The Democrats are airing a new ad on national cable channels this week. And Carl Rove and Joe Scarbrough are upset. I think it is about time Democrats got off their butts and started punching back at Republicans...instead of playing the roll of perpetual punching bag. If Carl Rove and Joe Scarbrough are upset with the Ad, you know it is a good ad for Democrats. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/new-dnc-ad-targets-karl-roves-election-spending-video.php
The New York Times has already debunked a major claim of this ad: It also claims, "it appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections," a message the Democrats and left-leaning groups have kept pushing even though the New York Times basically debunked the foreign money meme in a big story Saturday. The Ad also trys to demonize the Chamber of Commerce? Seriously? If this is the best they've got, they're sunk.
If it is so impotent as you seem to think, why are Rove and Scarborough so upset about it? I think the easy solution to the ad is to disclose where the money is coming from and who is contributing - if there is nothing untoward about the money they are getting and spending in this election? Don't you think it would behove the Chamber of Commerce to disclose where they are getting the money to fund their politcal attacks on Democrats this year? This is a link to the Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=1 I think the operative word is " appears". From what I can gather, there is no proof of wrong doing nor is there any proof that laws are being obeyed. I think the bottom line is, we don't know what special interests are afoot this election and what they are doing.
All local Chamber of Commerces should have delinked with the "US Chamber of Commerce" decades ago. Many of the local chambers of commerce did delink. The US chamber says it has 300,000 members or 3 million members depending on what mood they are in but both numbers are disputed. Even if 300,000 or 200,000 is technically accurate that is not who the Chamber is accountable to. They are accountable to their larger funders. From Wikipedia: "In the 2008 election cycle, aggressive ads paid for by the USCC attacked a number of Democratic congressional candidates (such as Minnesota's DFL Senate candidate Al Franken) and supported a number of Republican candidates including John Sununu, Gordon Smith, Roger Wicker, Saxby Chambliss and Elizabeth Dole. During the 2010 campaign cycle, the chamber said it planned to directly spend $75 million, reported to be mostly aimed at defeating Democrats.[19] That year, the Chamber's PAC also gave $29,000 (89 percent) to Republican candidates and $3,500 (11 percent) to Democratic candidates.[20] The Chamber's PAC received a total of 76 donations from individual donors ($200 or more donation) totaling $79,852 in 2007-2008, or an average of three donations per month.[21]" Small business and Multinational corporations often have different interests. The US Chamber of Commerce represents themselves first and huge corporations headquartered anywhere in the world second. The US Chamber of Commerce is no friend to the American economy, no friend to small business, no friend to most wealthy Americans and no friend to honest governance. The AMA and AARP sometimes try do things for doctors and old people that are beyond what many doctors or old people feel is ethical to ask for. I think this phenomena may be common to many lobbying organizations. The Lobbying organization needs to deliver something to it's sponsors to justify it's existence. I think Lobbying organizations and the corporation's political fixer who's job it is to oversee corporate lobbying expenses tend to have lower ethical standards than the corporations themselves (not that corporations have acceptable ethical standards). It is no secret that the US Chamber of commerce raises money from foreign corporations. That fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the US Chamber's funds and motives are commingled. Even if they had separate accounts (it sounds like they don't) they could easily functionally get around that insignificant obstacle to using foreign money in US politics. This whole issue is sort of ridiculous or hypocritical because some company incorporated in Wilmington Delaware is only insignificantly more loyal to the American people than some company Incorporated in Zurich Switzerland is and they are barely more loyal to the American people than some company owned by the Chinese government is. Also US corporations and even the US government itself routinely fund political operations in foreign democracies. The real problem lies with the American people. They need to stop being influenced by political advertising. The American people need to understand that political lying is effectively legal in the USA. The American people need to understand that every advertisement is paid for by special interests who either want the government to do something that is against the interests of the American people or is against the interest of some competing special interest. You don't have to pay politicians to do the right thing unless somebody else is paying them to do the wrong thing. American politicians may be ignorant but they would rather work for the American people than work against the American people. This incompetence that is the American government is not purely accidental. Sure stupidity is real and pride leads to blindness and huge organizations always end up lead by overly proud people who over-manage from above rather than letting those below who have more understanding of their areas make decisions but I don't believe sheer size and innate human stupidity and the blinding pride of the powerful can't account for this level of incompetence. I believe the US Chamber of Commerce and other corrupting organizations help the more corrupt and more stupid politicians to rise in power because they oppose any politician that they can't fool or corrupt. The selection politicians for their willingness to do whatever the political money asks them to do begins when they are local politicians being corrupted and seduced by local political money. If you don't know who to vote for, vote against which ever side had more advertising.
Very good commentary Nirakar. But I don't think most Americans are that sophisticated in their consumption of information. Younger generations were raised on TV advertisments...bred to be influenced by TV ads. And older Americans are used to the day when TV commentators were fair and balanced by law. And as each year passes, scientists are becoming more adept at reading and manipulating human behaviors. Unfortunately the average Joe is not becoming more skillful in understanding these influences on his behaviors.
Yes, from one of joes favorite sites, Fact Check: "It’s certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none." – by Brooks Jackson
Indeed, Fox News does this kind of thing for Republicans/Tea Partiers 24/7....not to mention all of their buds like the Koch brothers. So it is good to see Democrats punch back with similar tactics. If anything, Republicans have proven over the course of the last decade that these tactics work.
Let's see if this basicly true cartoon gets BR upset: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well lets see, just how black the pot is....... http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/fec.htm washingtonpost.com By Thomas B. Edsall and Edward Walsh Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, September 21, 2002; Page A05 The Federal Election Commission disclosed yesterday it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fundraising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources.------- -------- The DNC was fined $115,000, the Clinton-Gore campaign $2,000, and the Buddhist Progress Society $120,000. In the conciliation signed by DNC lawyer Joseph Sandler, the party agreed to pay the fine and to "disgorge [another] $128,000" to the U.S. Treasury, representing illegal contributions that were not returned to donors.------ -------- In a separate document, the FEC said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents either are "out of the country and beyond our reach, or corporations that are defunct."------- -------- John Huang, a DNC finance vice chair in 1996-------- ---------- Huang, a central figure in the fundraising controversy, pleaded guilty in 1999 to conspiracy to defraud the FEC. He was sentenced to one year's probation and fined $10,000. The FEC documents detail several illegal contributions stemming from Huang's efforts, including: • $250,000 from Cheong Am America Inc., a subsidiary of a Korean firm, Ateck Co. "On April 8, 1996, Cheong Am officials met briefly with President Clinton and gave John Huang . . . an envelope with a corporate check for $250,000 made out to the DNC," according to the FEC. The amount represented $50,000 for each of five company officials who met with Clinton. • Huang received $40,000 from Indonesian nationals Arief and Soroya Wiriadinata that was deposited in the DNC's federal account in June 1996. • Huang accepted $327,500 from Pauline Kanchanalak of Thailand, who attended "a White House 'coffee' with President Clinton on June 18, 1996." The FEC said Kanchanalak "paid a total of $277,500 for the coffee in installments" made out to state parties in order "to satisfy Pauline Kanchanalak's desire to avoid media attention." The FEC documents indicate that Huang has agreed to pay a $95,000 fine.--------- ----------- Robert S. Lee, a California developer, negotiated the price of a meeting between President Clinton and several executives of II Sung Construction, a Korean company.--------- ------- Wallace told Lee "that he could arrange the meeting at a DNC fundraiser, but a donation would have to be made to the DNC." Wallace and Lee "agreed on a figure of $150,000."------- --------- The FEC documents are rich in detail on the behind-the-scenes world of political fundraising. They describe how Chien Chuen "Johnny" Chung brought 20 guests to a $1,000-per-person Clinton-Gore fundraising dinner in Los Angeles in 1995. Chung tried to pay with a $25,000 check, but it was refused by Karen Sternfeld, the campaign's deputy finance director for Southern California. She told Chung she needed 20 checks of $1,000 each from his guests.---------- --------------- According to the documents, Sternfeld said the checks did not have to be from the people who attended the dinner, and directed Wu to meet her at a restaurant later that day to deliver the money.----------- ------------------ The documents said Wu and others then collected 20 checks of $1,000 each from "conduits," who were promised they would be reimbursed, and Chung later withdrew $20,000 in cash from his bank accounts to repay the conduit contributors.------------ International Buddhist Progress Society John Huang James Riady Yah Lin Trie Hogan & Hartson Global Resource Management Sheik Mohammed Oboud Al-Amoudi Johnny Chung Maria Hsia Ted Sioeng--------------- Yes the Democrats have a long and glorious record of accepting foreign donated money for their campaigns.
Well here is the thing, the only ones I see abandoning party affiliations are Republicans. And they are doing it in name only. They still support Republican candidates. They still vote for Republicans. They still donate to Republicans. So in the end, after much fuss about what kind of label they are going to put on themselves...it all amounts to more of the same. If people are upset with both parties then they need to not support either of the parties and support a 3rd party candidate. And two, they need to stop being influenced by slime politics...stop getting their information from biased sources like Fox News, limbaugh, hannity, beck, et al.
Amen. The sooner people stop playing red team/blue team the sooner real solutions to problems and honest dialogue can emerge. One side complaining about another's fundraising or advertising is a fucking joke, since both resort to pretty much the same tactics. Or think progress (who you post all the time) or Move on or Daily Kos or Keith Olbermann or Rachael Maddow or Chris Matthews. In other words, the sooner you open your eyes and see the parity in the bullshit, the sooner you can start making some independent points and the sooner you quit contributing to the problem.
Then you haven't looked my way. I've voted Democrat for years. But over the last 10 years I feel like I've lost any commonality with either side. Gladly. BTW - I've never watched Fox News, nor any of the other dweebs you listed.
Well good for you. I would encourage you to be independent and vote or 3rd party candidates if that is the way you feel.
