A lot of fuss on the left is being made over the Chamber of Commerce and foreign money. Wrong is wrong. There is the kind of misleading representation of facts here that I objected to when right-winger politicos like Bachmann and Pawlenty (and of course, Fox Not-News) tried to represent Democrats as felons committing voter fraud stealing elections.
Let me be clear here. I don't like the big money being dumped into elections. Individuals have limits on donations, and most ordinary people who make up the majority of the voting-eligible in this country do not have the nearly unlimited funds that the wealthy few possess. After the Citizens United decision, Corporations don't have those limitations that apply to individuals, and they have much more money to make any donations to influence the outcome of elections than individuals. The result is that the wealthy, and corporations, unions, and special interest groups have a louder voice than individuals. That louder voice is a voice heard far more often than the ordinary individual,in the form of repeated advert messaging.
So, while I am standing up here for the Chamber of Commerce getting an unfair deal from the Democrat's campaign attention, I still don't like their spending, or any spending like it, from either side. There is enough influence peddled by big money -- ALL big money -- through lobbying and other means. Worse, far too often that influence is used to spread misinformation and disinformation to voters to achieve that influence. We need transparency, we need full disclosure, we need limits to big money - ALL big money.
I think we deserve to know who is funding the political messages, individuals and groups. No more anonymous donors to any of the 501 (c)'s. Transparency does not violate anyone's First Amendment Rights to Free Speech. Individual donations directly to political campaigns are not secret; that is the same free speech.
I would also think it is appropriate for us to start regulating the foreign money coming in to our country to influence government - at all levels. Anyone who believes that foreign money is an issue ONLY during election periods is a fool. Far wiser to have that information public - ANY and ALL foreign money should be disclosed that is part of the political process, including lobbying. It is no different than the requirement that political figures be transparent about gifts from sources - including foreign sources. Secular conservative Saint Ronald Reagan was in favor of trust, but verify, a phrase he used often. What many people don't know is that it is a translation of a Russian proverb; nothing could be more appropriate than using it to apply to the money from Russa coming into the Chamber of Commerce to enable the Chamber to 'assist' them politically. If we want a level playing field for our electorate, that trusting verification should also apply to all political foreign money, whether friend and ally nation, or a sometimes rival and opposition country.
Rather than summarize, here is the fact checking from one of my favorites, FactCheck.org:
Foreign Money? Really?
Democrats peddle an unproven claim.
October 11, 2010 Updated: October 12, 2010
Summary
Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are "stealing our democracy" with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It’s a claim with little basis in fact.
■The Democratic National Committee released a TV ad over the weekend claiming: "It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections."
■President Obama said last week that "one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources."
■The liberal group MoveOn.org is claiming, without any qualification, that "[f]oreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats."
The chamber says it does receive money from foreign sources, but that it amounts to only a small fraction of the chamber’s $200 million budget. The chamber says none of the foreign money is used in its ads, and no evidence has been produced to show otherwise. Federal Election Commission opinions state that organizations taking in foreign money may make political donations legally, so long as they have "a reasonable accounting method" to keep foreign money separate and have enough money from U.S. sources to cover the donations.
Analysis
As we reported last week in an Ask FactCheck item on this subject, the claim that money from foreign corporations is funding Chamber of Commerce attack ads originated with a Democratic-leaning organization headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton. That report noted that the chamber took in foreign dues (without reporting the amount) and then said that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law" against foreign spending in U.S. elections. The word "likely" made clear the author was engaging in speculation, which the chamber flatly denied. Tita Freeman, the chamber’s vice president of communications and strategy, told us that money the chamber takes in from foreign corporations "is not used for political ads."
Now others have challenged the claim. The New York Times reported:
New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.
In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.
The Times reported, for example, that U.S. subsidiaries of corporations based overseas have set up more than 160 political action committees. The Federal Election Commission states that this is perfectly legal so long as U.S. residents make the decisions and provide all the funds. The Times also noted that groups such as the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club also have international affiliations. The AFL-CIO has pledged to spend $53 million on the midterm elections, mainly supporting Democrats.
Nevertheless, the Democratic National Committee repeated the foreign-money claim in an ad it released to weekend news shows. It was played on CBS’ "Face the Nation."
Democratic National Committee Ad:
"Stealing Democracy"The ad claims that "it appears" Republicans have taken "secret foreign money" to influence elections. "It’s incredible: Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money."
Announcer: Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie: They’re Bush cronies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: They’re shills for big business. And they’re stealing our democracy. Spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they’ve even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections. It’s incredible: Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce: Stop stealing our democracy.
On "Face the Nation," CBS’ Bob Schieffer noted that the Times had quoted the chamber’s chief lobbyist as saying that the chamber got less than $100,000 from foreign affiliates, and Schieffer challenged White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod:
CBS’ Schieffer, Oct. 10: But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?
Axelrod: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?
Axelrod said "the core of the problem" is that the chamber won’t identify the sources of money it is using to fund its ads, except to say that it’s not from foreign sources. It’s true that the chamber won’t release donors — there’s no legal requirement for it to do so — and also won’t discuss the specific accounting methods it uses to keep foreign money separate.
As we reported last week, however, any "reasonable accounting method" will do, according to the governing advisory opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission.
The FEC, in AO 1992-16, allowed the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese company to make corporate donations to state and local candidates in Hawaii, provided that the U.S. company could show that it had enough funds from its domestic operations to cover the donations.
FEC, AO 1992-16: The [U.S.] subsidiary must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it has sufficient funds in its account, other than funds given or loaned by its foreign national parent, from which the contribution is made.
The FEC reaffirmed that position as recently as 2006, in another advisory opinion stating that domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations may donate to state and local elections. That was AO 2006-15, which ruled that two U.S. subsidiaries of a Canadian energy company "may make corporate donations and disbursements in connection with State and local elections to the extent permitted by State and local law," provided that no foreign nationals decide where the money is given and all funds come from U.S. sources.
The amount of foreign money the chamber takes in is actually somewhat more than $100,000 — though the chamber won’t say how much more. The chamber’s vice president of communications, Tita Freeman, told us that the chamber gets about $100,000 per year through American Chambers of Commerce overseas. That’s the $100,000 that the chief lobbyist was referring to in the Times story, another chamber official confirmed with us. In addition, Freeman said the chamber also receives membership dues directly from foreign corporations, though she would not say how much.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Nevertheless, some Democrats are taking the position that the Chamber of Commerce is guilty of using foreign contributions until proven innocent. MoveOn.org is using this claim in a fundraising appeal, both in e-mail messages and on its website:
MoveOn.org website: Foreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats this election cycle. Ask the Justice Department to investigate.
Update, Oct. 12: In addition, MoveOn.org Political Action attacked Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who is running for an Illinois Senate seat, with an ad saying that the chamber was helping "Republicans like Mark Kirk" and getting money from corporations in "countries like China, Russia and India, the same companies that threaten American jobs."
MoveOn.org Political Action ad:
"Mark Kirk, Connect the Dots"
Announcer: Mark Kirk voted to reward corporations with tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Now the Chamber of Commerce is spending over 75 million dollars to help Republicans like Mark Kirk get elected. And where has the chamber been getting some of their money lately? From foreign corporations in countries like China, Russia and India, the same companies that threaten American jobs.
It’s time to connect the dots. Exactly who is Mark Kirk working for? Because it sure isn’t Illinois.
2nd Announcer: MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.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.
___________________________________________
I don't like being misled, by anyone. Fact checking by everyone is the solution to avoiding that. Because Left or Right, Wrong is Wrong.
So, let me ask a question.
ReplyDeleteIf I give you money, say $20, and you use it to buy gas, then you take a DIFFERENT $20 which your friend "Bob" gave you, and you contributed it to the re-election campaign of Thomas Dewey, how am I not somehow subsidizing your support of Dewey? If you didn't have the money to buy gas, you'd likely have spent the money Bob gave you for it.
Also, considering the above point is the EXACT point the anti-abortion crowd raised about supposed funding of abortions because heatlth care money would very indirectly flow to organazitions which ALSO provided abortions, thereby allowing them to defray other costs, I guess I find it highly disengeniuous of the Chamber (or anyone else) to make the claim that in part the funds aren't supportive. "Firewalls" and "Lockboxes" are euphamisms. Unless the Chamber is willing to operate it's political arm as a wholly separate facility, I'm afraid I have to take the stance that in fact if China gives money to the CoC, and the CoC is out there lobbying for things which oh, benefit China, that in fact China has been allowed to insert itself into elections. This is one of the HUGE problems with the Citizens United decision.
Supposedly, the amount of foreign money collected as dues to the 'AmChams', the foreign Chamber of Commerce arms, amount to aprox. $100,000.
ReplyDeleteThe Chamber of Commerce is spending many millions.
It is clearly appropriate to investigate the $100,000; but $100k just doesn't buy all that much advertizing, although it is still a substantial chunk of change. Ka-ching.
I agree that this foreign money is as fungible - probably more fungible - than the funds the right were so hysterical about going towards abortions. They would rather have people die without insurance coverage or routine care, than continue (effectively) the compromise of the Hyde legislation.
I do think that Senator Franken was correct to call for a further FEC investigation into the general fund from which these ads are funded and into which the foreign money is deposited.
My concern is two-fold; that there are other donations than dues from foreign sources in that fungible general fund; and that the Chamber is reputed to have solicited foreign funds through issue alerts, sometimes called action alerts, to oppose democratic efforts to keep jobs local - to reduce outsourcing of jobs and U.S. investment in overseas production.
That would be so clearly intended to damage the American economy, as to be pretty close to UNAmerican, or if you prefer......Anti-American.
Hmmmmmm......who in Congress that Michele Bachmann wanted investigated would fit that description? Oh, yeah. Bachmann, Boehner, and the rest of the Republicans........