Axelrod continues Democrats' offensive on Chamber donations

[ProSense]

Source: The Hill

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod continued the administration's offensive against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative groups Sunday, saying there had to be a shady reason behind non-disclosure of donors who were helping fund the groups' campaign ads.

<...>

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, Axelrod instead told host Candy Crowley that journalists needed to probe the source of the groups' donations. Democrats allege that foreign influences and special interests are helping fund a blitz of campaign ads against their party.

"They say, trust us, trust us, we're -- everything is cool, everything is kosher, don't worry about it, but we're not going to disclose," Axelrod said. "Let me tell you something, people don't disclose, there's a reason."

He also alleged that the spending of 501(c) groups coupled with the lack of disclosure may not be on the up and up. "It's perfectly legal if they spend a majority of their money on something else," Axelrod said. "It would be interesting to see if that's the case."



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124553-axelrod-continues-democrats-offensive-on-chamber-donations

---

The Chamber of Commerce spent at least $9.8 million to run fully 4,706 ads in just one week, meaning it eclipsed Americans for Prosperity (another apparent dropout from the big-money class). The Chamber reported even more spending ($10.7 million) to the FEC, but $949,886 of that spending appeared to be double-reported. Either way, the business lobby dropped a CEO's salary to influence our elections in just a few days. Makes you wonder what they're expecting in return.

link

Some important limits do remain intact: Corporations still cannot give money directly to federal candidates or national party committees. That ban dates to 1907. The justices also upheld some other restrictions, including disclosure requirements for nonprofit groups that advocate for political candidates.

link

Two such groups advertising in Pittsburgh are Americans for Job Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both are 501(c)s, organized under the tax code as nonprofits. The law says they can't engage in politics as their primary purpose. It also says they can accept unlimited donations and don't have to report their donors. Couple that with the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, and you have a wide-open path for corporate money to flow into partisan politics.

link

[soryang]

1. Liz Cheney vs. Howard Dean this am on CBS

Cheney was making the talking point that the president can't prove that foreign money is going into Chamber of Commerce campaign ads. Dean had difficulty defending the president's statement because he doesn't know the ethical principle involved although he made a fair argument anyway. I give him a B- even though I love him and Cheney is a sophist.

The key to defending the president's argument against Chamber of Commerce spending is this. Foreign spending to support candidates is wrong. Money is fungible. Therefore, contributions from foreign contributors to the Chamber of Commerce, at a minimum constructively, support the Chamber of Commerce's political advertising. The Chamber of Commerce's defense to this is essentially the "chinese wall" defense always raised in corporate conflict of interest cases. The burden of proof ethically is on the Chamber of Commerce to show that it has a "chinese wall" if it wishes to claim that it does. But they don't present any evidence that there is a "chinese wall" guarding the election campaign from illegal foreign campaign advertising funds. So what we see is CBS giving Liz Cheney virtually unlimited free air time to attack criticism of the Chamber with the uncritical projection of false and unsound arguments that erroneously put the burden of proof on the critics of the Chamber and gloss over the ethical default.

IMHO the "chinese wall" argument is always disingenuous where it is used to circumvent ethical and legal proscriptions. But the right doesn't even put forward evidence that there is such a wall, available or effective, in 501C organizations. CBS and the media don't even effectively raise the issue.

There is the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety in the Chamber of Commerce's actions. Therefore, the burden is on them to prove their activity is neither unethical nor illegal.

[Scuba]

2. This should be a MAJOR issue in the next two weeks....

Democrat leaders past and present should be united behind full disclosure and calling out any Repubican accepting contributions from anonymous sources.

It resonates with people big-time.