Despite daily commentaries and reports on the secret-money allegations, mostly trying to defend the Chamber and Rove, the media pundits want people to believe the allegations are irrelevant. Here is ABC's latest attempt in their defense.
Democrats Attack Chamber of Commerce Over Campaign Disclosure, But Practice Not Unusual or Illegal
<...>
Under the 501(C)(6) section of the tax code, "leagues, chambers of commerce, and real estate boards" that promote a "common business interest" can register with IRS for tax exempt status and engage in political campaigning relatively unrestricted so long as it's not their primary activity.
These nonprofit groups, including those that engage in political activities, are not required to publicly reveal the names of donors -- a practice many, including liberal groups, defend.
<...>
The Chamber of Commerce has received the most scrutiny because of the extraordinary $20 million it has spent in this election cycle so far. The group is running ads in 27 states, hammering mostly Democratic candidates for their policies, but they are also supporting at least 10 Democrats in races across the country.
<...>
Close behind the Chamber in fundraising prowess is Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit with ties to Republican strategist Karl Rove. Together with sister group American Crossroads, a "super PAC," they have raised $56 million.
moreWell, that's not accurate. Nonprofits can only engage in limited political activities, primarily issues advocacy, not political campaigning for or against specific candidates.
Citizens did not change that:
<...>
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.
<...>
Rove's group appears to be in violation:
Rove-linked PAC pumps $227k into Klein-West congressional raceThe implication that similar liberal groups are engaged in such activities.
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.
<...>
The ads in Pittsburgh attacked candidates of both parties, but
the ones attacking Republicans were all from Democratic candidates or party committees, groups that have to disclose their donors. Not one ad from the supposedly nonpolitical groups attacked a Republican. All of those ads are aimed at Democrats.
linkIn fact, many liberal groups that engage in political campaigning
are 527s or
have 527s for the purpose.
The Chamber has a 527, but for some reason it's
barely being used.
It's interesting that ABC comes out with the defense that the Chamber's practice is "not unusual or illegal" when there are reports and even a federal court ruling to the contrary.
As campaign money pours in, so do complaints <...>
"The evidence that the Ruth Institute and the NOM Education Fund repeatedly stepped over the line into illegal activity is indisputable," said Joe Solmonese, the HRC's president. "Is the Ruth Institute nothing more than a front and funnel for NOM's political activities?"
<...>
On Wednesday, for example, the watchdog groups Public Citizen and Protect Our Elections filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the pro-Republican organization Crossroads GPS is violating federal campaign finance laws by claiming to be a nonprofit group rather than a political committee. A similar complaint was filed with the IRS earlier this month against Crossroads GPS, which was founded with the help of GOP political guru Karl Rove and is one of the leading spenders this year.
<...>
According to the complaint, the Ruth Institute is listed as a project of NOM's Education Fund, which is incorporated as a 501(c)3 nonprofit group, named for the portion of the tax code used for charities. Donations to such charities are tax-deductible, but the groups are prohibited from participating in political campaigns.
NOM has spent more than $200,000 in an attempt to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), but the Ruth Institute is supposed to steer clear of those efforts.
<...>
Federal Court Upholds Disclosure LawThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit told an anti-abortion group Tuesday that it has to disclose the names of its donors in accordance with Washington state laws.
While the case dealt with issues on the state level, the decision has national implications as the campaign finance community is haggling over transparency rules. The federal court ruled that all groups that try to influence ballot measures must register as political committees with the state and disclose their contributors and expenditures.
Attorney James Bopp Jr., who advised Citizens United in its Supreme Court case against the Federal Election Commission, represented the plaintiff, Human Life of Washington. Bopp argued that the nonprofit did not have to register and disclose its donors as a political action committee to run ads against the practice of assisted suicide.
“Today’s ruling was a victory for citizens over special interests,” said Paul Ryan, associate legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief in the case in favor of transparency. “As more and more anonymous special interest money is flooding into the 2010 election cycle, the Ninth Circuit ruling is particularly important in light of the fact that disclosure laws are facing challenges from coast-to-coast.”
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
