Utopia Talk / Politics / GOP using foreign money to win election

Aeros Member	Sun Oct 10 22:24:10 Finally nice to see the Democrats getting in on the unsubstantiated by highly plausible political accusations for a change. Apparently, the US Chamber of Commerce is laundering money from foreign corporations and governments, and then redirecting the cash into pro GOP causes. Naturally, the dems have asked the COC to show who is providing them the political cash, but they are refusing to reveal, saying the law permits them to keep doners anonymous. Sounds suspect to me. http://www...010101004009.html?hpid=topnews Obama continues attack on Chamber of Commerce The White House intensified its attacks Sunday on the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its alleged ties to foreign donors, part of an escalating Democratic effort to link Republican allies with corporate and overseas interests ahead of the November midterm elections. The chamber adamantly denies that foreign funds are used in its U.S. election efforts, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a speculative smear campaign during a desperate political year. President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections" and raised the possibility that foreigners could be funding his opponents. "You don't know," Obama said at the rally for Senate candidate Joe Sestak and other Democrats. "It could be the oil industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose." The remarks are part of a volley of recent attacks by Obama and other Democrats on alleged foreign influence within the Republican caucus, whether through support for outsourcing jobs by major U.S. corporations or through overseas money making its way into the coffers of GOP-leaning interest groups. The comments also come as Democrats attempt to cope with an onslaught of independent political advertising aimed at bolstering Republicans, much of it fueled by donations that do not have to be revealed to the public. The spending has added to a political environment in which Democrats are in danger of losing control of both the House and Senate. David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that secret political donations to the chamber and other groups pose "a threat to our democracy." Axelrod also took the unusual step of calling on the chamber to release internal documents backing up its contention that foreign money is not being used to pay for U.S. political activities. Democrats have seized on a report by a liberal blog alleging that dues from chamber-affiliated business councils could be used in that way. ad_icon "If the chamber opens up its books and says, 'Here's where our political money's coming from,' then we'll know," Axelrod said. "But until they do that, all we have is their assertion." The chamber has vehemently denied the allegations, characterizing them as part of a desperate strategy to stave off a GOP takeover of Congress. The business lobby has vowed to spend up to $75 million on the midterm elections, primarily in favor of Republicans. Chamber senior vice president Tom Collamore called the Democratic attacks "a blatant attempt to avoid a serious discussion of Americans' top priority - creating jobs and growing the economy." The Democratic National Committee began airing ads over the weekend attacking the chamber as "shills for big business" and claiming: "It appears they've even taken foreign money to spend on our elections." The ad also attacks Karl Rove, former Bush administration political adviser, and Ed Gillespie, former Republican National Committee chief, for their ties to American Crossroads, an independent group also spending big on election ads this year. "Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce: Stop stealing our democracy," the ad says. Gillespie and Rove, both of whom say they are not formally connected to American Crossroads, bristled at the attacks during television appearances Sunday. Rove said on "Fox News Sunday" that there was "not one shred of evidence to back up that baseless lie" that foreign money was funding conservative campaigns. "Don't accuse those who are playing by the rules of somehow doing something that is unethical or illegal," Gillespie said on "Face the Nation." This year's record tide of spending has been fueled in part by a controversial Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that corporations could spend as much as they want on elections. Obama and Senate Democrats failed in their attempts to enact legislation that would have increased disclosure requirements for such spending and tightened restrictions on political activities by foreign-linked firms. Democratic candidates have increasingly attacked Republicans such as Senate candidate Carly Fiorina of California for allegedly backing policies that encourage U.S. employers to move jobs to cheaper overseas labor markets. The party has also seized on a report last week by ThinkProgress, an arm of the liberal Center for American Progress, documenting the chamber's ties to "AmChams" and other overseas business groups that pay dues to the U.S.-based group. The report said the chamber funds U.S. political activities out of the same account that collects foreign dues, and raised the possibility that the money could be unlawfully commingled. Chamber officials say the group collects about $100,000 in dues from overseas affiliates and that the money is cordoned off for use on "international programs." The business lobby has declined to release further details, citing confidentiality rules governing nonprofits. Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said Obama and other administration officials are not accusing the chamber of illegality nor calling for an investigation into its campaign spending. He also acknowledged that the White House has no specific evidence that the chamber is using foreign money in U.S. elections. "The president is making a disclosure argument," Earnest said. "He's just saying for the good of democracy the chamber should disclose where it is getting its money and how it is financing these ads, and that all organizations should." Asked if the White House believes midterm voters care about this issue, Earnest said "it goes to a larger point." "You have Republicans in Congress standing up for corporate interests to block the president's agenda," he said. "And I think voters do care that some of the same corporate interests are funding these ads attacking Democrats." Legal experts from both parties say the prohibition against foreign funding in U.S. elections is clear, and noted that Democrats have turned up no hard evidence that the chamber is violating that ban. But advocates of stronger campaign-finance regulations also said there is little apparent policing of the restrictions either by the FEC or the Internal Revenue Service. "It's very clear that current laws are not up to ensuring that this doesn't happen," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. "It's one of the reasons that you'll continue to see these types of accusations, which are really one of the most volatile accusations you can make during an election."
habebe Member	Sun Oct 10 23:02:58 " The chamber adamantly denies that foreign funds are used in its U.S. election efforts, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a speculative smear campaign during a desperate political year. " It really does just sound desperate IMHO.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Oct 10 23:28:58 "President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections"" Yeah, I heard $250 Million in Union Dues is coming from the union to the democratic coffers.
kargen Member	Sun Oct 10 23:42:37 Ah hell,if overseas funds is good enough for Gore it should be good enough for a handfull of Republicans.
miltonfriedman Member	Sun Oct 10 23:44:55 Why?
Hellfire Member	Mon Oct 11 01:38:45 "It really does just sound desperate IMHO. " Desperate or not, it does no service to the American people to hide who is funding political ads. Under the current laws, we have nothing to do but trust that foreign funds aren't being used to influence our elections. If Americans really care about keeping foreign nationals out of our elections, more disclosure about who is funding this stuff is the only way. Unfortunately, the politicians in office are the ones most likely to be harmed by such legislation so it will never happen *sigh*
habebe Member	Mon Oct 11 02:35:52 " Desperate or not, it does no service to the American people to hide who is funding political ads. Under the current laws, we have nothing to do but trust that foreign funds aren't being used to influence our elections. " True, but I really don't see this adding up to more than a desperate plea to minimize damage.
Nimatzo Member	Mon Oct 11 04:31:52 You entire political system is a big joke by western standards. Yiu understands this right? The only reason the lists over corruption does not not show the USA with a higher degree of corruption is becausemist if what other countries would consider corruption or violation of ethics code is legal in the USA.
Dukhat Member	Mon Oct 11 05:33:01 A bigger joke than Europe's? Because Italy is so amazing right with a shadow economy that is about a quarter of GDP, and Spain is so amazing with brain-dead socialists in charge and 19% unemployment. Give me a fucking break. Europeans always like to act superior but too many fucktards are on the government dole for Europe to go anywhere but down. As for taking foreign money, Clinton perfected taking Chinese money to a tee while in office.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 06:00:04 Where was the outrage when Obama backed out of a time honored tradition of limiting his expenditures when he was deluged with internet donations? Where was the outrage all of those decades when Unions were allowed to contribute helter skelter to political campaigns, but it took a USSC decision to allow business' to contribute?
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 11 08:11:20 Because the donations came from American citizens, not foreign nationals. BIG difference Rod.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 11 08:14:21 Nim, I'll be the first to say the US system has it's flaws, but what exactly are you calling corrupt by EU standards?
habebe Member	Mon Oct 11 08:14:51 Or more accurately by "western" standrads
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 11 08:20:15 I'm pretty sure that by EU standards, the American political system isn't corrupt at all. I mean, seriously. I dare any European to sit at his computer and type in dead seriousness that the EU is not plagued by corruption. Try it.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Oct 11 08:20:47 Aeros - Because the donations came from American citizens, not foreign nationals. BIG difference Rod. No, those donations came from union leaders using the money of American Citizens. Do you really think *all* union members support what the leaders funded?
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:33:16 George Soros anyone???
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 11 08:34:22 Isn't Soros american?
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 11 08:35:16 He was born a foreigner. He's not a REAL American, see.
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 11 08:37:02 This is thing. We know where the Democrats are getting their money. Nobody has a CLUE where the Republican money is coming from. For all we know, they are being funded by the Chinese because they know the Republicans will derail the Obama administration and render it impotent. Can you prove the Chinese are not funding the GOP Rod?
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 11 08:38:00 Yeah, he is the nefarious asshole who finances liberals so they can raise taxes on rich people.
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:38:19 Can you prove they are shitnuts?
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:39:44 *chirp*
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:40:25 *chirp*
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 11 08:41:54 The obligation is not on me. The Democrats have shown where their money comes from, and it is not foreign donors. The onus is now on the Republicans to prove the same.
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:42:27 In fact wasn't it Clinton that had issues with ChiCom contributions?
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 11 08:42:50 Aeros says: "Can you prove the Chinese are not funding the GOP Rod?" Can you prove that Obama is not a Muslim? THOUGHT NOT.
General Public Member	Mon Oct 11 08:44:51 Aeros, proving a negative??? You really are one stupid fuck.
General Populace Member	Mon Oct 11 08:47:05 Rugian, you are correct.
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 11 08:47:56 I am asking questions here. The American people deserve to know that their elections are not being influenced by foreigners. Why is the Republican Party afraid to show who is giving them money?
General Populace Member	Mon Oct 11 08:51:52 "In fact wasn't it Clinton that had issues with ChiCom contributions? " Allegedly.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Oct 11 09:11:09 "The obligation is not on me." Right, aeros makes the accusation and then demands the GOP, (read right leaning posters on this forum), to prove him wrong. Very mccarthyesqe you stalinist shithead. Also Aeros, make sure to be online on the night of Nov 2, I plan on dragging your face through the electoral shitstorm coming for you.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Mon Oct 11 09:13:52 Man dude you are hilarious you are putting in unelectable teabaggers in every election so the only face going through the damn mud is yours. You had Delaware until you put the O donnel witch teabagger up and you are doing that dumbass move in every state man. All you have are nailin palin clones.
General Populace Member	Mon Oct 11 09:14:00 Isn't MT also a corporal in the Axis Of Retards? I can't remember.
UP Axis Of Retards Member	Mon Oct 11 09:21:49 Profile: Mexicantornado Years of Services: Approximately 7-9 years Known for: Cutting the grass, being mexican't, presenting horrible high school term papers, can't graduate high school, illegal, poor tastes in movies. Bio: Mexicantornado is a cadet in the Axis Of Retards. Not considered good enough [yet] to be in the upper rankings of AxOR, he his proven to be retarded. Making claims such has Obama is responsible for North Korea's 'aggression' and that 500 days of summer is a good movie. Mexicantornado also has a great historical perspective on thanksgiving, which he was greatly embarrassed on its origins.
mexicantornado Member	Mon Oct 11 09:22:48 Wow, I am insulted and impressed at the same time.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 11 09:49:14 Another fine work.
BrngBkTheReaganYears Member	Mon Oct 11 09:57:48 Everything was much better during the Reagan years.
kargen Member	Mon Oct 11 11:23:52 "This is thing. We know where the Democrats are getting their money." No we don't. Just nobody is making an issue of it because there is much better topics to use against Democrats. "Can you prove the Chinese are not funding the GOP Rod?" We know the Chinese funded Al Gore. Can you prove the Chinese are not still funding the Democrats? "The obligation is not on me. The Democrats have shown where their money comes from," No they have not. "The American people deserve to know that their elections are not being influenced by foreigners." Not possible. US politics has been influenced by foreigners for a very long time now. Immigration is a big issue and Mexico has a huge influence on that particular issue. All those demonstrations around the world have an effect. What you meant to say is the American people deserve to know that their elections are not being influenced by foreign money. So far there is not even a skant bit of evidence suggesting the GOP is being funded through the Chamber of Commerce with foreign money. The Democrats are trying to create a scandal because they have nothing else to run on.
NeverWoods Member	Mon Oct 11 11:47:40 "The Democrats are trying to create a scandal because they have nothing else to run on." Why? The GoP are doing it pretty fine for them self on that department.
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Oct 11 11:50:16 "We know the Chinese funded Al Gore. Can you prove the Chinese are not still funding the Democrats?" lulz.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 12:14:21 "Legal experts from both parties say the prohibition against foreign funding in U.S. elections is clear, and noted that Democrats have turned up no hard evidence that the chamber is violating that ban." So why are we having this discussion? Now if you want to apply new campaign requirements that every political candidate and organization contributing to political candidates report the sources for every penny of financal donation then that is a worthy discussion. However, that is not the rule as it stands. I also think both the dems and repubs might want to consider the results of such a rule before either side goes suggesting it. The end result wouldn't be pretty for either side.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 11 12:20:25 October 08, 2010 Categories:Labor.Union disclosure unlike other groups' Defenders of the outside Republican groups that don't disclose their donors -- the Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS are the biggest this year -- have sometimes made the argument that Democrats have no right to gripe about this, because the unions that support them don't disclose their donors either either. "[U]nions are [501](c)(5)s and don’t disclose...is that the business as usual? Or does that make them shadowy?" Jim Dyke, one of the GOP consultants on the board of American Crossroads, asked on Twitter today. There are elements of this comparison that make sense. The same collapse in campaign finance restrictions that allow unlimited corporate spending allow unlimited union spending. But when it comes to disclosure, talk of unions is a red herring. While they aren't required by the FEC or IRS to disclose donors, a separate piece of federal law, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, requires that unions disclose all sources of income that adds up to more than $5,000, a requirement overseen by the Department of Labor. As a result, unions disclose more than many political groups about their internal operations, and certainly more than than do 501(c)(4) nonprofits like Crossroads GPS or 501(c)(6) groups like the Chamber. In theory, a donor could write a check to a union, which would then spend the money on politics. But nobody I've talked to could think of what the advantage to that would be, or of an instance when it's actually occurred. AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale called the union angle "phony" and a spokeswoman for SEIU, Michelle Ringuette, emails: There are strict legal limits that help make our political efforts transparent. Most of our political funding comes from SEIU COPE, which reports its donors on a monthly basis, which cannot accept more than $5000 a year from any one donor, and whose donors overwhelmingly are a hundred thousand low wage workers contributing around $10 a pay period. To the extent we do political work funded by our general treasury, most of which is member to member work funded by and accountable to those same low wage workers. We don't - and can't - solicit contributions from non-members. And of course it is disclosed. The Chamber and the shadowy 527 and c4 groups that have sprung up after Citizens United - perhaps more aptly called corporations united - are conduits for undisclosed corporate money, pure and simple. We are a union of working people, and the money we spend on politics is money donated by workers. Their attempt to liken us to them in this regard is at best ignorant and frankly wrong. Other Republicans make the case, with more accuracy, that many Democratic leaders -- if not Obama, who discouraged it in 2008 -- would eagerly pour money into elections through 501(c)(4)s, if they could raise it. http://www...like_other_groups.html?showall
Clitoral Hood The Bloody Scourge	Mon Oct 11 12:29:37 "The end result wouldn't be pretty for either side." good. maybe we can finally get some progress.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Oct 11 13:17:41 Anyway, its kinda too late for Obama to make this argument. And it does seem desperate, accurate or not.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 11 13:42:46 I have to say, if this is Obama's idea of an October Surprise I am very disappointed with him. He should have said something like "ZOMG BIN LADEN JUST RELEASED A VIDEO WHERE HE SAYS HE WANTS REPUBLICANS TO WIN!!!!!1oneone" THAT'S an October Surprise.
Paramount Member	Mon Oct 11 14:04:07 " but they are refusing to reveal, saying the law permits them to keep doners anonymous. Sounds suspect to me. " They are obviously hiding something.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 14:10:10 Not providing unneccessary information is hardly indication of guilt. Many individuals and organizations do not give out information that is not a requirement on general principal, and especially where the government is concerned this is good policy. Anonymity is a fairly priced aspect of business relationships even among those that are legitimate. With that said, anything that would help hold the government in check I think is a discussion worth having.
Hellfire Member	Mon Oct 11 16:02:32 "Now if you want to apply new campaign requirements that every political candidate and organization contributing to political candidates report the sources for every penny of financal donation then that is a worthy discussion. However, that is not the rule as it stands. I also think both the dems and repubs might want to consider the results of such a rule before either side goes suggesting it. The end result wouldn't be pretty for either side. " I think we *should* be having that discussion but it will never happen because both the democrats and republicans get too much money that they don't exactly want to advertise. The politicians simply have too much invested in the system to help the American people.
Hellfire Member	Mon Oct 11 16:03:36 "The politicians simply have too much invested in the system to help the American people. " To clarify, they have too much invested in how it works now as opposed to helping the American people the information to avoid influences voters don't want
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Oct 11 16:19:54 "Anonymity is a fairly priced aspect of business relationships even among those that are legitimate." The govt is not a fucking private business that should have secret financers, its supposed to be the fucking servant of the people. Christ almighty
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 16:27:07 AH, I think we all agree with that. However, we are talking about the people as the sources. If the people want anonymity and all the downsides that comes with it, then that is their right. After all we are talking about servents of the people.
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Oct 11 16:34:34 "However, we are talking about the people as the sources" And its secret to all the public apart from the donators.
habebe Member	Mon Oct 11 17:17:01 " "Legal experts from both parties say the prohibition against foreign funding in U.S. elections is clear, and noted that Democrats have turned up no hard evidence that the chamber is violating that ban." So why are we having this discussion? " This is pretty much like when FOX news says shit like "There is no evidence to suggest that radical Islam is influencing the obama administration, but...one symbol kind of looks like a crescent moon" It's a weak and desperate ploy.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 17:50:58 Not exactly the same thing as one is a direct claim the other is a point about what message is being sent via symbolism. However, I think we are all in agreement that neither side should be making claims for which they know there is no supporting evidence. At least when Glen Beck gets started on a consperacy theory he gives the connections and logic behind his thought process then the viewer can either buy into it based on that logic or blow him off accordingly.
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Oct 11 18:18:12 "At least when Glen Beck gets started on a consperacy theory he gives the connections and logic behind his thought process" wow...no he doesnt. He gives you a fake and contrived bunch of innuendo that he clumsily stuck together with chewing gum and string to sell to uncritical bigots. This is not to be confused with providing logical thought processes - ever.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 18:23:13 By all means take one of his examples of how things link together and show where the information is wrong. You may disagree with his conclusions or have different opinions about what those links entail but the logical flow of his arguements tend to be sound. We can certinally debate the conclusions though, which is why he says not to believe him but to do the research yourself. He is actually quite crafty in how he presents consperacy theories.
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Oct 11 18:39:16 "By all means take one of his examples of how things link together and show where the information is wrong." "the logical flow of his arguements tend to be sound" Yeah, you're relegated to being mocked as one of the leading members of the AOUPR of the first water. The internet is FULL of examples of that. Youre simply stupid and ignorant and I wont waste time taking you seriously anymore.
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Oct 11 18:39:42 "He is actually quite crafty in how he presents consperacy theories. " Jesus fucking christ...youre an idiot.
Aeros Member	Mon Oct 11 19:35:32 The Democrats are beating this horse to make a point. Millions of dollars are being spent to influence an election, and nobody has clue where the money is coming from. It could very well be from foreigners. We just don't know, and THAT is the problem.
Valishin Member	Mon Oct 11 20:12:05 The problem is that taking this stance now seems a bit disengenious. It wouldn't be so bad if the dems had just experienced or where in the process of cleaning house for those who have let this go on for so long. It also seems doubtful that the dems would really want a legislative requirement to address this as they use the same underhanded tactic. People just have a difficult time buying off the dems concern on this issue. At least with issues like gay rights the dems are being consistant. The problem the dems have in this situation is that they don't have a point where they can claim as thier ahha moment to justify that they have "learned their lesson." Being the party in power in nearly every aspect of the process it really is a double edged sword to say you learned your lesson because that means you have to admit what you just did was somehow wrong. "The internet is FULL of examples of that. Youre simply stupid and ignorant and I wont waste time taking you seriously anymore." Feel free to point to some then. Don't get me wrong, I am sure he has made a few factual mistakes, I don't even doubt a few have been on purpose. I don't watch him all the time but when I have seen him and went back to check what he claims to be facts they tend to check out. Now, that doesn't mean I always agree with his conclusions but that is what is so cleaver, he leaves the audience with a statement about checking it out for themselves. This makes it easier for them to believe him but also forces him to base his theories on factual connections and leave the option to disagree with him on the table. He may draw some far off conclusions about those connections but he is not claiming the conclusion to be neccessarly be fact.
Milton Bradley Member	Mon Oct 11 21:52:33 I'll just leave this here. http://www...shingtonpost/main4556689.shtml
garyd Member	Tue Oct 12 00:02:28 It is a lie. It isn't something new the Dems have resorted to this sort of crap in every election since LBJ.
habebe Member	Tue Oct 12 17:19:15 http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/ according to factcheck, it's bs plea with no facts supporting it.
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Oct 12 17:20:43 ttt for airhole
Trolly McAwesome Member	Tue Oct 12 17:38:38 Erm, factcheck.org is a liberal site.... Oh, yeah, that's right, only when dems sources it. lol.
Trolly McAwesome Member	Tue Oct 12 17:39:38 Hey, you remember that time factcheck was used to point out some inaccuracies with Sarah Palins campaign and more specifically her book? It was too liberal and cannot be trusted. Hot Rod said so.
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Oct 12 18:25:05 yeah well we all know that wikipedia is liberal and conservapedia is just facts
garyd Member	Wed Oct 13 00:53:51 So then even when liberals claim it is fiction you still buy the lie? By the way how much that jack Soros gave to the dems came from his over seas holdings?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: