Saudi Arabia, Russia, Abu Dhabi, China, others bankrolling attack ads against Dems

I wouldn't say that I'm freaked out. I'm not even surprised. We've been headed in this direction at least since the onset of Reaganomics. Perhaps the nation-state in general is diminishing in importance as the multinational corporations begin to wield genuine power. I feel as though I'm watching humanity trade one form of imperialism for another. At the very least, we have other countries interfering in American class warfare in much the same way that the U.S. government has interfered in South American affairs for a century.

I'm fine with this, as the empire I live in was never really any great force for good in the world. There's no patriotic sense of loss, watching capitalism run its inevitable course, watching an evil empire die. It seems to me that it's a much more useful reaction to begin preparing for a career in a field that can't be outsourced, such as Nursing, which is exactly what I've been doing.

For the record, I've not posted about this story to date not because I have nothing to say on the matter, but because this is some enormously depressing shit. I'd venture a guess and say that's why others in the CHUD-munity(c) have refrained from discussion in this thread as well (aside from REASOR). Our new SC has decided that foreign corporations have a right to spend money in our elections, and so now there is literally nothing to be done to combat this in the near term.

It's exactly the kind of thing the TEA BAGGERS should get up in arms about if they too were not also bought by corporations (Tea Party is anti net neutrality!)

I wouldn't get worked up over this. It's unclear how much, if any, foreign money is going directly toward attack ads. And the study the article cites is from one of the most liberal "universities" in the country, so the bias there is clear.

Still, this kind of thing is symptomatic of the every-increasing power corporations have in Washington.

You had to read the article to find the bias in the thread?

So, the Chamber of Commerce collects foreign funds. The Chamber of Commerce funds political ads in the US. Any evidence whatsoever that the foreign funds are used illegally to fund domestic political ads? FactCheck.org dismisses this as an unproven claim.

So, is the Chamber of Commerce breaking the law or doing something dastardly that no other organization is doing to support its political agenda or preferred candidates? The New York Times says there is nothing illegal or even unusual about what the Chamber is doing.

That last line is key. When David Axelrod went on Face the Nation two days ago, he called the Chamber of Commerce a "threat to democracy" because it was allegedly using foreign funds to pay for domestic political ads. Bob Schieffer asked him if he had any evidence of this. Axelrod's response? "Do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob? That's an argument worthy of the Birther Movement.

The AFL-CIO, which raises foreign funds, has pledged to spend more than $53 million this election cycle, mostly in support of Democratic candidates. SEIU, which raises funds from it's Canadian workers, has been more than a little involved with getting the current administration in power and passing legislation beneficial to the union. This dishonest and hypocritical spin is so far beneath the Office of the President. But this administration doesn't seem to know how to operate without a Right Wing Bogeyman de Jour to attack. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, The Roberts Court, Fox News, The Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, American Crossroads, John Boehner, Karl Rove, and now the Chamber of Commerce have all been attacked by name by this administration. For a man claiming to be above partisan politics, he has really run one of the most stunningly partisan administrations in recent memory.

This reads a lot like birthers demanding to see and then ignoring Obama's birth certificate. Is it possible that foreign funds are being spent on campaign ads? Sure. Is there any evidence beyond the circumstantial to indicate it's actually happening? Not really...

Are they required to do that? Have any of the other groups whose politics you like done that? Why single out the Chamber for baseless accusations when it is following the exact same laws and rules as left-leaning organizations? The left is trying to score political points, hoping the public won't notice the blatant hypocrisy on display.

Arguments saying foreign money has not been spent directly the Ads is mostly semantics.

They could not have bought the ads without foreign money to cover other purchases.

A simple example to explain my point.
The Chamber of Commerce has $5. They want to buy Apples ($5) and Ads ($5) for a total of $10. So they can only buy the apples ($5) and no Ads.
Foreign Country gives the CoC $5. So now the CoC has $10. Now they can buy Apples and Ads.
Now maybe the first $5 goes to the Ads and the foreign $5 goes to apples. But, they could not have bought the Ads without the foreign donation covering the cost of the apples.

Unions only have to disclose donors above $5,000 under labor laws. Maybe that makes these smaller donors innocuous. Maybe not. And do unions have to show the particular accounting they use to keep foreign donations separate? Can they co-mingle these funds when donating substantial sums to other PACs, the way SEIU donates so much to Emily's List? Because there is a lot of potential for "laundering" foreign donations by just funneling the money to a PAC that will spend the money. And many politically active organizations who accept foreign contributions, like the Sierra Club, don't disclose the details of those donations. Their list of big money donors are almost always listed as "Anonymous." Until the Sierra Club proves otherwise, are we to assume that these donors are foreign oil companies and oil-rich nations that want to encourage anti-drilling policies more likely to hurt our capacity to produce our energy domestically and make us more reliant on foreign oil? Why are right-leaning groups the only ones that are guilty until proven innocent?

Not sure what you're getting at, seeing as how a large majority of donations from the top hedge funds go to Democrats.

Blinders are sickening.

Christ.

yt, I get how this fits into your well-established beliefs about corporate power. I don't want you to think I'm calling you hypocritical on this point. You have always been consistent on issues like this. I think the Obama Administration is being incredibly hypocritical, irresponsible, and petty on this point. Hypocritical because they played fast and loose with their own fundraising in 2008 and have benefited enormously from corporate cash and organizations accepting foreign funds. Irresponsible because they have produced no evidence whatsoever that the Chamber of Commerce has done anything contrary to the law. Just contrary to the administration's political goals. That's why FactCheck.org, the New York Times, and CBS have called them on it. And petty because it is beneath the dignity of the presidency to peddle these sort of allegations with no evidence that the Chamber is doing anything illegal.

And the specific charge they have leveled against the Chamber is that they are using foreign funds to finance domestic political ads. They say the only way to know for sure is for the Chamber to release its private donor list and completely open up its books. These are things the law does not require. Yet the Obama administration is trying to use the strength and power of the presidency to force this one private organization to publicize details it is not obligated to publish under the law. All because the administration does not like the policies the Chamber is pursuing.