Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Shadow campaigns (or dark money) refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not publicly disclosed or is difficult to trace. [1] United States campaign finance law has been regulated by the Federal Election Commission since its creation in the wake of the Watergate Scandal in 1975, and in the years ...
In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public. In the United States, some types of nonprofit organizations may spend money on campaigns without disclosing who their donors are.
Under federal law, non-profit organizations are required to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with a list of major donors (those that donate more than $5,000 or 2% of the total donations to the non-profit in a year) with their annual tax forms, Form 990. This information, held on Schedule B "Schedule of Contributors" of Form 990, is ...
The proliferation of “dark money” in political spending stems from the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which allowed corporations, nonprofits and ...
Super PACs, dark money, outside spending -- keeping it all straight can be tough, especially with the seemingly constant barrage of political attack ads in the background. Holiday Spending: Get Top...
"Dark Money" might sound like the name of a fictional spy thriller, but in the world of politics, it has a very real and often controversial impact on elections -- including this year, ahead of the...
Taxation of illegal income in the United States arises from the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, enacted by the U.S. Congress in part for the purpose of taxing net income. [1] As such, a person's taxable income will generally be subject to the same federal income tax rules, regardless of whether the income was obtained legally or illegally.
Candidates often have to accept money from those they’ll help regulate, which can later raise thorny ethical questions. Our justices don’t campaign, and that’s the way it should be.