Americans for Prosperity President: We’re Fair Game, Our Donors Are Not

Citizen United decision:
“Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. [...] The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.
[...] A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. [...] With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” [...] The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Seems to me the Court envisioned transparency and disclosure being part of the package.

JMW
I couldn’t agree more.
Imagine the pieces of news that never see the light of day.

The President of the United States is abusing the power of the office. I am glad the Koch Brothers are suing to find out how he got private information on them. Trying to stifle anyone (he is attacking individuals, not just groups) who disagrees with you is more Chavez like than American.

Obama learned the “Chicago Way” from Rahm and others on his way up. The hit list mentality is part of his fabric. He is the worst possible combination of Carter and Nixon.

I “suspect” in 2008 that Obama took money from terrorist groups, “untracable donations”.. as VP Biden said….prove me wrong and i will stand corrected
OBAMA—-VERSES—–AMERICA

When people are losing houses and jobs they start to pay attention.
They notice how the political and public sector class is not sharing the burden of the bad economy.
They notice the layers of bureaucracy paid for by the taxpayers but competing against the privated sector.
They notice bills that put us further into debt that cost staggering amounts of money that seems to just disappear into the pockets of unions and crony capitalists.
These bills are often thousands of pages long with all kinds of Easter Eggs stuck into them for the benefit of the few over the many.
This has NOTHING to do with race. This is fiscal.
This is another showdown between believing in the individual, private sector (capitalism) or believing in the collective, government (socialism).
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” ~ Ben Franklin

From Newsweek Oct. 4, 2008 -
“The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that’s an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don’t have to be publicly reported”
“This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. “They could’ve done themselves a service” by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.”
MSM? Silent

“This is another showdown between believing in the individual, private sector (capitalism) or believing in the collective, government (socialism). ”
Actually, this statement is ridiculous. Its not at all about believing in the individual. Its about believing in disclosure and transparency versus believing in secrecy and hidden agendas. Its about believing in sunshine versus condoning black bag political operations and money laundering.
Inform the citizenry. Keeping them in the dark is so Bush-Cheney-Rove-Nixon.

“But I think it’s fair game to go out and attack an organization that’s effectively opposing
you’re big government agenda.”
you’re kidding … it’s your big government agenda.
Find your (not you’re) grammar checker and fire him.

Corporate shills believe that democracy is beneath them. People shouldn’t have the right to know what companies are spending their money on because then people might decide they disapprove and then stop shopping there? Please!
Wingnuts love to talk about the need for competition, choice in the market place, and other pablum, but when push comes to shove they don’t believe a word of it.
AFP and the Chamber of Commerce are nothing but money laundering operations.

Explain to me again how Koch is grassroots.
Posted by: Doug |
Just like Soros. Next question.

“AFP and the Chamber of Commerce are nothing but money laundering operations.”
When does the investigation begin Congresswoman Waters? I can certainly take a look at suspicious financial practices!

False equivalency. In regards to Mayer’s article on the Koch brothers, billionaires of hate:
“Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes.” (Frank Rich)
Soros could learn a bit from Senator Kerry. That guy knows how to save money! He doesn’t drop a dime on the worst place to keep a boat.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn |
No worries, right wingers already boycott the NYT more or less as its not on their list of inside the right wing bubble reading.
Kinda pokes holes in the epistemic closure thing you all have going on :>)
Truth is Soros IS a publicity hound who is transparent AND he supports causes that aren’t so closely tied to his financial interests. He’s let reporters behind the front office. No shadows. Not cloaked in black-bag secrecy.

Didnt the 2008 Campaign get money cards with $200 dollars on them from “Mickey Mouse”, Superman, Fred Flinstone, so the names could not be tracked. I heard this happened in the both parties. Does anybody really think that if $200 is all you can give, there are alot of people shattering the rules to give alot more than that. You cant trace those money cards.

Do they dump unprecedented amounts of money into attack ads and refuse to provide sunshine and disinfectant via disclosure?
============
They don’t need to spend money on attack ads. They own their own printing press.
They were exempt when other corporations weren’t allowed to buy issue advertising in the NYT. They published political opinion after political opinion on *their* own corporate dime. Now it’s even.

“No worries, right wingers already boycott the NYT more or less as its not on their list of inside the right wing bubble reading.”
A better reason:
NEW YORK — The New York Times Co. is cutting pay for most employees by 5 percent for a nine-month period and laying off 100 people.
The company’s flagship newspaper reported on its Web site Thursday that the cuts will hit most nonunion workers and run from April through December. Employees will receive 10 days off in return.
The Times reported that union employees have been asked to take the cut voluntarily to avoid potential layoffs at the company, which has been struggling with an industrywide advertising downturn.
Job cuts will come in the business operations of The New York Times, amounting to 5 percent of the total 2,000 workers in that part of the company.

One word for Obama…Soros.

So much for the Dems’ biggest campaign issue:
“An ABC News review of Internal Revenue Service records finds that the Chamber is one of at least 90,908 nonprofit groups that enjoyed the same political campaigning and financial disclosure privileges in fiscal year 2009.
“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.” 

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn |
Reading comp issues? the question was:
Do they dump unprecedented amounts of money into attack ads and refuse to provide sunshine and disinfectant via disclosure?
No???
Care to point out the attack ads they’ve run for candidates?
Why are Republican responses to the issues so lame???
B.b.b.b.b.but…. !
See also, “Rove, Chamber ads widely debunked as false or misleading:
Here’s something important that’s getting lost in the firefight over the money funding the ads by the U.S. Chamber and Karl Rove’s groups: Many of the ads themselves have been debunked by independent fact checkers as false, grossly misleading, or marred with distortions.”

No???
Care to point out the attack ads they’ve run for candidates?
=====
I’m trying to figure out why attack ads are substantively different than attack op-eds. Or attack articles.
I don’t think they are.
In fact, the Citizens United case itself wasn’t about an ad, per se.
Citizens United wanted to air a film criticizing Hillary Clinton, and there was a dispute about whether they could air ads about the film.
In arguing on behalf of the government, the Obama lawyers told the Supreme court that even books could be banned if they were published by a corporation or union and were considered to have content regarding an election.
So the law was considered by this Administration to be much broader than just advertisements.
However, media outlets and the people opining on them were always exempt, no matter how they were funded.

Yes, that includes the NYT and Fox.
–
Yes. It does.
The press — every outlet, every reporter– has a worldview and an agenda which requires critical literacy on the part of news consumers. You’re using that as some sort of excuse for AFP, money laundering and cloaks of secrecy and as a reason not to critically engage with news about the Koch brothers, Soros or whoever, as an excuse to just write it all off– or write off what doesn’t fit your own worldview. I can see why you don’t get it. Its a bizarro argument.
The bigger problem is the insinuation that somehow that debunks legitimate concerns about AFP and shadow groups. Well, get specific, how does that make concentrated corporate power using front groups to collect massive, anonymous election contributions and thereby evade federal election law which requires disclosure of donors okay?

Truth is you have no idea what Soros does NOT want you to know about…
Oh, good lord. That could be said about anyone. Now we’re in clownville.
You’re losing it, Foghorn. You are totally losing it.

I’m getting really sick of Jake Tapper being a mouthpiece for the far Right.

The bigger problem is the insinuation that somehow that debunks legitimate concerns about AFP and shadow groups. Well, get specific, how does that make concentrated corporate power using front groups to collect massive, anonymous election contributions and thereby evade federal election law which requires disclosure of donors okay?
=======
They aren’t evading federal election law.
As it is now, all media is being treated equally under the law. Anyone who purchases an ad, writes a book, runs a think tank website, runs a newspaper, or writes for a newspaper, or is involved with television, news magazine, or creates a theatrical release movie- are all being treated equally under election law.
If you want Congress to write a disclosure law that manages to keep that equality, great. But as with Citizen United and the book argument, it isn’t as easy at it seems.
As you say, it’s very important for consumers of all types of media to be critical thinkers and just accept the word of a politician, reporter, author, blogger, movie, or advertisement.

Fair is everyone playing by the same rules. AFP works by the same rules other groups do -
—-
So in your mind everything “legal” and is “right” and everything that applies to everyone equally is good and shouldn’t be protested against or mentioned?
Yowza. Why am I guessing you wouldn’t let anyone hold you to that on every issue?
lol.
I don’t believe anyone is saying its not “fair” in terms of Republicans versus Democrats. Its not fair to voters of all parties and stripes. Its not right. And most Americans are not comfortable with it. Yes, its been polled.
Its interesting (although typical, really) that those who pretend to be in favor of liberty, transparent government, the individual and against special interests and tryanny don’t see it.
When will they see it, Lisa Fay? When the other party of the duopoly is benefitting from anonymous donors? Then will they get it?
Reasonable people ought to get it no matter which party is benefiting.
And reasonable people do.

We need a big change in our laws so that anyone contributing to any organization donating money or ads to influence an election, has to disclose who they are.
The oil industry or insurance industry should or foreign company, etc. should not be free to anonymously pay for ads.

Rick2011, I joined the Target boycott and with good cause, as they had donated to a candidate that had claimed the minimum wage should be repealed. This would directly benefit Target’s profits, while hurting American workers. Voters should know about donations like this.
What if an oil company wants to give a big donation to a candidate that says he wants all regulation of the oil industry to be eliminated, don’t you think voters should know that, too?
Voters are trying to elect officials to represent the citizens of that state, not corporations. Corporations aren’t supposed to have a vote.
Voters are trying to elect officials that will keep the economy healthy for everyone, not just the big players.

Whatever happened to having people do their own research on issues and find out what positions politicians have and make up their own minds?

Why don’t we just write a law that only citizens and organizations representing citizens (membership organizations) can contribute?