Democrat nominee for gov in GA gets millions from out of state, refuses to disclose names of donors
Corrupt Democrat politicians? Perish the thought!
Oh, wait...
Stacey Abrams is a black female who was formerly Democrat Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives. So she's a powerful, prominent figure. And now she's the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia.
And she's refusing to disclose the source of millions of dollars donated to two tax exempt, non-profit foundations that have helped fund her political career.
Both foundations--called "Voter Access Institute" and "Third Sector Development"--were created and headed by Abrams, and took in $12.5 million in donations from 2013 to 2016.
Interestingly, the two foundations paid Abrams--their creator--nearly half a million dollars over the course of three years. Now the Democrat has refused to publish the names of donors involved in her ostensibly non-profit (except for half a mil to her) work.
In response to media inquiry, the campaign wouldn’t explain why it wouldn't disclose donor names, but instead took a swipe at Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, her Republican opponent in the election.
A statement from the Abrams campaign reads “I’m proud of New Georgia Project’s [sic--no explanation of whether this is yet another Abrams "foundation"] efforts to register, advocate for, and mobilize thousands of Georgians, and [to] combat voter suppression being perpetrated by Secretary of State Brian Kemp.”
See how deftly they did that? She was asked "Why are you refusing to disclose your (huge) out-of-state donors?" But rather than answer, she claims--without citing any evidence--that her opponent has been suppressing votes. Brilliant! Standard tactic: Dodge the question.
And of course the leftist Atlanta papers will never ask her if she has any actual, y'know, evidence of her claim that her opponent is trying to suppress votes. BTW, Georgia doesn't have a voter photo-ID law, so that ain't it.
Interestingly, most states have laws requiring candidates to disclose donations made directly to their campaigns. But there's a stunning loophole: Neither Federal nor state law requires state candidates to disclose donors to tax-exempt non-profits. So by setting up tax-exempt, non-profit "foundations," Abrams can keep the identity of those donors hidden from Georgia voters.
Clever, eh? One might even say--admiringly--"cunning."
Note well, citizen, that this is not at all unethical. Not something to be scrutinized or criticized. It would only BE a grievous offense to the public if done by a Republican. Cuz, standards, peasant.
Interestingly, a couple of ol' cynics--no doubt raaacists--have pointed out that Abrams has been struggling with massive personal debt --hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, student loans and IRS back taxes. She has attributed much of that debt to a misunderstanding during college of how credit cards worked.
Yes, that's certainly exactly the kind of expertise that makes her an ideal Democrat nominee for governor, right? Her Democrat base will be fine with it. After all, if the state runs short of money they can always raise taxes.
Oh, wait...
Stacey Abrams is a black female who was formerly Democrat Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives. So she's a powerful, prominent figure. And now she's the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia.
And she's refusing to disclose the source of millions of dollars donated to two tax exempt, non-profit foundations that have helped fund her political career.
Both foundations--called "Voter Access Institute" and "Third Sector Development"--were created and headed by Abrams, and took in $12.5 million in donations from 2013 to 2016.
Interestingly, the two foundations paid Abrams--their creator--nearly half a million dollars over the course of three years. Now the Democrat has refused to publish the names of donors involved in her ostensibly non-profit (except for half a mil to her) work.
In response to media inquiry, the campaign wouldn’t explain why it wouldn't disclose donor names, but instead took a swipe at Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, her Republican opponent in the election.
See how deftly they did that? She was asked "Why are you refusing to disclose your (huge) out-of-state donors?" But rather than answer, she claims--without citing any evidence--that her opponent has been suppressing votes. Brilliant! Standard tactic: Dodge the question.
And of course the leftist Atlanta papers will never ask her if she has any actual, y'know, evidence of her claim that her opponent is trying to suppress votes. BTW, Georgia doesn't have a voter photo-ID law, so that ain't it.
Interestingly, most states have laws requiring candidates to disclose donations made directly to their campaigns. But there's a stunning loophole: Neither Federal nor state law requires state candidates to disclose donors to tax-exempt non-profits. So by setting up tax-exempt, non-profit "foundations," Abrams can keep the identity of those donors hidden from Georgia voters.
Clever, eh? One might even say--admiringly--"cunning."
Note well, citizen, that this is not at all unethical. Not something to be scrutinized or criticized. It would only BE a grievous offense to the public if done by a Republican. Cuz, standards, peasant.
Interestingly, a couple of ol' cynics--no doubt raaacists--have pointed out that Abrams has been struggling with massive personal debt --hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards, student loans and IRS back taxes. She has attributed much of that debt to a misunderstanding during college of how credit cards worked.
Yes, that's certainly exactly the kind of expertise that makes her an ideal Democrat nominee for governor, right? Her Democrat base will be fine with it. After all, if the state runs short of money they can always raise taxes.
posted by SF at
8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home