Talk:Dark money

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurphy109.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2013
-Orphan status noted. Added link on page money trail Pbmaise (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV & OR ??
As it stands, the article has a lot of examples, cited and uncited. And we have the "Theory" section. But, more importantly, it lends to NPOV by its' very title. Dark (as in The Dark Side sounds so ominous. Once it stands as an independent article (e.g., with WP legitimacy/notability), it is getting linked as if it gives legitimacy to those sources which use the term. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term is in common usage in the media. I don't think of it as a negative. In my mind, dark means hidden, obscured, secretive, much like dark matter. Of course, we also have The Dark Side of the Moon and dark chocolate, which are both pretty good. - MrX 20:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I like my coffee dark and Dark Vador is my hero. Common usage in the media is one thing, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in WP is another because we must strive for NPOV. The article is undergoing revision now, so it will be improved in its own context. Still, using the term, especially with "scare quotes", in other articles is, and likely will be, a problem. – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with you about using the term in other articles, unless it is appropriate for the context and well-sourced. (See my comments about substituting phrases like "hidden political contributions" or "undisclosed political funding"). - MrX 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So how do we make this article more neutral so that we can remove the POV tag? Should we rename the article and leave a redirect from Dark Money? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)
 * More work is needed. (Thanks to all!) The redirect idea is worth considering. Perhaps a "dark money" section in another article, which stays away from the POV implications of "dark money", can be used. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent content deletions
deleted some unsourced content, but also deleted some sourced content that I would consider relevant to the article. I invite this editor to discuss these edits here so we can reach consensus. - MrX 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not just removing unsourced content, I'm also removing OR and synthesis. I'm just getting started, there's a lot left to go. Roccodrift (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You also removed content that does not fit either of those criteria. How about we discuss it? - MrX 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so start talking. Let's see your justification to include all of this stuff about campaign finance disclosure when the sources do not mention the term "dark money".  That's either OR or synthesis, depending on the individual case.  What's going on here is that the article lays down a definition of "dark money", then editors have gone about the web on an Easter egg hunt looking for examples to insert from sources that do not say they are talking about dark money.  That's original research, and it isn't a legitimate way to build a Wikipdia article. Roccodrift (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm fine with it now. I agree the OR needed to go, and there is certainly more work to be done to improve the article, especially in the 'Theory of Required Disclosure' section. I won't stand in the way of mercilessly removing anything that is not properly sourced. - MrX 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

50/50 split in access to the dark side
Known shadow contributions now evenly split between C and L.

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U

So I think we should report this evenly, not as a tactic restricted to one side. Hcobb (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but let's not turn the article into a coatrack with lots of examples.- MrX

Problems with article
This ("Recent content deletion" section above) is not resolved. There's still quite a bit where the connection to "dark money" is synthesized. However, I'm willing to leave the global tags off. For the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the tags from 2013 don't necessarily seem supported in the present article, except for a few minor points. However, the synthesis problem doesn't seem to have been discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many properly sourced statements about campaign contribution reporting, where the relationship of the statement to "dark money" is not at all clear. Per WP:SYNTHESIS, the relationship not only has to be clear, it has to be in the same source as the statement (whether or not the term "dark money" is used). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you be specific about where you see problems with synthesis?- MrX 16:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misread the article. The only problems I see at the moment are:
 * The real world distinguishes between permanently hiding disclosure and delaying disclosure until after the election. The article claims to be about the latter, but it and our reliable sources are almost entirely about the former.
 * "Despite" is in WP:WORDS; in this case, it's a conclusion apparently not in the sources.
 * Even the gutted "Theory of Required Disclosure" violates one or more of NPOV or OR, and would be better off in a different article even if it were properly sourced; perhaps a new subarticle of political campaign, perhaps political campaign finance or political campaign finance disclosure (which could go into the actual disclosure requirements in more detail). What little we have seems to be in Campaign finance, which is also problematic. In fact the whole article (and more) should probably be moved there.  I suppose I'm being inconsistent, but any argument for this title, as opposed to a descriptive title, would support ClimateGate.  The only difference is the identity of the small group that uses the term.
 * This article is entirely about the US, but doesn't say so in the lead.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem. You were asked to provide specific examples and were unable to do so.  The title and subject is well supported, so your latest goal post moving to a merge is simply unsupported. I'm going to remove the tags. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I lengthened the lede to cover multiple major reliable sources using the term, that it is an increasing, recent phenomenon and specifically that it is related to American politics, though sources might eventually also reveal the concept happens in other countries. That should address your concerns.  This only came from the first page of google, there is a lot more. Trackinfo (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Awful Lede ?
I have removed some of the synthesis. Still, why do we have a definition from About.com? I have never seen such a thing at Wikipedia. Really? The inclusion of reporting from CBS belongs in the body (such as it is). Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a mess. Inappropriate advertising at article.
The image at this article is not encyclopedic. It designed to advanced a point of view. It is explicitly created advertisement to advance that POV. This is unsuitable advertising at a wikipedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The image is consistent with the overall point of view expressed in the sources. The caption makes it very clear who holds those views and explains the context in which the cartoon appears. Do you know of any images that better illustrate the subject? - MrX 12:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explicate or explain, it merely promotes. The washington post had a graphic that explains. Someone would have to create an image illustrative that would be educational rather than promotional. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article not a advertorial political blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to also including infographics, for example something like or . It might even make a better lead image, but there nothing promotional about the current image that I can see. What exactly would it be promoting anyway? There are similar political cartoons in other article such as Competition law and Warren G. Harding.- MrX 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing promotional? It is advertising created explicitly to promote the policy goals of an organization. That idea is that "dark money" is evil, threatening America and must be stopped. It is no different from placing advertising copy on corporate articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX. "The caption makes it very clear who holds those views and explains the context in which the cartoon appears." Neutralitytalk 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an article about "dark money", this image explains nothing about dark money. It merely makes it seem a scary monster threatening America's capitol. Evoking an emotional response is the stuff of blogs and partisan campaigns. We are here, I am here, to explain and inform not to enrage, scare, and campaign. I find this an embarrassing addition to this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

NYT piece
Capitalismojo: on the whole bunch of content you removed sourced to a New York Times editorial from November 2014 and to two other sources (a Huffington Post speech, an article from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law) - It seems like your objection is that NYT material is from an editorial. But the information cited is purely statistical information ($X million), and the editorial at issue links directly to the source of the information (it cites to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org, which collects the data). It seems no different to me than citing each of the sources cited by the NYT individually, except that the NYT conveniently summarizes the material.

Nevertheless, in the interests of general harmony, I have found alternative sources for the information. Neutralitytalk 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

2018 federal court ruling
I don't feel qualified to write about this myself, but this article may need updating in light of a federal court ruling in August 2018. See NYT article Sept 18: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/supreme-court-dark-money.html and the ruling in question: https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04161001/Crossroads-opinion.pdf. Thank you, fellow contributors! Cjdaniel (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

China is Missing
I feel compelled to note that a text search of the Article shows zero results for the word "China", despite a 550 Billion dollar trade deficit between China and United States. I'm going to try to look for reliable sources.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (What does this have to do with anything?)

Lede Sentence & Definition + Pseudo-Moral-Neutrality
The very first sentence says: "In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors.[3][4]"

While not in error, that is not right. By that definition the dark money is created solely by nonprofit organizations—for example, in the act of spending, — while the neutral, or sanitized donors have had zero responsibility in the process and any future outcomes.

"Investopedia  Dark money refers to the funds donated to nonprofit organizations that in turn spend it in order to influence elections. These nonprofit organizations can receive an unlimited amount of donations, and they're not required to disclose their donors. The opacity of this.... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-money.asp '"

A quick google quickly confirms that is also common usage/meaning. And the "bias" mentioned (feared?) elsewhere? Is calling a murderer; "a murderer," biased? What about a traitor? What about inferring or calling murder itself; wrong? Pretending like this topic is ethically or morally pure or neutral? —The assumption of moral-neutrality would indeed be any possible wrong-doer's wish, —as well as fly in face of common understanding and usage. It would be in error. Misleading. Bribery even if legalized would be ethically questionable.

This is no place for sloppy, illogical, or sanitized terms. For example, in certain contexts "the funds donated to stop smoking" can be identical to; "the funds spent to stop smoking."  However, that does not allow random swapping of those terms, and in fact that could inflict severe misunderstanding or misdirection. This is a controversial Big-Money/Politics topic that according to basic economic theory will invite biased investments. Thus extra vigilance is required of us here.  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3963:C38C:4FD5:440C (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)--Doug

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics
— Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Dark Money and Negative Ads
Possible addition to make to this article:

Lead[edit]
501(c) nonprofits are able to spend money on campaign advertising without having to disclose donor information. It has been found that dark money expenditures are associated with negative ads.

Article body[edit]
This study also found Conservatives have a higher likelihood of purchasing negative ads with dark money than disclosed expenditures as compared to Liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are equally as likely to attack candidates, but Liberals are less likely to do so through dark money.

When negative ads are perceived as truthful, they increase positive outlook on the sponsor while producing unfavorable attitudes toward the candidate in the ad. For-profit corporations are able to donate to 501(c) nonprofits which hides their donations. The Republican Governors Public Policy Committee mistakenly revealed that Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Walmart funded their 501(c)(4) nonprofit trying to elect Republican governors.

References


 * 1) ^ Jump up to:a b [Chand, D. E. (2017). "Dark Money" and "Dirty Politics": Are anonymous ads more negative? Business and Politics, 19(3), 454-481. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2016.13

Emraeah (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)