Political Ruminations

VIDEO: Who is Secretly Buying Our Elections?

Chilling. And as someone else said [can't remember exactly who], this election is for all of the marbles. VOTE.

 

Silly Dumb Little People........the GOP Thinks You Don't Care Who's Funding Them

Whoops! [emphasis mine]

It has become an article of faith among certain Beltway inside-game commentators that there’s no way the Dem attack on secret money funding elections could ever have a prayer of working. Surely the issue is too esoteric, too process-y, and too removed from voter concerns about the economy to resonate.

But a new poll commissioned by MoveOn, and done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, strongly suggests that the issue may indeed matter a good deal to voters after all.

The poll finds that two thirds of registered voters, or 66 percent, are aware that outside groups are behind some of the ads they’re seeing. This makes sense, since the issue has dominated the media amid the battle over the huge ad onslaught against Dems funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s groups.

What’s more, an overwhelming 84 percent say they have a “right to know” who’s bankrolling the ads. And crucially, the poll also found that the issue is resonant when linked to the economy. A majority, 53 percent, are less likely to think a candidate who is backed by “anonymous groups” can be trusted to “improve economic conditions” for them or their families. People don’t believe these groups are looking out for their interests.

I guess we no longer need to wonder why Karl Rove, the Chamber, and the Republican media want the Left to stop talking about their secret little fundraising pacs.

h/t Oliver Willis

VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Claims That No Foreign Money is Being Used to Fund Candidates

Joining Karl Rove in his protests, the batshit crazy Bachmann [R-MN], was on Fox Business yesterday where she was all in a fury, railing at Democrats and the White House for asking the Chamber to disclose its donors. Bachmann said that the Chamber only funds candidates out of its political action pac, and that there are no foreign donors.

Bachman:

This is about as low as it goes. It’s more than just disingenious, it’s a flat-out, patent lie. The Chamber of Commerce, who has been accused of taking foreign contributions to spend on elections, is absolutely not doing that. They have a separate political action fund and they use that only from American donors.

 

Unfortunately for Bachmann, her claim is easily proven false.

The Chamber does indeed have a political action fund. However, its PAC has so far raised $161,000 and spent only $104,000. Yet, the Chamber itself has spent more than $12 million so far this election season (and plans to spend $75 million), largely helping Republican candidates.

See, the PAC is required to disclose donors and funds; thanks to the Citizen’s United ruling, corporations are not required to disclose, nor limited as to dollar amounts of contributions.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the Chamber would have had to run its political ads out of its PAC, contributions to which are disclosed. But the Court’s decision allows large corporations — such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without publicizing their donors. [......]

America for Sale.

---

RELATED POSTS: Update: Tracking the Aftermath of the Citizen’s United Ruling

Foreign Money Funding Republican Campaign Ads Against Democrats Via the US Chamber of Commerce

For all posts on the fallout from/aftermath of, the Citizen's United ruling, click here.

Morning Quote

Former Bush political strategist, Karl Rove, on Fox News Sunday, ranting at President Obama and the DNC for shining the light on the activities of Rove in concert with the US Chamber of Commerce.

The president of the United States accused the Chamber of Commerce, and the Democratic National Committee in its new ad accuses Ed Gillespie and I of a criminal violation of our law by getting foreign money and spending it on American political campaigns, and they have not one shred of evidence to back up that baseless lie. This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of enemies list, with being unrestrained by any facts or evidence whatsoever.

So disingenuous for Rove. But of course, there is evidence.

Sam Stein [emphasis mine]:

There is a obvious element of chutzpah when a political operative defined by his use of dirty tricks accuses his opponents of the same. [.…]

The fact remains, however, that a resolution to the debate is fairly obvious. Simply disclosing the names of who is donating to each of these institutions would clear the air and validate either Rove or the White House. But with a campaign finance law stuck in congressional limbo and hordes of potential donations at stake in this election, transparency has instead been replaced by innuendo.