More defense of the Chamber and Rove by claiming Dems do it too

[ProSense]

D.N.C. Spokesman’s Former Group Didn’t Disclose Donors Either

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, is the latest ally of President Obama to go after the dangers of undisclosed money in the political process.

In a letter sent yesterday to editorial board members at news organizations across the country, Mr. Woodhouse excoriated the collection and use of the money in the current elections.

“Anonymous special interests and unnamed corporations are pouring tens of millions of dollars into electoral politics this fall, money that has the potential to tip the scales in close races across the country,” Mr. Woodhouse wrote in the letter. He lamented the “pernicious effects of secret, special interest money.”

<...>

Mr. Woodhouse said the comparison was unfair. He said Americans United for Change did not run the same kind of political advertising that Crossroads GPS and the other conservative groups were financing.

link

Note, the piece isn't calling for full disclosure like the NYT editorial did, it's simply trying to defend Rove with a bogus comparison.

CNN: Republicans go after DNC spokesman for hypocrisy

<...>

A spokesman for American Crossroads tells CNN that Woodhouse is being hypocritical, because before going to the DNC, Woodhouse ran a Democratic outside group called Americans United For Change, which accepted contributions without disclosing its donors.

"While Rove's group has run dozens of political attack ads assailing candidates just in the past few weeks, Americans United in six years in business has never run a single such ad during the election season. Not once. Americans United was never under the jurisdiction of the Federal Elections Commission but Rove's group is because running political attack ads is all it does," says Woodhouse.

During the Bush years, Woodhouse's Americans United For Change focused its resources and advertisements on issues like Social Security, Medicare and the Iraq War.

For example, one television ad the group ran in July 2007 in Minnesota against former Sen. Norm Coleman said "Norm Coleman is still standing with President Bush on Iraq. Tell Norm Coleman after four years, it's time to end the war."

<...>

Well, the Chamber and other issues advocacy groups have a ton of ads like that.

Think Progress made the distinction between advocacy and electioneering: Karl Rove And Chamber Defenders Raise ‘Absurd’ Red Herring About CAP Funding

Neither the Center for American Progress nor the Center for American Progress Action Fund electioneer or run candidate campaign ads. If CAPAF ever does run such ads, we will disclose the donors funding that activity. 501c4′s are not required to disclose donors and we do not see a disclosure problem with 501c4′s, like CAPAF, that continue to operate in the traditional role of a public education and issue advocacy organization; nor have we criticized the Chamber for its traditional work in support of its mission. Our concern is with organizations like the Chamber and others who have taken advantage of the Citizens United ruling to behave like a PAC by running massive amounts of candidate campaign ads without disclosing the source of funding for the ads. There is a long standing legal requirement for PACs to disclose donations, the Chamber and others are acting like PACs but without the disclosure.

To this day, Americans United for Change isn't running any campaign ads. Here are its most recent ads. They are specific to the issues.

Here are Crossroads GPS ads, which are campaign ads for specific candidates.

American Crossroads' candidate specific ads are here, and note this from the site's front page:



There is nothing ambiguous about that.

The Chamber and GOP fought the DISCLOSE Act. They joined forces to fight a bill to combat outsourcing jobs.

Americans United and Think Progress do not run campaign ads and they are not fighting against disclosure.

What's curious is that the Chamber seems to believe that even though its corporated members have employees of "all political stripes," it needs to represent and protect only those who agree with Republicans. The questions is protect them from what?

Quote of the Day: Secret Corporate Donors

— By Kevin Drum

From Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Bruce Josten, explaining why they keep the names of their donors secret:

Corporations, as I said, have employees, vendors, suppliers, and shareholders of all political stripes. They’re not trying to alienate anybody. They’re looking for representative organizations, such as mine and thousands of others, to be an express organization to advocate for them on their behalf.

Whatever else you can say about the flap over the Chamber's funding sources, this is a notably unpersuasive argument. Josten is essentially saying that rich corporations want the ability to hound and attack anyone in the political sphere they don't like, but want to be protected from being hounded and attacked by others. That's nice work if you can get it, but I don't think most Americans will be sympathetic. If you want to be in the arena, then you need to be in the arena. Being a corporation doesn't — and shouldn't — endow you with a special exemption from being attacked if you take controversial political views.

UPDATE: Chamber CEO Tom Donohue, as usual, puts things more bluntly: "I want to give them all the deniability they need," he says. And he does.

"They’re not trying to alienate anybody"? Why would someone be afraid to stand up for their political beliefs?

Rove, Chamber ads widely debunked as false or misleading

No wonder their donors want to hide, but who or what is the Chamber hiding?

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[DCKit]

2. We could also play their game and say they're funded by the Taliban, Muslims...

Al Qaeda, Hugo Chavez and any other name that would terrify the Teahadii.

Even if they prove it's not true, once it's out there....

Thanks for the lessons Kkkarl!