter. Walk around with that message on there for a week and at the end of the week, count up how many people saw the message. You can probably use the same hand to tally it up.

Now, take that same message and stick it on billboards from coast to coast in 20 foot tall letters. At the end of the week, see how many thousand people saw the message.

The biggest gripe I used to hear from advertisers was that they didn't get enough response for their dollars. It was always accounts that spent the minimum. Businesses that spend more almost always get a better response, even if their message isn't always the best one out there, or not the catchiest. That's how marketing works. In terms of elections and policy making, that translates into votes or support. Hell, just look at the presidential election and dollars spent for each candidate versus votes. If Gary Johnson had 1,000 times the budget of Republican and Democrat PACS, we'd all be smoking pot and having a balanced budget right now.

[treee]

Only tangentially related, but it is not sustainable to have as much hidden money flowing in politics as we do. The end game is that either you make public elections entirely publicly funded, or you require all organizations to be completely transparent with their accounting. If neither of those ends are fully met, then elected representatives will continue to represent their voting constituency less and less.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-25-2018, 02:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: If it means they can reach more gullible people it does.

A television ad on at 10am or 3am versus one running in primetime on multiple channels is just one example.  The more resources the more reach.  If you only need to confuse convert a small percentage to swing an election (or anything) then you need to get your message to the maximum number of people possible.  It increases you chances of hitting the ones that are susceptible to you.


Quick edit:  I'm commenting on this and coming from a purely advertising perspective.

(07-25-2018, 03:04 PM)Benton Wrote:

Take out your hand. Write a message on it. Whatever message, it doesn't matter. Walk around with that message on there for a week and at the end of the week, count up how many people saw the message. You can probably use the same hand to tally it up.

Now, take that same message and stick it on billboards from coast to coast in 20 foot tall letters. At the end of the week, see how many thousand people saw the message.

The biggest gripe I used to hear from advertisers was that they didn't get enough response for their dollars. It was always accounts that spent the minimum. Businesses that spend more almost always get a better response, even if their message isn't always the best one out there, or not the catchiest. That's how marketing works. In terms of elections and policy making, that translates into votes or support. Hell, just look at the presidential election and dollars spent for each candidate versus votes. If Gary Johnson had 1,000 times the budget of Republican and Democrat PACS, we'd all be smoking pot and having a balanced budget right now.

We're talking about changing people's beliefs. And those are 2nd only to religious beliefs in terms of convincing people their current beleifs are "wrong".

So, sure, maybe they're able to convince a few more people with a significant increase in their budget, but i still don't see how that equates to a foreign country influencing our elections.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 03:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: We're talking about changing people's beliefs. And those are 2nd only to religious beliefs in terms of convincing people their current beleifs are "wrong".

So, sure, maybe they're able to convince a few more people with a significant increase in their budget, but i still don't see how that equates to a foreign country influencing our elections.

If I remember correctly Trump won the swing states by around 80,000 votes.  Total.

It's just a simple numbers game.  Get your message that (in this case) Clinton is a liar and Trump cares about the little guy, that Clinton is untrustworthy because the FBI is investigating her and Trump is going to fight for your rights, that the Clinton Foundation is dirty because they receive funds from bad countries and the Trump Foundation is doing amazing things, the list goes on, get that message to the maximum amount of people and you have a better chance of getting people who never voted to vote.   You increase the odds of swinging a voter who didn't like Trump but now thinks he is more trustworthy than Clinton.  

You only need a few in every city to combine and make a large amount in the state.

That doesn't mean that the extra money from Russia was the tipping point.  that just means it helped the NRA get their message to even more people.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 03:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: We're talking about changing people's beliefs. And those are 2nd only to religious beliefs in terms of convincing people their current beleifs are "wrong".

So, sure, maybe they're able to convince a few more people with a significant increase in their budget, but i still don't see how that equates to a foreign country influencing our elections.

To the bold, I think maybe a word got left out? Maybe "gun beliefs"?

Either way, it doesn't really matter whether you're talking gun belief, religious belief, whatever. The more exposure someone has to something, the more open they become to the idea. Especially if that is coming from someone they think they're supposed to trust.

A lawmaker speaking at a county fair in Des Moines about the horrors of reforming healthcare gets zero traction. But put him on a national commercial with good graphics and art (happy people signing insurance checks or sad people lined up at the VA), and BAM! you've got a movement worth the money your lobbyists are paying you. Don't like that movement? Well, then get a marketing firm to come up with terminology people won't like... maybe call it "Obamacare" and then get someone to make a better commercial talking about how bad it is.

Marketing influences people every day. And the more that is spent on it, generally, the bigger the influence. And when that influence comes from a foreign country — one we've been opposed to for decades — it should raise some questions on why they want you to feel and vote a certain way.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 03:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: If I remember correctly Trump won the swing states by around 80,000 votes.  Total.

It's just a simple numbers game.  Get your message that (in this case) Clinton is a liar and Trump cares about the little guy, that Clinton is untrustworthy because the FBI is investigating her and Trump is going to fight for your rights, that the Clinton Foundation is dirty because they receive funds from bad countries and the Trump Foundation is doing amazing things, the list goes on, get that message to the maximum amount of people and you have a better chance of getting people who never voted to vote.   You increase the odds of swinging a voter who didn't like Trump but now thinks he is more trustworthy than Clinton.  

You only need a few in every city to combine and make a large amount in the state.

That doesn't mean that the extra money from Russia was the tipping point.  that just means it helped the NRA get their message to even more people.

Their political messages have to be related to their primary mission.  So unions couldn't run ads about Trump having affairs.  The NRA couldn't run ads about Hillary's emails.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2018, 02:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, they could do a lot more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than they are with a $1,000 budget.

Having spent money campaigning, I can tell you that 100% you will be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than with a $1,000 budget. Hiring polling firms, paying for print media, paying for online advertisements, paying for television ads, paying for access to private voter databases, paying for consultants/media managers/etc.

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 03:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Their political messages have to be related to their primary mission.  So unions couldn't run ads about Trump having affairs.  The NRA couldn't run ads about Hillary's emails.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nra-ad-clinton-liar-230012

Quote:The ad begins by showing a clip of Clinton saying she did not send any classified emails on her private server, before flipping to a clip of the ABC anchor Martha Raddatz from the last debate, citing the FBI’s finding that there were 110 classified email exchanges on her server.

Edit to add: I did search for negative ads against Trump. I'm sure there were some, but the search didn't come up with much outside of a study saying Clinton's ads were more negative than Trumps. Although, no idea if that study took into account the pots of money spent by the NRA, Russia and other special interests.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

[fredtoast]

(07-25-2018, 02:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Sure, they could do a lot more, but that doesn't mean they'll be more effective with a $1,000,000 budget than they are with a $1,000 budget.

So is that why people running for office don't care about raising money?  Is that why lobbyists don't spend over 3 BILLION dollars a year contributing to officials re-election funds?



 

Wake up Phil.  All congressmen do once they get in office is start raising money for re-election.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 04:40 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nra-ad-clinton-liar-230012



Edit to add: I did search for negative ads against Trump. I'm sure there were some, but the search didn't come up with much outside of a study saying Clinton's ads were more negative than Trumps. Although, no idea if that study took into account the pots of money spent by the NRA, Russia and other special interests.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

That's a violation.  They aren't allowed to do that unless they have a non-tax exempt part and then the topic of this thread wouldn't be relevant.  

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 04:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's a violation.  They aren't allowed to do that unless they have a non-tax exempt part and then the topic of this thread wouldn't be relevant.  

Eh, I'm not really sure there's any violation there.

The only issue would be with paying for it, as in raising money under the banner of one group and diverting it to a PAC. Which is something the NRA has been accused of the last few years. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 05:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I'm not really sure there's any violation there.

The only issue would be with paying for it, as in raising money under the banner of one group and diverting it to a PAC. Which is something the NRA has been accused of the last few years. 

501c(4) says you can be involved in politics, but it has to remain in the scope of your mission.  So it's either a violation, or they have a non-exempt arm.  

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2018, 04:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's a violation.  They aren't allowed to do that unless they have a non-tax exempt part and then the topic of this thread wouldn't be relevant.  

You're basing this on their 501© entities. They have entities that can legally do those ads under their umbrella that are tax exempt. Like I sai dearlier, NRA-PVF is likely a 527, which is still tax exempt, and can put out ads like that.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2018, 04:40 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/nra-ad-clinton-liar-230012



Edit to add: I did search for negative ads against Trump. I'm sure there were some, but the search didn't come up with much outside of a study saying Clinton's ads were more negative than Trumps. Although, no idea if that study took into account the pots of money spent by the NRA, Russia and other special interests.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

“Hillary will lie about anything to get elected,” the narrator says. “No more lies. Defeat Hillary.”


That....that is a beauty right there!  If only voters had had a way of knowing about Trump.  

[Nebuchadnezzar]

This is just the first step at creating a National Gun Database of law abiding citizens.

Once this database is created, the government can get the list of names from every organization in the United States because of precident of forcing the NRA to give up their list of members and donors.

Once all those nefarious gun owners are known, they can cross reference them with church lists, what other organizations they belong to like Masons or those crazy Baptists.

#tinfoilhattime

[Benton]

(07-25-2018, 05:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 501c(4) says you can be involved in politics, but it has to remain in the scope of your mission.  So it's either a violation, or they have a non-exempt arm.  

(07-25-2018, 05:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're basing this on their 501© entities. They have entities that can legally do those ads under their umbrella that are tax exempt. Like I sai dearlier, NRA-PVF is likely a 527, which is still tax exempt, and can put out ads like that.

Like Matt said, it's possible for a large group like the NRA to do that. Hell, the PVF alone spends more than $20 million on an election year these days.

The question comes, to me, in whether or not they violate finance laws by shuffling the money or not being transparent in where member donations are going. A member might believe in the core group belief and donate to the NRA, but be against PVF's commercials in cemeteries. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-25-2018, 05:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're basing this on their 501© entities. They have entities that can legally do those ads under their umbrella that are tax exempt. Like I sai dearlier, NRA-PVF is likely a 527, which is still tax exempt, and can put out ads like that.

Opps.  Yes you did.  Missed it the first time around.