"Re-designation of Contributions In the event that a campaign or committee (a) fails for 60 days to cash a check from ActBlue which includes your contribution (after ActBlue makes repeated attempts to work with the campaign to ensure all checks are cashed), or (b) affirmatively refuses a contribution earmarked through ActBlue, your contribution will be re-designated as a contribution to ActBlue. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or are affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities. Contributions to charitable organizations which are not cashed or affirmatively refused will got to ActBlue Charities." What does the bolded text mean?
It means that they can consider them donations to ACTBlue, and who can then do with them as they wish - and what they “wish” to do is to funnel them to Democratic candidates. Are you reading your posts as you type them?
they are saying money donated to charities will go to charities. money donated to candidates will go to the dnc. What they are not saying in any form is that they will take money donated to a charity and give it to a campaign. they are explicitly saying the opposite.
Yes. Monies donated to charities via ACTBlue go to those charities. UNLESS 1) They send you a check and it isn’t cashed in 60 days, OR 2) You affirmatively refuse their check THEN, in THOSE CASES ACTBlue keeps the money and donates it to whomever they want. As the graph up top shows, ACTBlue’s largest “charitable contributions” are to the campaigns / PACs of Democrats. Here’s the real question....where is all of this money that ACTBlue is now collecting on behalf of BLM going? To what organization? Is there a formal BLM organization to receive these funds? Because if not, it seems that the millions people are donating to BLM are really going to Democratic candidates. And if that’s true, well, perhaps that is an important light to shed, and possibly in a variety of directions.
No. In those cases, the money goes toward ACTBlue social welfare activities, as specifically and explicitly stated in the wording. The word "generally" is troubling, but I bet audits show that generally means internal use.
No, these are separate things. It is right there in the text. There is the platform. The platform supports multiple things in multiple categories. The money doesn't cross categories, even if a thing refuses the money. It isn't "whomever they want" across categories, as is specified in that text. The graph DOES NOT show charitable contributions, it shows contributions, all of which are not charitable. There is not a single charity on the list. There is no indication that this list is being passed off as charitable.
Since you can't read, I'll post it three times. Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or are affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities.
Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or are affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities.
Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or are affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities.
Contributions to social welfare organizations which are similarly not cashed or are affirmatively refused will be kept by ActBlue and used generally to support its social welfare activities.
Here is a breakdown of the structure from an independent watchdog: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/actblue-charities/
ACTBlue processed $60M between last Friday and Monday. According to a spokesperson, half has been distributed. Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/us/politics/donations-protests-actblue-democrats.html
It is a platform. Some of the money is for charitable groups, some is not. They aren't slushing it all together, or at least nothing indicates that they are.
It's more like a credit card processor. The money is processed through them, but not to them. These aren't their expenditures, which would be the refused monies. These are the transactions they are processing.
The fun part is going to be when that group Project Veritas or whatever that does fake videos goes down and talks to some low level front end person, who doesn't understand the financials, or the way the transactions flow, and that person talks about how yea, they'll move it to XYZ.
This is my understanding. I used ActBlue for all my Butti-donations and it was clearly stated the full amount would go to candidate. They explain their function and provide a place to leave a 'tip' which is separate and specifically for the operating costs
And if Butti refused the money, or didn't pull it in a period of time, it went back to ACTBlue, to donate to whomever they wanted, within the realm of campaign contributions. That's the part that some wouldn't like. Which is a worthwhile discussion. Tenny is trying to take it a step further and say if you donated to BLM, they could move the money across buckets, to Butti. But that isn't true. But you don't get your money back, if Butti refused your contribution. You just never knew he refused.
