-
Well, if it owns the data and receives the donations but is unaccountable to anyone, it's not dissimilar to a slush fund.
It's not unheard of for small political operations to have this kind of structure, but it's very murky and unaccountable and that's the bit that doesn't sit well.
I mentioned up-thread that the SWP has never registered as a political party - nobody outside the leadership knows what it does with its money, either. But it will spend that money on political materials that it will then use to try to influence proper, registered parties. Like it did with Respect.
Now, there are lots of rules preventing registered parties from receiving donations from certain entities, and because of their increased transparency, people can criticise them if they accept donations that at hypocritical or unethical.
You can't do that with a company like this. For all we know, Lord Ashcroft could be its biggest financial backer (not suggesting he is, you just don't know).
You are reading a single comment by @ and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
h2o
@ 
I've read that article (poorly) twice and am at a loss - what's the claim being made in that article? In regard to election campaigns/political organizations, is any of that unusual? If so, what might be the reasons be for that setup?