Dem candidate for Georgia governor hiding identities of million-dollar donors

Remember when Democrats claimed they were against "dark money"?  That stance is so yesterday when it comes to Stacey Abrams, their nominee for governor of Georgia, who it is hoped by Dems will become the first black female governor of that state.

Jason Hopkins reports for the Daily Caller:

Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee in Georgia's gubernatorial election, is refusing to disclose the origin of millions of dollars donated to two foundations that helped propel her political career.

Former Georgia House of Representatives Minority Leader Stacey Abrams is remaining mum on who funded two tax exempt non-profit organizations.  Voter Access Institute and Third Sector Development, both created and led by the Democrat, received a total of $12.5 million in donations from 2013 to 2016.  The purpose of Voter Access Institute was to locate "low-propensity" voters and persuade them to go to the polls.  Third Sector Development organized a voter-registration initiative that targeted people of color.

The two foundations paid Abrams nearly half a million dollars over the course of three years and introduced the former state representative to a national fundraising network.  However, the gubernatorial nominee has refused to publish the names of donors involved in her non-profit work.


Stacey Abrams in 2012 (via Wikimedia Commons).

So we are supposed to be indifferent to the identities of people or entities who rocketed her compensation into the stratosphere and who hooked her up with other money sources, preparing for a national political presence.  Does the expression "puppet masters" apply here?

Keep in mind that a Georgia state representative earns $17,342 per year, plus a per diem of $173 when in session.  One third of half a million dollars, the yearly sum she would have received from the sugar daddies and sugar mommies guiding her career, would be 9.6 times as much money as her base pay as a legislator.

Were a Republican hiding the identities of the people who funded and stage-managed his political rise, there would be nonstop coverage on MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times, among many others, demanding to know what sinister dark money forces are behind the candidate.

But of course, the media rules for Democrats are entirely different from the ones for Republicans.

Remember when Democrats claimed they were against "dark money"?  That stance is so yesterday when it comes to Stacey Abrams, their nominee for governor of Georgia, who it is hoped by Dems will become the first black female governor of that state.

Jason Hopkins reports for the Daily Caller:

Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee in Georgia's gubernatorial election, is refusing to disclose the origin of millions of dollars donated to two foundations that helped propel her political career.

Former Georgia House of Representatives Minority Leader Stacey Abrams is remaining mum on who funded two tax exempt non-profit organizations.  Voter Access Institute and Third Sector Development, both created and led by the Democrat, received a total of $12.5 million in donations from 2013 to 2016.  The purpose of Voter Access Institute was to locate "low-propensity" voters and persuade them to go to the polls.  Third Sector Development organized a voter-registration initiative that targeted people of color.

The two foundations paid Abrams nearly half a million dollars over the course of three years and introduced the former state representative to a national fundraising network.  However, the gubernatorial nominee has refused to publish the names of donors involved in her non-profit work.


Stacey Abrams in 2012 (via Wikimedia Commons).

So we are supposed to be indifferent to the identities of people or entities who rocketed her compensation into the stratosphere and who hooked her up with other money sources, preparing for a national political presence.  Does the expression "puppet masters" apply here?

Keep in mind that a Georgia state representative earns $17,342 per year, plus a per diem of $173 when in session.  One third of half a million dollars, the yearly sum she would have received from the sugar daddies and sugar mommies guiding her career, would be 9.6 times as much money as her base pay as a legislator.

Were a Republican hiding the identities of the people who funded and stage-managed his political rise, there would be nonstop coverage on MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times, among many others, demanding to know what sinister dark money forces are behind the candidate.

But of course, the media rules for Democrats are entirely different from the ones for Republicans.