- Joined
- Sep 2, 2024
Something odd...
I came across an article by a smaller youtuber and supposedly mentally ill person Andrew Londre. This article, among some others of his, make serious moral and legal accusations towards the Super Pac Progressive Victory and its many benefactors (smaller left leaning creators). Something that i will make note of before expanding on the rest and the details of what he uncovered is that i have never so much as donated to a political cause, much less have a thorough understanding of the in's and outs of political financing customs, so don't take everything that i say as gospel. I should also note that the investigatory source of this theory does, however, claim to have extensive experience in this type of work (campaign finances, donors, etc).
Progressive Victory, as a Super PAC, is required to disclose its fundraising and spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), theoretically ensuring transparency regarding its donation sources. However, a key challenge with outside spending from groups like Super PACs is the issue of "dark money." Donations that are routed through political nonprofits, can allow donors to avoid disclosing their identities by making the nonprofit itself the listed donor. It cannot be traced back to the individual doner since the non-profits are not legally required to publicly disclose its donors.
Nonprofits involved in political financing are typically filed under sections 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the tax code. Unlike 501(c)(3) charities, which must avoid political activity to maintain their tax-exempt status, 501(c)(4) nonprofits are allowed to engage in some political advocacy, though political activity cannot be their "primary purpose." The specifics around what "primary activity" means are unclear to me, with sources offering varied interpretations (i'm too lazy to read all that shit). Sources also differ on the exact IRS limits regarding how much these nonprofits can contribute to PACs, with some citing a 50% cap on spending, while others say it's unlimited.)
Londre’s article alleges that Progressive Victory Action (PVA) serves as a dark money entity for PVPAC, specifically operating as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
The evidence goes as follows, all sourced from this guys article. PVPAC’s financial disclosures to the FEC lack significant expenses for staff and influencers. The income reported on FEC filings does not seem to cover the full scope of PVPAC’s publicly known operations. In an interview, PVPAC’s founder, Sam Dryzmala, indicated that private foundations fund the "core" of the organization. Londre also uncovered a cached website snippet of PVPAC’s NDA which references PVA as an affiliated organization,
directly contradicting their own FEC filing. PVPAC’s FEC Form 1 states that it has "no" affiliated organizations, this is a potential falsehood. If Progressive Victory Action (PVA) is indeed affiliated, this could be considered a misleading omission with possible regulatory consequences.
I thought this was interesting since, if true, sort of contradicts Destiny's and his orbiters self-righteous indignation about the importance of verifying the source of your money after the Tenet media stuff, assuming this is happening to them un-wittingly.
I came across an article by a smaller youtuber and supposedly mentally ill person Andrew Londre. This article, among some others of his, make serious moral and legal accusations towards the Super Pac Progressive Victory and its many benefactors (smaller left leaning creators). Something that i will make note of before expanding on the rest and the details of what he uncovered is that i have never so much as donated to a political cause, much less have a thorough understanding of the in's and outs of political financing customs, so don't take everything that i say as gospel. I should also note that the investigatory source of this theory does, however, claim to have extensive experience in this type of work (campaign finances, donors, etc).
Progressive Victory, as a Super PAC, is required to disclose its fundraising and spending to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), theoretically ensuring transparency regarding its donation sources. However, a key challenge with outside spending from groups like Super PACs is the issue of "dark money." Donations that are routed through political nonprofits, can allow donors to avoid disclosing their identities by making the nonprofit itself the listed donor. It cannot be traced back to the individual doner since the non-profits are not legally required to publicly disclose its donors.
Nonprofits involved in political financing are typically filed under sections 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) of the tax code. Unlike 501(c)(3) charities, which must avoid political activity to maintain their tax-exempt status, 501(c)(4) nonprofits are allowed to engage in some political advocacy, though political activity cannot be their "primary purpose." The specifics around what "primary activity" means are unclear to me, with sources offering varied interpretations (i'm too lazy to read all that shit). Sources also differ on the exact IRS limits regarding how much these nonprofits can contribute to PACs, with some citing a 50% cap on spending, while others say it's unlimited.)
Londre’s article alleges that Progressive Victory Action (PVA) serves as a dark money entity for PVPAC, specifically operating as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
The evidence goes as follows, all sourced from this guys article. PVPAC’s financial disclosures to the FEC lack significant expenses for staff and influencers. The income reported on FEC filings does not seem to cover the full scope of PVPAC’s publicly known operations. In an interview, PVPAC’s founder, Sam Dryzmala, indicated that private foundations fund the "core" of the organization. Londre also uncovered a cached website snippet of PVPAC’s NDA which references PVA as an affiliated organization,
directly contradicting their own FEC filing. PVPAC’s FEC Form 1 states that it has "no" affiliated organizations, this is a potential falsehood. If Progressive Victory Action (PVA) is indeed affiliated, this could be considered a misleading omission with possible regulatory consequences.
I thought this was interesting since, if true, sort of contradicts Destiny's and his orbiters self-righteous indignation about the importance of verifying the source of your money after the Tenet media stuff, assuming this is happening to them un-wittingly.
.
