Operation Hope - Anti Corruption/Campaign Finance

We just need whistle blowing say you get 10% if you expose a financial conflict of interest or fraud. I would extend this to tax collection. We need a anonymity in reporting these cases as well.


I think focusing the publicly funded election mission to the state level is our best bet for success. Doing it in a national campaign I think is just asking for roadblocks and opposition. You need to remember that the most corrupt members of Congress don’t just have donations on the line here they have cushy lobbyist jobs waiting for them at the end of their tenure as well. No donors means no golden parachute. If we leave it up to a pressure campaign on Congress I don’t believe anything will ever pass. This is by the design of the donors to roadblock any progress being made on ANY issue they don’t like.

However any success on the state level can then be used as additional pressure on that particular state’s representative. It is still up to them which way they vote unfortunately but if you’re voting against publicly funded elections after your state passed a law for it you’re just asking to get chucked out of office.

My only issue with this plan is that isn’t it basically Wolf-Pac? I don’t think it’s line for line the same mission but wouldn’t there be a good amount of overlap here if we ended up focusing on a state level plan? I don’t know if this results in us spreading resources across multiple fronts unnecessarily when maybe a consolidation of missions would be best? At the very least targeting states where Wolf-Pac has succeeded seems to be an excellent starting point for publicly funded elections. In my opinion.

It’s just that I believe this is a much larger task then say my spotlight bill or piggy backing on previous presented legislation like the AOC/Gaetz bill. I’m for it 100% and there is of course a “go big or go home” aspect to it all but the corruption wasn’t built overnight and won’t be dismantled that way either I believe. Why has there been no mention of Democracy Dollars since Andrew Yang? Because there is no appetite for it in Washington. Even though they all supposedly loathe the fund raising process.

We need to peel away at corruption enablers in order to also educate the larger public on how deep rooted it is as well. That is why I am in favor of incremental wins for this campaign. The goal being to eventually have the public begging for public funding of elections. After twenty laws have been passed to limit the corruption Congress members can engage in I think the next logical step has to be “why do we even let corporations and the ultra wealthy buy them off to begin with”?

Yes the people know corruption is rampant in Washington but what percentage of them know the extent? That you could have a member of Congress writing laws one cycle and then lobbying in the Capitol or on TV the next…telling us Joe Manchin is a moderate or whatever.

Those are just my thoughts on the strategy for this not trying to discourage anyone of course. Most important aspect of this fight is that we do it together. Creating a movement right now is more important than any single legislative win I think.


Last thought on the Spotlight Bill is it allows us to gather intel for other initiatives in the healthcare, climate change, corruption, etc. battles by knowing who is bought by who.

While also getting to use that wonderful police state logic against politicians for change. “Well if you have nothing to hide…”

And I’m sure there are a couple PACs out there that are called like the Nucleus for American Progress or something and it’s just three billionaires stacked up in a trench coat cartoon style.

Not a huge win by a mile but with the donors trying to hide themselves it’s where I think we need to start unraveling this whole cluster you know what.


I’m very curious what you see regarding the obstacles to publicly funded elections in your red state; why do you think it could never happen? Assuming the established reps would be in opposition, how significant of an obstacle is that? Would a popular base in your state care much about establishment opposition? Would red state reps be responsive to their base in general? How much right wing popular support could be organized for getting publicly funded elections?

I suppose I feel like the right wing has strong anti-corruption interest, would organize for it, and that their reps are fairly fearful of crossing their base.

I think wolf-pac is about bringing states together for a federal change with a particularly unique path. I don’t think we have nearly as much strategy, and probably would be taking a different route. Such organizations could be leveraged as part of our plans in some way. And, perhaps our route would include organizing particularly viable states to pass publicly funded elections within said states.

To your other points, I agree we could take a more incremental approach by exposing corruption information. But would people care for such information?; it may not feel impactful. Of course the information would be useful. Yet, how significant has the increasing exposure of our supreme court’s illegitimacy been for the public? Maybe such exposure is just setting the stage for political change.

What would this take? I think an example of a state with internal publicly funded elections could serve as a great role model for the public to understand what to demand.


I live in Missouri. The level of rampant misinformation and ignorance is staggering. As long as that persists I don’t see it happening because the vast majority of people in this state think that government is inherently corrupt, not that individual politicians are. There is baked in corruption, but not every politician takes part. Unfortunately without common people here seeing another state succeeding in having a public funded election they’d likely never support it. And sadly the threshold for that perceived success would be Fox News saying it was a good thing.

1 Like

I like the idea, it could definitely garner popular support, but essentially making headhunters of the donors would likely shy away most politicians. If this idea get into the mainstream it could find hold, much like the recent pairing of AOC and Gaetz. I still think that a bill specifically forcing dark money to be disclosed would have more support, but not as great an impact.

1 Like

I am worried PAC reforms are required at the same time. Otherwise you are playing a corruption wack-a-mole.

Definitely needs to happen, but that first step of forcing the contributors into the open will make serious ripple effects with the uneducated and uninformed. It’s a first crack in the dam of corruption from my perspective. I don’t claim to be very knowledgeable on campaign finance, it’s just how I see it.

1 Like

My intuition tells me your are correct.

So there’s a bill that senator Whitehouse introduced in Feb that is basically a stab at dark money, but it appears to be stalled. It was introduced and voted down last year, this session looks to be simply ignoring it.
Doing some research on publicly funded elections, I saw this study from Harvard. Skimmed it, has some unexpected info.

1 Like

Here is a summary of the Spotlight act:

This bill repeals an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revenue procedure (Rev. Proc. 2018-38) that exempts certain tax-exempt organizations that are not 501(c)(3) organizations from the requirement to report the names and addresses of substantial contributors (persons who contribute more than $5,000 per year) on information returns that are filed with the IRS.

The bill requires tax-exempt organizations that fall under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code (e.g., social welfare organizations, labor organizations, business leagues) to disclose the names and addresses of all substantial contributors on their returns. The information must also be made available to the public.

The bill also eliminates the authority of the IRS to provide exceptions to the disclosure requirements for tax-exempt organizations. This provision does not apply to determinations made by the IRS before July 16, 2018

I will check that study out later today.

1 Like

I suppose one way we could approach it is allowed them to invest in individual stocks but cap their rate of return to the index fund. Therefore, if they outperform the index fund, they’re just forced to return their gains beyond what the index fund would allow them.

It seems like individual could never hold office and satisfy the requirements of article 1, section 9 emoluments clause without a blind trust. My guess is the ethics officer clearly hand waved this behavior without judicial review. We need to bring lawsuits against individual politicians starting with Pelosi.

I think they should be barred from trading stocks while in office and for 1-2 years after, but that’s just because of my life experience and how I’ve experienced financial prejudices. The corruption runs deep in every branch of government, I’d love to see all of them held accountable for their actions. I can dream

1 Like

I gave GPT the summary of the bill posted above:

The Spotlight Act seeks to enhance transparency in the realm of tax-exempt organizations by repealing a specific Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revenue procedure (Rev. Proc. 2018-38). This revenue procedure currently exempts certain tax-exempt organizations, not falling under 501(c)(3) status, from the obligation to disclose the names and addresses of substantial contributors (individuals contributing more than $5,000 per year) on information returns submitted to the IRS.

The primary provisions of the Spotlight Act are as follows:

  1. Expanded Disclosure Requirements:

    • The bill mandates that tax-exempt organizations classified under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, including social welfare organizations, labor organizations, and business leagues, must disclose the names and addresses of all substantial contributors on their information returns.
  2. Public Accessibility of Information:

    • In addition to IRS filing requirements, the Spotlight Act requires that the disclosed information about substantial contributors be made available to the public. This provision aims to enhance transparency and enable citizens to access key details about the financial contributors to these tax-exempt organizations.
  3. Elimination of IRS Exceptions:

    • The bill removes the authority of the IRS to grant exceptions to the disclosure requirements for tax-exempt organizations. This change ensures a uniform application of transparency measures across organizations falling under the specified sections of the Internal Revenue Code.
  4. Effective Date Clarification:

    • Notably, the provisions of the Spotlight Act do not apply retroactively. Any determinations made by the IRS before July 16, 2018, regarding exceptions to the disclosure requirements remain unaffected by the bill.

In summary, the Spotlight Act aims to close a loophole in disclosure requirements for certain tax-exempt organizations, ensuring that information about substantial contributors is transparently reported to the IRS and made accessible to the public. The elimination of exceptions and the specificity of the effective date underline the intention to establish consistent and comprehensive transparency standards for these organizations moving forward.

What analysis do you have of using this spotlight act as a priority in the critical path to financial reform and anti corruption standards?

Incorporating the Spotlight Act into the critical path for financial reform and anti-corruption standards can significantly enhance transparency and accountability within tax-exempt organizations. Here’s an analysis of its potential impact on the overall strategy:

Key Contributions of the Spotlight Act:

  1. Enhanced Transparency:

    • The Spotlight Act plays a crucial role in fostering transparency within tax-exempt organizations, specifically those falling under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6). By requiring the disclosure of substantial contributors, it addresses a critical aspect of financial transparency, ensuring that the sources of significant financial support are known and accessible.
  2. Public Scrutiny and Engagement:

    • Making information about substantial contributors available to the public promotes active citizen engagement. This public scrutiny acts as a powerful deterrent against potential corruption or unethical practices within tax-exempt organizations. It aligns with the principle that transparency encourages responsible behavior.
  3. Consistency in Application:

    • The elimination of IRS authority to provide exceptions ensures a consistent and uniform application of disclosure requirements. This consistency is essential for building trust and ensuring that all organizations within the specified tax-exempt categories adhere to the same standards, leaving no room for selective exemptions.
  4. Complementing Anti-Corruption Efforts:

    • The Spotlight Act’s focus on financial transparency complements broader anti-corruption initiatives. By addressing a specific aspect of financial disclosure, it contributes to the overall goal of minimizing corruption risks within the political and organizational landscape.
  5. Strategic Alignment with Anti-Corruption Legislation:

    • Incorporating the Spotlight Act into the critical path demonstrates a strategic alignment with the broader anti-corruption and financial reform agenda. It signals a commitment to tackling corruption at its roots by ensuring that financial dealings within tax-exempt entities are subject to scrutiny and oversight.

Considerations and Challenges:

  1. Potential Resistance:

    • The implementation of the Spotlight Act may face resistance from some tax-exempt organizations that prefer to keep their substantial contributors confidential. Building awareness about the benefits of transparency and emphasizing the public interest aspects will be crucial in overcoming this resistance.
  2. Public Education:

    • Successful implementation requires a robust public education campaign to ensure that citizens understand the significance of the disclosed information. Educating the public about the potential impact of financial transparency on curbing corruption will be essential for garnering support.
  3. Collaboration with Civil Society:

    • Collaborating with civil society organizations, advocacy groups, and watchdogs can enhance the effectiveness of the Spotlight Act. These entities can play a vital role in monitoring compliance, raising awareness, and advocating for the importance of financial transparency.


The Spotlight Act, when strategically placed within the critical path for financial reform and anti-corruption standards, adds a specific and impactful layer to the overall initiative. Its focus on financial transparency aligns with the broader goals of combating corruption and fostering accountable governance. To maximize its effectiveness, it’s crucial to address potential resistance through education and collaboration, ensuring that the public and stakeholders recognize the long-term benefits of a more transparent and ethical financial landscape.

1 Like