-
It would be more substantial if there was any information on how much
money really is involved. Until that comes out, I'll assume that's
it's run on not very much money. That Jon Lansman is closely involved
hasn't exactly been a secret, and until it's shown that he's massively
benefited personally/siphoned off donations, there doesn't seem to be
anything in it. As it's a not-for-profit company, it appears to be
unlikely that there's any malfeasance.I'm sorry, but you've set up a straw man and knocked it down again here.
There's no allegation he's siphoning off money for personal profit. And generally when politicians are found to have set up slush funds, they're not for personal profit either. The point is that it is money that can be spent for political purposes over which there is no clear political control or accountability, which undermines the rules that have been put in place to try to ensure that our political system doesn't get corrupted.
h2o-
I'm sorry, but you've set up a straw man and knocked it down again here.
No, I haven't. I'm merely saying that evidence of something like that there is much money involved or that Lansman is benefiting personally would be needed to give the article any substance. I'm not saying that neither of these are the case or that the possibility doesn't exist, just that there's no real information in the article.
A strawman argument would be something like 'the author says/seems to be saying that [insert strawman], but this is obviously nonsense because [rebuttal of strawman]'.
Oliver Schick
What a ridiculous article. They're really grasping at straws. I say it's ridiculous because it tries to make a lot of very little, styling itself à la Panama Papers ('complex snarl of companies'--errr no, not by the evidence you present).
It would be more substantial if there was any information on how much money really is involved. Until that comes out, I'll assume that's it's run on not very much money. That Jon Lansman is closely involved hasn't exactly been a secret, and until it's shown that he's massively benefited personally/siphoned off donations, there doesn't seem to be anything in it. As it's a not-for-profit company, it appears to be unlikely that there's any malfeasance.
The 'good bank/bad bank' comparison is hilarious. There are legal requirements to fulfil when you're employing people and those structures will have been set up/be required for doing that, no more. There also seems to be nothing 'complex' about these simple companies.
All that notwithstanding, the questions the article should be asking, quite reasonably, and doesn't quite manage to ask, are about governance, i.e. whether Momentum members have ever asked about establishing any kind of governance structure or whether the organisation is just a mailing list or contact shop. It seems that there is little or no governance structure in place at present, and that may be fine as far as the members are concerned, but as organisations/associations mature, it may, of course, not be enough at some point in time.
Perhaps anti-social media today take the place of such structures, which might traditionally have been provided by something within Momentum-like outfits, and there's actually no need for it to do any more than being a conduit for information. I'm obviously just speculating, as I have no idea how Momentum really works, let alone whether it works at all. :)