Never let a good crisis go to waste

No it’s not. You’re just making stuff up.
https://readsludge.com/2020/05/28/trump-admin-finalizes-rule-that-could-protect-foreign-dark-money-in-elections/

Genetic fallacy bro.

They literally cited the rule in the article. You still haven’t made any real attempt to debunk anything. Just because “reputable” sources don’t report it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is fake. CNN,MSNBC, the Washington post, and the New York Times didn’t report on Tara reade for an entire month! Does that mean the allegation is illegitimate? Of course not! By saying that no reputable sources have reported on the story is a subtle admission that the above media organizations are “reputable.” Judging by your memes, you don’t seem to be the person who would be particularly fond of the MSM. I’d take an independent news source like sludge over corporate media any day. If you still have doubts about my source, mediabiasfactcheck.com rates sludge as left biased but highly factual. Come back when you actually have real arguments instead of unsubstantiated bullshit.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/28/2020-11465/guidance-under-section-6033-regarding-the-reporting-requirements-of-exempt-organizations
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/sludge/%3famp

Whooooo boy. The source they cited is LITERALLY a government website. The onus is on other websites to cover it. If other sources don’t cover it, it’s their fault for not covering it, not sludge’s fault for covering it. Just because you’re so stubborn, I decided to add two more sources that reported this news. In regards to whether I Proved my point, I did. So I have to copy and paste the entire f**king article and the entire f**king government website? Also, what do you even mean by unsourced nonsense? Sludge sources a bunch of links in their article. And on the point of sludge having a leftist bias, that doesn’t mean shit. Just because a source is biased, doesn’t mean it isn’t factual. This was made abundantly clear on the website for idiots like you who don’t know the difference. Dismissing a source solely based on its bias is....you guessed it...a genetic fallacy. I also don’t understand how I’m being “pissy”. Imagine thinking that someone responding to unsubstantiated drivel means they’re being pissed.
Here’s two sources that also reported this news:

https://about.bgov.com/news/irs-rule-change-could-aid-foreign-election-meddling-critics-say/

https://www.issueone.org/irs-rules-change-allowing-groups-to-keep-donors-names-hidden-is-both-disappointing-and-troubling/

Your argument pivoted from saying sarcastically that sludge is a “totally legit” source solely based on its URL, comparing it to a trick that could “melt body fat while you sleep”, and that they “pretend to report the news” to sludge’s reporting might differ from the original news report. Weird how you used to believe that sludge was totally invalid just from reading the URL, and now you believe that sludge has the potential to be incorrect. Maybe that’s why I can’t understand your argument, it changed over time. I did you a favor and read the original government document and found the relevant information. The document. Here are some:
“by removing the general requirement to report names and addresses of substantial contributors to tax-exempt organizations...”
“...removing the annual reporting requirement will lessen their compliance burden.”
“Without a tax administration need for annual reporting name and address information...”. The article is extremely long, so I found 3 instances where the document clearly says that the IRS will now remove regulations requiring non profits to disclose donor information. All the articles I listed said that’s what the IRS did. The sources I listed did not obfuscate or misrepresent the document in any way. Now that we’ve established that the sources did not misrepresent the original document, they have free reign to have their opinion on it. Their conclusion is that the new rule will now effectively allow the illegal funneling of foreign funds through non profits into us politicians, which is wrong. I agree with this conclusion. Now that that’s dealt with, we can talk about me being “pissy.” If you don’t like me cursing then fine, I won’t curse.

I am genuinely curious as to why you don’t trust sludge and what sludge says that the document doesn’t. Because all the reasons why you think sludge is somehow an invalid source have been thoroughly debunked.