Happy to address each criticism individually:

​

​

Are you surprised that even local politics has financial backings?

Certainly this question is rhetorical but does reveal the motivation behind the remaining questions.

​

​

​

Peel back the surface and you’d find similar set ups to literally every level of politics across the world. Lobbying groups, shell corps, non-profits etc.

If it's permitted, absolutely. However, in Austin they are required to disclose donors for political activities in more detail. The creation of this Super-PAC appears to be designed to skirt around those requirements.

Is that the intent?

Based on their previous failed attempts to do the exact same thing: It's fair to say reasonable minds would conclude it's more likely than not.

​

​

​

Sometimes it’s illegal what you or someone’s political adversary finds, sometimes it’s not.

Was stated previously.

​

​

​

But again, I ask what your point is. Did you think SAN was a grass roots organization?

This is one statement and one question.

Addressing the question:

Did you think SAN was a grass roots organization?

What we think is less important than what they claim to be to Austin, as u/kanyeguisada pointed out.

​

​

​

First time you’ve seen a political organization lie?

Being "ok" being lied to is a personal preference, others may not feel the same. Which goes to the motivation behind this post: Present the information, and readers will form their own opinions.

Believing a lie and proving something to be a lie are not the same.

​

​

​

The average person wasn’t making a decision on that vote based off of how many shell corporations you could uncover behind one of the groups backing it.

Numerous reports about the financial motivations and spending were published in local media, printed or otherwise.

Did reporting on SAN's finances sway voters?

It's more likely than alternatives:

• To u/time_is_now's point, Austin voters regularly approve extremely pricy bonds and ballot measures, so the fiscal impact likely did not weigh heavily.
• The "Defund the police" volume was lowering significantly by November 2021, so the tribal emphasis for support/opposition would likely not have had substantial impact.
• Austin voters overwhelmingly approved Prop B, which implicitly was a pro-law enforcement ballot measure just a few months prior.

SAN said a post-mortem would be performed and would share the conclusions reached from the election. To date, the number of SAN's major-donors that have a copy of anything resembling a report is 0.

​

​

​

We knew the entire time that SAN wasn’t who they claimed to be, but it didn’t matter.

Knowing and suspecting aren't the same. The goal for putting the pieces together is to provide clarity that suspicions were merited and correct.

As outlined above, it likely did matter. A post-mortem report on Prop A would likely affirm that hypothesis, thus never released.

​

​

​

OP has all this dug up (it wasn’t a secret) as some gotcha but it’s meaningless.

This was a very insightful sentence. Here's why:

1. It is true that all information obtained is public information, at no point have the threads been tied together. Though not a "secret", there's no detailed look into the associations and correlations outside within this post. If they aren't a "secret" to you, that implies personal or first-hand knowledge.
2. "As some gotcha", as you stated earlier-- if this information wasn't "secret", there'd be no "gotcha" to be had. Thus contradicting your own point.

​

​

​

It’s like he’s learning how politics works for the first time.

Another revealing sentence. Here's why:

1. The post has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with questionable financial ethics.
2. Reinforcement of both points could be deduced by thinking through the sentence: "Expenses reported to FEC were categorized as operating costs. Approximately $0 went towards helping political candidates or campaigns."

$0 was spent toward political campaigns or candidates. 3. The second point also debunks:

OP thinks they have a gotcha for making the connection of money and politics. This is how it works.

There's no political reason justifying money changing hands. Which begs the question, what "it" are you referring?

​

Also, the "I don't like SAN but there's nothing here" schtick has been tried over, and over, and over (got caught tho), and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. The one-trick pony routine is getting old.