By Maya

Oct 13, 2010 11:10am

Chamber of Commerce: The White House Wants Our Donor Lists So Its Allies Can Intimidate Our Donors

Tuesday afternoon, I spoke with Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, about the White House pressing the Chamber to release its donors list, after President Obama seized on a ThinkProgress report suggesting that since some Chamber money comes from foreign multi-nationals and foreign-based Chamber affiliates, foreign money may be being spent on the Chamber’s political ads.

TAPPER: What's your reaction to this controversy?

JOSTEN: My reaction is to stay focused on what I'm paid to do, which is represent the interests of the business community in this town before the Congress and the administration and the branches and agencies of the federal government and that is exactly what we intend to do.

TAPPER: They're suggesting, based on a ThinkProgress report, that since you do get some money from foreign companies and from AmChams, which are based in other countries, essentially foreign money is finding its way onto the American air waves to fund political attacks on politicians you are trying to defeat.

JOSTEN: Well it's a sad day and a last gasp I guess by this administration and their outside allies, and I wouldn't call the ThinkProgress blog a report Jake, I would recognize it's a liberal blog, subset of the Center for American Progress, which is run by the president's transition campaign director John Podesta, that made a lot of inferences and clearly Al Fang who is the author of that blog doesn't even understand what an American Chamber of Commerce abroad is.

It's a Chamber of Commerce, just like in the United States, members of which abroad are comprised of the American companies in that foreign country conducting business which provides them an association opportunity to compare notes on problems and challenges they may be having with respect to that trade relationship, where they can dialogue and advocate and, and represent their interests before whatever host foreign government that is.

We have 115 of them as Chamber of Commerce of the United States members in 108 countries, paying de minimis dues out of a $200 million budget of around $100,000. We have had and welcome foreign multinationals that have a huge presence in the United States, in fact, no news here, some have been members of ours for over a century, many for decades. Their footprint in the United States is substantial, they comply with all the same laws and regulations as American companies. We strongly favor foreign direct investment in the United States. So we're not troubled by that.

It seems to me we've got an administration that in the final run up here, I guess we're about three weeks away from Election Day, surprisingly rather than run on their legislative record of the past two cycles, two years, they've stooped to name-calling and trying to somehow entice us into a partisan political debate about campaign finance funding. When they're simultaneously silent, for example, on the single largest campaign involved in the '08 elections and probably in the 2010 elections and that's and that's organized labor who itself boasted of spending $420 million in '08 to elect this current majority and the president. Three of the primary unions out of organized labor, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and the SEIU back in May announced they were going to combined spend, just those three, $150 million to protect incumbents in this election.

So, despite the fact that this Chamber supported this administration on TARP, on stimulus, on the auto rescue plan, on No Child Left Behind changes, on stem, which is the science technical engineering math issue with training teachers and students in this country, when we're aligned we don't seem to hear a lot. When we are policy adversaries, as we have been on health care, much aligned with the vast majority of the American public I would add, where we've been a different position than them, on the financial reg form issue, they seem to not take kindly to people who speak out and speak their views to represent the issues of other parties, which is exactly what we're doing. So we do not declare that we use any foreign money to fund any of our issue advocacy activities.

And as has been reported, and as I'm sure you know Jake, organizations across the political spectrum, if you go to the AFL-CIO website, you'll see half of the unions, nearly half listed have the word international in their name.

(NOTE: Josh Goldstein of the AFL-CIO says "That couldn't be more misleading. ZERO unions in the AFL-CIO are foreign and further, the dues the unions pay to be a part of the federation ONLY come from American workers.")

They have international members, the Sierra Club does, the National Rifle Association has international affiliations. Nothing new here at all. We've got an administration and some of its allies in and outside of Congress seem to us desperately lying– trying to change the subject away from the economy, away from near double digit unemployment, trying to smear and demonize our name and our brand for, I guess, objecting to some of their policies and what seems to be, you know, 11th hour attempt to try to fire up and galvanize a dispirited, disappointed democratic base and top silence us in the process.

TAPPER: What Gibbs said today, when asked about this, is that there is a relationship, directly with the economy and with this discussion that they have about who's funding your ads specifically, because, a lot of Chamber members would object to some of the changes that the Obama administration is trying to make when it comes to, for instance, Wall Street. And if organizations such as the Chamber are trying to elect a lot of Republicans who will revisit those new regulations — or to use Gibbs' words, bring things back to the way they were before the financial crisis — that there is a direct relationship. And that's his argument.

JOSTEN: His argument falls, you know, flat, you know, and as a guy who's a spokesperson for an administration he should do a little bit of homework before he opens his mouth with those kind of comments.

First off, two years before this president was elected, my institution, the US Chamber of Commerce, formed a bipartisan committee to look at the entire financial regulatory marketplace. It was co-chaired by Richard Daley, a democrat from Chicago, and a member at the time of Goldman Sachs who was a vice chairman. And they came forth and called for regulation, it's not surprising because you have financial products, such as derivatives and default swaps, terminology Americans have come to learn as a result of the crisis, that not only were not regulated, they were off balance sheets.

We called for modernizing the regulatory system, we highlighted the fact that you had regulatory agencies in silos and in tunnels that didn't even share information, didn't talk to each other in terms of systemic risks. And by the way, I would quickly add, Mayor Bloomberg in New York and Senator Schumer had a commission and it found the same finding.

Those recommendations, two years before this entire financial crisis hit in the last year and the last months of the Bush administration, were ignored.

We're under no obligation as any organization or association in the United States is, to divulge who its members are, who its contributors are. We are under legal obligations to account and have an accounting method that ensures that in our accounts that funds or any aspect of money that comes from a foreign source is not in any way utilized in any political sense. We ensure that we do that

What this administration wants is a list of who the companies are who are contributors, and we saw last year, Jake, why, when we very publicly ran ads against the Patients Protections and Affordable Care Act, quoting the CBO, quoting the head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, that it would not in fact bend the cost curve down, that it would bend the cost curve up as they testified before the senate finance committee, there was an attempt to try and find out who were the corporations that were contributing to that effort.

When some of those corporate names were divulged, not by us, by others, what did they receive? They received protests, they received threats, they were intimidated, they were harassed, they had to hire additional security, they were recipients of a host of proxies leveled at those companies that had nothing to do with the purpose of those companies. So we know what the purpose here is. It's to harass and intimidate.

Much like we've seen in California with ballot initiatives — when the proponents of ballot initiatives’ names have been divulged to the public — those people were harassed, they were threatened with violence and they were intimidated.

TAPPER: Do you not understand the argument at all, that people in the public, sitting at home, watching their televisions at night, seeing campaign ads, would be better off, as good government groups argue, knowing who's behind those ads? Not just conservative groups or liberal, any group, that it would be better off if the public could assess who's behind the ads, or could assess the accuracy of the ads or the motivations of the ads, and part of that would be knowing who's paying for the ads?

JOSTEN: Well, look there's plenty of groups that do fact checks on ads for public consumption. There's been a lot of fact checks done in fact recently with the administrations kind of flailing allegations towards us. This is an attempt to change the subject. This has nothing to do with what you suggested. We put our name as a disclaimer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on our ads.

We don't shirk, and people know who we are, they know we're a business organization, they know we represent business interests, they know that the money to pay for our activities come from businesses that voluntarily contribute. Now that's entirely different than some of the ad hoc groups like moveon.org, if you will, we've been around for almost 100 years. I don't think the American public is confused about who we are.

But the good government groups know as well as I do, because there's been studies done on it, with respect to disclosure, that forcing people to comply with disclosure rules in order to exercise their First Amendment, ultimately results in people remaining silent or uninvolved with little or no benefit to the public because it squelches speech.

The seminal Supreme Court case, I would remind your listeners, was NAACP vs. the state of Alabama, in 1953 I believe, when certain people wanted to know who the white Americans that were promoting integration in this country over segregation and out those people to harass them. The Supreme Court decided then. Hell no was the answer.

TAPPER: You mentioned the companies, the foreign companies, foreign multinationals that have been members of yours for a long time. Can you understand in any why some Americans might think, “well look, the money's going in to the general account of the Chamber, how do they know that that money is staying segregated from the money that is funding political activities? Why can't there be some assurance?”

JOSTEN: They know that, they have the same assurance from us they had from this administration when it raised $400 million in 2008, much of it from undisclosed sources that was helped to elect president Obama and the current congressional majority. And they know as much from us as they do from the AFL-CIO, as I just mentioned with nearly half of its affiliates having international in their name with international members. Look, if you're in the business that we are in, you are audited annually by the IRS, your activities are reviewed consistently by the federal election commission and others, that's fine with us, because we comply with all the laws.

I think this has nothing to do with the suggestions here, I think this has to do with a desperate administration, trying to change the subject away from what they have been doing, which is what the American people want to talk about, which is economy and jobs. Not this.

TAPPER: But why not just settle the dispute by opening your books?

JOSTEN: I've explained to you, we're not going to subject our contributors to harassment, to intimidation, and to threats and to invasions of privacy at their houses and at their places of business, which is what has happened every time there's been disclosure here.

I would note that the same people, in this administration and the congressional majority, that supported the so-called DISCLOSE act. If you take a look at that legislation, Jake, you'll find fascinatingly that it somehow amazingly carves out the single biggest monolithic contributor to elections: organized labor. 420 million bucks in 2008.

As government contractors, employees as government contractors, they're exempt, as recipients of government exams– grants, they're exempt. Corporations with government contracts would not be exempt. They pick a funding level of $10,000 or more, average union dues is $380 annually for the 15 largest unions. You know they have disclaimer requirements that enables union affiliates to transfer up to $50,000 back and forth between themselves. they could set up an independent group to fund ads from.

It's very specific in this language in the Senate bill, and the House bill. It goes to great lengths to carve out a certain class of speaker, corporate speakers, and it goes to great lengths to carve in organized labor as speakers.

TAPPER: Last night, in a Wisconsin senate debate, the republican Ron Johnson who is backed by a lot of the Tea Party forces, certainly no friend to the Obama administration said that he thought that the Chamber should disclose. Does it bother you at all that your losing the arguments when you hear republicans like Ron Johnson say things like that?

JOSTEN: No, it does not bother me at all, it does not convince me that I am losing the argument. What it does it convince me that the attempts of this administration to try and push people that we have endorsed, or we are supporting, on their heels to be defensive over a flap that they've contrived out of foreign money on a liberal blog financed in terms of start-up by a guy by the name George Soros, got into the mainstream media, and the mainstream media has by and large rejected it, quite appropriately, so no it doesn't bother me.

TAPPER: Are you worried at all that this is damaging the reputation of the Chamber?

JOSTEN: Well so far, we don't have any proof that it has done that, it has certainly upped the profile of the Chamber. So I suspect and I hope that people are paying even more attention to the ads that we have up in this cycle, as the president is drawing more and more attention to us.

And specifically since we're the only group out there talking about issues, unlike the administration or the democrats running, I hope that the American people are drawn to pay attention to our issues.

A year ago when we ran issue ads across this country, hundreds of them, against the patients protection and affordable care act, citing the CBO report, citing the Center for Medicare Studies–Services report, the companies that got divulged publicly were harassed, were intimidated.

TAPPER: How?

JOSTEN: The outside allies of this administration, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, HCANN – Health Care Action Now network and Moveon.org, all combined and coordinated protests at those companies, at the CEOs' homes in some cases, as they did here with us. And they began a proxy campaign, through outside groups, the Center for Political Accountability, and another group, Walden Asset Management. This is a game, ok? And they like to play that game out. So it's clear that the game here is to harass and intimidate.

When I cited what took place in California, there is a gentleman who has done research for the Institute for Justice in California, on Prop 8 and what happened with the CA marriage protection act, when personal information about those donors to support Prop 8 was posted on the internet.

It led to death threats. It led to physical violence, vandalism and economic reprisals from against those people and their homes. So we know, how the public, if outed in supporting some controversial causes, if you will, we know what happens. We know what happens to our people.

TAPPER: There are a lot of people, progressives, liberals, who think this is just a bunch of rich people trying to protect their interests, trying to pass laws using their clout, and they don't want to be held accountable at all and so they give money to the Chamber, the Chamber then tries to defeat people who are not necessarily working in the interests of these corporations, and that this is just a matter of Fat Cats doing what Fat Cats do.

JOSTEN: Pretty fascinating, I mean who's the principal start-up supporter of MoveOn, and again the Center for American Progress. He's a Fat Cat under your definition, named George Soros and the Sandler family.

TAPPER: Right.

(Note: Doug Gordon from MoveOn writes to say: "MoveOn was started in 1998. It got a one time donation from Soros in 2004. He did not give before and has not given since. To say he is the 'principal start-up supporter' is just a flat lie.")

JOSTEN: But that's acceptable I guess.

TAPPER: I'm not saying one's accepta –

JOSTEN: When the other side puts up money to have a dialogue, which is what we would prefer to have, a dialogue around the issues, not a tit for tat bric brac of outlandish claims of inference which may be juicy to some in the press. Let's get serious. I don't think the American public is swayed by outlandish claims made even by the President or his spokespeople and minions.

TAPPER: One thing that David Axelrod said to me yesterday was the fear is not even about the Chamber, but the fear is that these campaign laws — since they allow unlimited contributions, for political ads that can attack candidates and no disclosure rules, depending on how the group is incorporated — the fear is a business can now go to a member of Congress, say “Vote this way, and if you don't, I form the Americans for Truth and Beauty Committee and run $3 million in negative ads and defeat you in your next election and nobody will know who's behind it.” Given that fear, that's not Chamber specific—

JOSTEN: This was Axelrod saying this?

TAPPER: Well, I'm, I'm paraphrasing him, but something along those lines, yes.

JOSTEN: He's really stretching.

TAPPER: But do you not understand why some people might say, “Let's just have full disclosure of everything”?

JOSTEN: Well so far Jake, what I've heard you offer me is Gibbs and Axelrod in a fantasy land, stretching and stretching and gasping and gasping for the next straw to grab onto here. Ok. Look, reality, I repeat, the single biggest outside funder, almost monolithically in the 2008 elections, was organized labor, under their boasting of $420 million.

We, the US Chamber, spent $33 million in issue ads. The Citizens United case, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with issue advocacy advertising at all. Period. What Axelrod is talking about is how to deal with independent expenditures and corporations being able because the case was predicated upon the fact that media corporations, up until Citizens United uniquely had that right.

And Citizens United said, wait, the SC ruled, you can't select certain speakers. So they granted the same legal rights to unions and corporations. I would suggest however, that you will not see corporations do what Axelrod or you paraphrased, because they have employees that are Republicans, Democrats, and independents, they have shareholders that are Democrats, independents and Republicans, vendors and suppliers that are Democrats, independents and Republicans.

Corporations don't do that. We the US Chamber aren't doing independent expenditures with the magic express advocacy words of 'Vote for, Vote against.' Again, we draw a distinction on a member of congress' vote on a specific issue and discuss the issue. So there's a lot of confusion of a deliberate nature it sounds to me, listening to your paraphrasing of Axelrod since I didn't hear him, that has nothing to do with the Citizens United Case whatsoever.

TAPPER: I said this wasn't necessarily related to the Chamber issue, I was talking about this to –

JOSTEN: I know, but look, Target corporation in Minnesota, which is a very progressive company and exceptionally progressive with respect to the gay and lesbian community in that state, out some money behind a ballot initiative in that state on economic growth. And it just so happened that one of the people running for governor connected to that, is anti gay and lesbian rights. That company has had a boycott, they have been attacked, they have been harassed, and there have been attempts to demand, if you will, that they make equal contributions to other outside groups. Even though their history in that space speaks eloquently for itself.

So, what happens here is intimidate, harass, and try and push people away from participating in the process. We have no intention of not participating in the process.

-Jake Tapper

User Comments

Jake, Josten is absolutely correct. I have never seen so much harassment and strong arm tactics as I have seen from the left in recent years. During the Macondo spill an oil man’s wife is the victim of a bombing. Protesters are bussed to a man’s home where they terrorized his child. Target was given treatment that is straight out of a mafia playbook.
People support something and the next thing you know, someone from the admin is discussing their tax records which should be private.
If the admin is really interested in complete transparency they need to be careful because that sword swings both ways and I don’t think they want the public looking under their rock.

Posted by: JMW | October 13, 2010, 11:28 am 11:28 am

Again Obama shows what he is, nothing more than a THUG with thin skin… Release your donor list Obama even those so called “untracable” credit card donations
This administration may be able to keep our fighting forces from voting but they will be held accountable at the polls
CBS to Axelrod: “is this all you got” peanuts
radical left wing NYTS: no evidence
OBAMA: Whiny and thin skinned..pulls the old race card as a last resort
OBAMA —-VERSES—-AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 11:42 am 11:42 am

The WH has become a dictatorship, attempting to exercise powers, it should not have.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | October 13, 2010, 11:48 am 11:48 am

TAPPER: But why not just settle the dispute by opening your books?
Can Tapper substitute the OBAMAs long form birth certificate in place of “your books”? LMAO at the Obama thin skinned regime
OBAMA VS AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 11:50 am 11:50 am

what did you expect from a chicago politician? alex genoulis?balgo?perhaps this why people live in the other 49 states or is it 56 states.

Posted by: catman | October 13, 2010, 11:52 am 11:52 am

Well of course they want to intimidate the donors! The left has three times as many donations with donors not being listed but they say nothing about that. The congress with MAX BACAU’S leading the charge has already begun to intimidate business and threaten IRS investigations to those contributing to the GOP. The Abuse of power in the congress by the DEMOS thugs is unbelievable and the hypocrisy of the left is unprecedented but the lies of the President and the disgrace he has become is un imaginable. Obama the biggest disgrace in American history.

Posted by: Wade Johnson | October 13, 2010, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm

Think Progress has a good line in their latest post on this topic:
“If Fox’s personalities spent as much effort hyperventilating about the Chamber’s foreign funding as they did about the Islamic community center’s, maybe the Chamber would be forced to finally disclose its fundraising and clear up the supposedly fraudulent charges leveled against them.” (The article also points out that lamestream media reports “have focused almost entirely on so-called “AmChams,” but these entities represent only a small piece of the puzzle and have been used as a red herring by the Chamber to distract from the real concern — direct donations from large corporations headquartered abroad.”)
The hypocrisy never stops.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm

JOSTEN: “My reaction is to stay focused on what I’m paid to do, which is represent the interests of the business community…”
And there you have it folks, there isn’t any reason to read much more really. I’m sure the “business community” extends beyond our borders.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

And there you have it folks, there isn’t any reason to read much more really. I’m sure the “business community” extends beyond our borders.
Posted by: Skip
——————————————- LMAO Now this is when the radical left wing extremist show thier stupidity
Uh Yes Skip our ” business community” does extend beyond out borders..Can we say NIKE, GE, FORD, GM…. but nice try there lefty
OBAMA VS AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm

If they have nothing to hide, then be open about it. By refusing, one can justly suspect something shady is going on.

Posted by: FJL | October 13, 2010, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm

The hypocrisy never stops.
Posted by: progressive mama |
——————————————- more radical left wing extremist rants by the name changers
Can we say “untracable donations” to the Obama Regime.. I “suspect” Obama took illegal foreign money… now prove me wrong
OBAMA VS AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm

According to at least two, probably more, polls, the American people strongly oppose and are very concerned about corporate spending in elections. (e.g. See Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing)
Prior to the Citizens United decision, the Chamber would have had to run its political ads out of its PAC, and contributions would have been disclosed. Now, they’re barely using their PAC. Why? To get around disclosure, or so it appears.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

mama,the only poll that matters will take place in two weeks.Do you REALLY think that this C of C smokescreen is going to help Democrat candidates?

Posted by: Nephron | October 13, 2010, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm

mama,the only poll that matters will take place in two weeks.
—
only if you’re short-sighted, nephron. only if you’re short-sighted.
lol.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm

According to at least two, probably more, polls, the American people strongly oppose
Posted by: progressive mama
Must be the same polls that show Americans against the healthcare debacle and favoring AZ immigration law.. but that didn’t stop the Regime from forcing this down the throats of America….now Democrats are running from their so called “accomplishments”
…more radical left wing extremist rants from the Whiners
OBAMA VS AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm

Obama: ‘There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects’…
UH…Stimulus??????
OBAMA VS AMERICA

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm

Rove-backed group raised $13M since attacks from Obama…
Keep up the good works Obama LMAO
Obama VS America

Posted by: Yep I said that | October 13, 2010, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm

“Does it bother you at all that your losing the argument…”
Jake:
“your” = your
“you’re” = you are

Posted by: Dave | October 13, 2010, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm

Well, let’s see.
When Obama was running for Senate, he had two of his opponent’s divorce records unsealed. One Democrat and one Republican. Why would anyone think he’d intimidate opponents?
The SEIU, a group so personally close to Obama and Jarrett that top members handled the negotions with Blago to put Jarrett in Obama’s vacant Senate seat- hired buses to take a “tour” of the homes of Wall Street Executives with whom they were unhappy.
A group of unions close to Obama also stormed the home of a Bank of America executive, gathering on the lawn and shouting until a neighbor called the police. Only a 14 year old was home.
Another group of unions tried to make a “citizens arrest” of insurance executives.
Obama has never spoken against any of those actions from his donors and supporters.
If he truly wants disclosure, he’s going to have to call off his dogs.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm

I’m not short-sighted,I’m near-sighted.But my vision is good enough to see that the Democrats are headed for an absolute catastrophe November 2nd and that this C of C nonsense is a waste of time put out by an inept White House that has nothing else to offer.

Posted by: Nephron | October 13, 2010, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm

Why are you not investigating Obama’s salary being paid by the Chinese?
We know they send funds to our government!
We know the money is not kept separate from domestic funds.
We know Obama bowed to their leader!
The Chinese have admitted that we are their enemy.
Obama is destroying our country!
Is Obama simply following the instructions of his employer China.

Posted by: neil | October 13, 2010, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm

Verses,
As I said, according to at least two, probably more, polls, the American people strongly oppose and are very concerned about corporate spending in elections. (e.g. See Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing)
Prior to the Citizens United decision, the Chamber would have had to run its political ads out of its PAC, and contributions would have been disclosed. Now, they’re barely using their PAC. Why? To get around disclosure, or so it appears.
Same polls that show that most Americans like many, many reforms included in the Affordable Care Act and support health care reform, but don’t fully understand or approve of the Affordable Care Act, yes.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm

I’m sure that those polls will comfort John Dingell on Nov 3.

Posted by: Nephron | October 13, 2010, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm

I’m not short-sighted,I’m near-sighted
—
Well, your response seems to indicate you’re both. For you life ends when the election results come in, as if nothing will need to be done afterward. As if voters concerns about corporate interests in elections won’t be able to be addressed. As if that’s it. They won– who cares about what happens next as long as I an thump my chest.
But much could be done. Disclose could be updated and passed during the lame duck session. Or in the new congress.
All you care about is putting a win in the Republican column.
I care about the country.
I agree with those who are concerned about corporate money in elections.
People over the profits and power of multinationals and those they’ve bought.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm

I’m finished with the GOP. While I can’t tolerate most Dems, this sell out to foreign countries by the GOP is the last straw for me. Blue collars workers may as well get ready to lose what few jobs that we have left. It’s beginning to look like the CC, Supreme Court, and the rest of big business are out to kill us middle class Americans. More outsourcing will be the pay back to all the foreign masters of the CC and their shills.

Posted by: Trent | October 13, 2010, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm

From Bloomberg:
Democrats aren’t running on the administration’s accomplishments like health-care and financial-regulatory overhaul and the stimulus because “it’s just too hard to explain,” Biden said. “It sort of a branding, I mean you know they kind of want the branding more at the front end.”

Posted by: Hysterical | October 13, 2010, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm

Posted by: SI | October 13, 2010, 1:11 pm 1:11 pm

JWW, could we have a link to all those leftest conspiracies of which you rant? Are you implying that the bomb left at the oil executive home (in Houston) was a leftest plot? You must have inside info because the oil executive wanted that little private matter hushed up. Please share all your info.

Posted by: Dirk | October 13, 2010, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm

What a lame response. It brings to mind when Bush was asked if he had ever used Cocaine. A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. Bush never answered the question. I know Liarcons, what does Bush have to do with anything going on today. Or, when are you going to stop blaming Bush? Remember this Liarcons, you all drank out of the same well with various other varieties of cretins and miscreants.
Miscreants loike Carl Rove. When asked if any of the funds being used to fund attack campaigns against his party’s opponnents were funded by foreign countrys’s, or big Oil, or Big Pharma?
A question which a simple yes or no would have been answering the question directly. Rove broke into a legalese rant and talked all around the answer.
If your wife/husband asks if you have been drinking, using drugs, cheating on her, gambling, or any other form of direct, easy to understand question where a yes or no answer ends the subject. If the answer comes out in any other verbalage than Y or N, you’re lying. SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 13, 2010, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm

progressive mama: “All you care about is putting a win in the Republican column. I care about the country.”
For most of us, this is one in the same. You’ll see this November.
progressive mama: “I agree with those who are concerned about corporate money in elections.”
If the message is superior, it will get out and resonate, no matter how much money the opposition has. Democrats fear campaign contributions because they think you win elections by throwing more mud at your opponent. They never learn.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2010, 1:19 pm 1:19 pm

I don’t get it construction is big business. The things that this administration and congress are good for the American economy. Why are the R’s so apposed to moving the economy?
The reason: Because it’s the correct thing to do and it will show people that tax cuts do nothing but line the pockets of the very wealthy.
———————–
Try this from the NYT
In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

Posted by: Now You Know | October 13, 2010, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm

WSJ: “. . . Republicans have opposed further infrastructure spending at a time of tight state and federal budgets.”
SI: “I don’t get it construction is big business. Why are the R’s so apposed to moving the economy?”
It’s not surprising that liberals have trouble differentiating between private sector spending and public sector tax and spending. It will always be better for our economy if the private sector spends their own money based on true market conditions rather than having the government spend it for them based on artificial political priorities. Republicans trust the people with their money, and Democrats trust themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2010, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm

ANONYMOUS, oops, anony88888, define big business and small business.
Thanks, SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 13, 2010, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm

One more business that promotes private sector jobs Obama is attacking.
He should have stayed in Chicago. Unproven thug tactics may be acceptable there, but they should be beneath the President of the United States.

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm

“Can we say NIKE, GE, FORD, GM..”
Donations from companies that have foreign subsidiaries or even US subsidiaries of foreign corporations aren’t in question…only foreign corporations themselves. I notice there are none on your list of course. Do they count as part of the business community at the Chamber of Commerce or not? My guess is they do, and their interests get put ahead of American citizens as well.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 1:58 pm 1:58 pm

“”"”The hypocrisy never stops.”"”"
Posted by: progressive mama
You’re absolutely right. Obama won’t divulge his either. 10 Democratsbeing funded through the commerce. Absolute hypocracy on the part of the Dems. Furthermore, If you make an accusation, have the proof in hand. What a rookie mistake from a rookie administration.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm

progressive mama — Our politicians do not care what we the people think about campaign finance. They are the only ones that can pass it and it won’t happen. They are not going to cut off the gravy train. We can scream finance reform as loud as we want, they are not listening, nor are they interested. And you are right, we want health care reform, not 2400 pages of insurance regulation.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm

“”"”I’m finished with the GOP. While I can’t tolerate most Dems, this sell out to foreign countries by the GOP is the last straw for me. “”"”
Posted by: Trent
So why are you finished with the GOP if the CoC is financing Dems also? Sounds like partisan BS to me. Do you always make decisions on accusations even when there is no proof? You must be one of the 60% of Americans that shouldn’t vote.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm

I just read an article by Think Progress that has proof of at least $885,000 of Annual Dues coming from foreign Countries or Entites, this money is beign put in the same fund that they are using to support Republican Candidates, such as 14 million dollar lady Sharon Angle. Most of these dues are coming from India. The Republicans helped Outsource good paying jobs to India, and now for a price, they are outsourceing American Politics to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm

“It will always be better for our economy if the private sector spends their own money based on true market conditions rather than having the government spend it for them based on artificial political priorities”
Not always, targeted government spending can be more effective in some cases. But right-wingers only like to display economic commonsense when it’s advantageous for pushing their ideologies. When it comes to balancing budgets while cutting taxes, expecting better teachers to work for less money, businesses investing when they have excess capacity, and government spending increasing demand right when we need it most they seem to revert to pure economic voodoo.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm

“Not always, targeted government spending can be more effective in some cases”
Like with shovel-ready work and money for the bank that the husband of Rep Waters (D) is involved with!

Posted by: Ofcourse | October 13, 2010, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm

Wave06 — “”Think Progress”" Sounds perfectly non-bias (sarcasm).

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm

“”"”targeted government spending can be more effective in some cases. “”"
Posted by: Skip
I guess we missed the target. Considering Obama is looking for another $50 billion for infrastructure, the stimulus was supposed to cover that.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm

who ever is jumping to conclusins on this and ostacizing the GOP should take a good look at all political parties and donors especailly foir the presidential election in 2008. doesn’t justify any of it but just where did all the money on untraceable debit cards come from in the Obama money pot?

Posted by: mj | October 13, 2010, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

lfrichar-
Regardless of my personal beliefs, Facts are Facts. Read the article and make your judgement then.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm

Why do right wingers feel posting a doctor that perform abortions, personal information on the web is unassailable free speech but are unwilling to let us know who is funding millions in attack ads.
Oh yeah then the rubes that make up the tea party may realize they are being suckered by big business.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm

economic voodoo.
Posted by: Skip | Oct 13, 2010 2:37:11 PM……….Where’s the remaining 1/3 of the original stimulus? I’d sure like an independent accounting of every MILLION of the over $800 BILLION in stimulus that had to be passed so damn quickly, before I want any more of my tax dollars ‘are thrown by Obama at the perceived problem’.

Posted by: deanbob | October 13, 2010, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm

Wave06- Josten addresses that here:
“We are under legal obligations to account and have an accounting method that ensures that in our accounts that funds or any aspect of money that comes from a foreign source is not in any way utilized in any political sense. We ensure that we do that… Look, if you’re in the business that we are in, you are audited annually by the IRS, your activities are reviewed consistently by the federal election commission and others, that’s fine with us, because we comply with all the laws.”

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm

Why do right wingers feel posting a doctor that perform abortions, personal information on the web is unassailable free speech but are unwilling to let us know who is funding millions in attack ads.
====
Ryan C- you have a habit of saying “right wingers” when you mean “some right wingers”. One person, a few people, or even a group doesn’t speak for all of the right, or all of the left for that matter.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm

Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 2:55:31 PM
…..I don’t have a problem with ‘open lists’ as soon as all of the 2008 foreign Obama donations are accounted for and illegal funds returned or donated to charity(you do remember the donations from Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc).

Posted by: deanbob | October 13, 2010, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm

Regardless of my personal beliefs, Facts are Facts. Read the article and make your judgement then.
Posted by: Wave06 | Oct 13, 2010 2:48:27 PM
*****
If you want REAL facts, factcheck. Factcheck headline is: Foreign Money? Really?
Democrats peddle an unproven claim.

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm

Effective on January 1, 2011, every income bracket, not just the much-maligned “rich,” will see their taxes go sky high. Pelosi could have called the House back to vote on the tax issue. She’s just afraid of more fallout.

Posted by: deanbob | October 13, 2010, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm

“Oh yeah then the rubes that make up the tea party may realize they are being suckered by big business”
I’m hoping moderate conservatives will realize they are being suckered by the tea party.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm

I wish the Chamber would tell the progressives that I’m funding their operations. My pitbulls Chaos and Reaper
would love to meet union protesters.

Posted by: Mike | October 13, 2010, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm

Leftists are THUGS. Who do you you think runs crooked political machines in America’s cities, the Girl Scouts? It’s why they hang posters of murderous thugs like Che Guevara on their wall and speak fondly of mass murderers like Mao.

Posted by: John | October 13, 2010, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm

Maybee ?
If you took 20 minutes of your time and investigated the facts, you would discover that the incriminating evidence against You, ” I say You, because you defended the US Chamber of Commerce with We” is posted on their own web site.
We can debate politics, but not the facts or the books as presented by the Chamber of Commerce themselves.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm

Wow, this guy just destroyed the Democrats’ ridiculous argument. Bravo. Say no to thug intimidation. Brown shirt tactics from statist thugs.

Posted by: sigh | October 13, 2010, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm

Wave06- the “we” was part of the quote from Josten, in Jake’s post (above).
I did look at the TP report, and see innuendo but again, no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the AmCham.
I do think attacking the AmCham in India is a little risky right now, as Obama is scheduled to speak at a U.S-India Business and Entrepreneurship Summit when he travels to India next month.
India has a huge growing economy, and has great potential to be an larger importer of our goods. People who scream “outsourcing” whenever they hear the name “India” have a lot to learn.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm

You have to know if Karl Rove is involved and he is big time…that something fishey is going on here. He never really denied money coming from other countries because he can’t. There are foreign countries paying dues and some of that money is going into attack ads against democrats. Remember, it was Karl Rove who ruined the reputation of a good person Mrs. Richars in Texas when she ran against Bush saying she was gay and he also tried to destroy McCain’s reputation by saying he fathered a black child when in fact they adopted this child on one of Mrs. McCain’s trips. He is heartless and outed the FBI lady years ago. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants. As for the Union money…we know where that is coming from…it is coming from donations by Americans while we cannot be sure with the Chamber of Commerce.

Posted by: talmag | October 13, 2010, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm

WSJ “WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will meet today with several governors and mayors to highlight a new report on the potential impact of infrastructure spending, in hopes of putting momentum behind his $50 billion infrastructure-investment proposal.
Obama has proposed the initiative as a way to create more jobs, but Republicans have opposed further infrastructure spending at a time of tight state and federal budgets. There isn’t a bill on the measure so far, and Congress is unlikely to act on the issue when it convenes in November in a lame-duck session. ”
_______________________________________________
This is from WH correspondent from the NY Times, Peter Baker (published October 12, 2010):
During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.
So, there’s “no such thing as shovel-ready projects…” Mr. President says. Then where did the stimulus money go FOR those ‘projects’? Will we get the DISCLOSURE on that? And will we get it quickly? If this administration is so intent on going after the Chamber of Commerce, an entity that helps small businesses as well as larger ones, maybe they should also be as intent on checking themselves. Taxpayer money was taken for those so-called shovel-ready projects. Now, our great leader says, oh, wait, there really weren’t any. Then show us the money.

Posted by: Shoe | October 13, 2010, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm

Without question, both the Prez and his servants, Biden and Gibbs, have come up with the campaign’s biggest laugher yet..ie, the Chamber of Commerce is behind all the naughty things being said about the poor Demoncrats during this silly election season….and I wish the POTUS would stop acting like a wild Community Organizer on the loose when he out hustling votes…….why not? … he apparently has little else to do in Potomac Town, but please Mr. President, you sound like a Union organizer during your Campaign stops.. a little Presidential decorum would be nice, and certainly not so inflamatory….hold the presses: Whose paying for all the jet fuel, etc. you are burning up … better not be me…….but send me a photocopy of your expenses for these mini-vacations. I will ask Karl Rove to review those costs. I demand an investigation!!!!!

Posted by: justj joey | October 13, 2010, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm

“”"”"Regardless of my personal beliefs, Facts are Facts. Read the article and make your judgement then. “”"”
Posted by: Wave06
So if the article says it, it is a fact? Talk about following blindly. Here’s actual FACTS: The President made an accusation against the CoC with no proof to back his claim. Foot in mouth Biden went even further. To date, no proof, only accusations. Obama spent millions from unknown sources. He won’t divulge it. Those are facts, not articles. The Dems just took another one in the teeth because of a very inexperienced President and a blind dog Biden following him.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 3:28 pm 3:28 pm

Maybee
India has every right to seek prosperity for their citizens. However I am 100% sure that I do not want foreign & corporate influences determining the economic & political future of America through Influence buying.
Our Democracy should never be put up for sale to the biggest Donor.
It#s outright unethical for a Nation of Laws!

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

It’s quite comical to watch the Dems squirm right now. They try to attack instead of touting their self-proclaimed “successes” in HCR, CC reform and finance reform. This should be a shoe-in for this election. No, they take a wild stab and it blows up in their faces. So all the supporters on this forum are saying anything they can to try and divert our attention from the truth. The Dems blew a supermajority in 1 year and now may lose the majority in another. Talk about self-destruction.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm

“returned or donated to charity(you do remember the donations from Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc).”
Yeah it was funny how many donations McCain had to return.
Check out Harry Sergeant III.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm

“Ryan C- you have a habit of saying “right wingers” when you mean “some right wingers”. One person, a few people, or even a group doesn’t speak for all of the right, or all of the left for that matter.”
So are you against posting doctors information?
Because I know you want donors to remain secret.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm

“”"”"Our Democracy should never be put up for sale to the biggest Donor.
It#s outright unethical for a Nation of Laws!”"”"”
Posted by: Wave06
Agreed. So where’s the proof? In politics, you don’t accuse unless you have proof. It’s not only unethical, it destroys integrity and turns suppoerters away, which is exactly what this is doing. It looks like a cheap, rookie political stunt…and it is!

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm

Where is the story on this Jake??? Where is the transparancy?
Judicial Watch recently suffered a temporary setback in its pursuit of records related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s political contributions. On September 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled, in effect, that the Obama administration may keep the records of these two government-controlled enterprises secret.

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm

lfrichar
Take my original advice & read the article at Think Progress. , then take a look at the Chamber of Commerce own disclosures. There is no need to fabricate the facts.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm

Ryan C:
So are you against posting doctors information?
===
In general, I think it’s hard for doctors to get patients if their information isn’t available somewhere.
Are you talking about something specific, like Tiller? I think he was a man under threat (obviously) and groups who were against him were engaging in very risky behavior by posting information about him.
Ryan C:
Because I know you want donors to remain secret.
======
I don’t actually *want* donors to remain secret. If I ran the world, campaigns and campaign finance would be completely different than they are today.
Only constituents could spend money on any given race. No candidate/politician could give his campaign war chest to another candidate.
Donations would be taxable income to those who receive them. We wouldn’t have nearly as many people getting rich off running elections.
But I don’t run the world.
It is legal for donations to political groups to remain undisclosed. It is legal for them to collect and spend as much as they wish (except to a candidate).
And frankly, as difficult as free speech can be to deal with sometimes (I’m looking at you, Fred Phelps), I’m not sure of the proper place to draw the line.
I am certain making unfounded accusations is not the answer.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:47 pm 3:47 pm

As for the Union money…we know where that is coming from…it is coming from donations by Americans while we cannot be sure with the Chamber of Commerce.
Posted by: talmag | Oct 13, 2010 3:24:10 PM
********
Proof please? While your at it, please prove that ALL American INTERNATIONAL Groups (AIG) contributions to Obama came from US Citizens. Then let’s move to the pre-paid credit cards…

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm

However I am 100% sure that I do not want foreign & corporate influences determining the economic & political future of America through Influence buying.
========
Do you mean through lobbying? You know foreign governments and foreign entities lobby our government, right?
I don’t want influence buying either, but spending on advertising is hardly the most vulnerable spot in the system.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm

Doug Gordon from MoveOn writes to say: “MoveOn was started in 1998. It got a one time donation from Soros in 2004. He did not give before and has not given since.
========
I have read reports he gave $5 million to MoveOn. Is that correct?

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm

All donors above $50 should be published once a campaign exceeds some limit determined in a similar fashion to what public financing will be available in a given year.
The $250 reporting threshold would hold.
The reasoning behind the limit of $250 is the difficulty of processing so many claims versus the actual dollar figure and this could cripple a shoestring campaign trying to comply.
This would allow small campaigns to gather small donating supporters without demanding compliance issues until they reach some predetermined viable threshold.
After that point they would have to disclose those donors.
Similar set ups could be applied to PACs, 527′s etc.
Its imperfect but I think this could go a long way towards transparency.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 3:57 pm 3:57 pm

Anonymous: “It will always be better for our economy if the private sector spends their own money based on true market conditions rather than having the government spend it for them based on artificial political priorities. Republicans trust the people with their money, and Democrats trust themselves.”
Skip: “Not always, targeted government spending can be more effective in some cases.”
Government spending may have some apparent short-term positive affects, but long-term it is detrimental to the economy. Anything that subverts the true market forces that drive the economy is bad for the economy.
Skip: “. . . they seem to revert to pure economic voodoo.”
Leave it to liberals to call supply and demand “pure economic voodoo.” I can’t say I’m surprised.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2010, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

Resending:
I just read an article by Think Progress.org that has proof of at least $885,000 of Annual Dues coming from foreign Countries or Entites, this money is beign put in the same fund that they are using to support Republican Candidates, such as 14 million dollar lady Sharon Angle. Most of these dues are coming from India. The Republicans helped Outsource good paying jobs to India, and now for a price, they are outsourceing American Politics to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

Threaten political enemies into silence using the Dept of Justice and the IRS?
Yes, We Can!

Posted by: Speech Redistribution Czar | October 13, 2010, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

The CHICAGO WAY: intimidate … harass … threaten … The Democrats and their union puppetmasters are criminal thugs.

Posted by: Brad | October 13, 2010, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm

Just like Prop 8 in California … first, identify the private donors … then publicize them, attack them, threaten them, harass them … make them regret they ever dared give money to a conservative cause.

Posted by: Brad | October 13, 2010, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm

It’s funny how Obama saw no issue taking money through the internet from anonymous donors (some foreign) in 2008 when he was running for president. The Liberals who control the White House, Democratic National Committee and who dominate our media are endangering our liberties and our way of life.

Posted by: Death of Democracy | October 13, 2010, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm

The US Chamber should have to disclose donors just as the Obama campaign did in 2008, the way The Center for American Progress does, the Sierra Club does, etc. The point is, the Obama campaign had undisclosed donors as do the other left leaning outside groups. Why were unions exempt from the proposed DISCLOSE ACT? Can Mr. obama prove a negative as well — that he did not accept any foreign money in his campaign nor did his special interest supporters? Democrats did not complain about big outside money being spent by undisclosed donors in 2004, 2006, or 2008. Now that they are behind in this type of fundraising, we are suddenly to believe they are shocked that this goes on. they are simply desperate because the American public does not support their extreme and arrogant agenda.

Posted by: Daisy21 | October 13, 2010, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

Ooh, does this mean the Obama Adminstiration will release where all of their own campaign funds came from n 2008? I recall they weren’t very forthcoming about that.
Ironic they are basically trying to reverse the NAACP vs. State of Alabama case, I’d think anyone who was progressive wouldn’t want to touch that precendent.

Posted by: Jersey Dave | October 13, 2010, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

Antonin Scalia has a word for the cowards here
“[H]arsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously … and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”
The right wing nonsense that free speech means freedom from criticism should not become codified law.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm

Jake,
you do yourself little credit with this interview. Basically taking the stance that if the white house accuses you of something that you are guilty until you prove you innocence. I am embarrassed for you.

Posted by: Mr. Conservative | October 13, 2010, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm

When the Supreme Court allowed the Citizens United Case. That was when America was put on the Auction Block.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm

With $400 Million in untraceable Internet donations, and political call centers in Gaza, the ObaMarxist REGIME is being MORE than hypocritical in this ridiculous initiative.
As Alinsky has taught his baby Marxists, take everything that you have done worng, or intend to do, and accuse the ENEMY of those actions. That way, while the ENEMY is busy trying to explain himself to the State Sponsored Media (MSM), no one will notice what you are doing.

Posted by: Diogenes | October 13, 2010, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm

Chamber of Commerce is not trying to influence the government or elections to promote a foreign country.
They are trying to create an environment in the USA that is suitable to job creation.
Two types of liberals
The duped and
The dupers.

Posted by: Mr. Conservative | October 13, 2010, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm

This is exactly the problem with the supreme court ruling. Corporations from other countries are funneling millions of dollars into the Republican races. Republicans that have and will outsource American jobs. There’s no way the Republican party could ever raise ten times the amount of the Democratic party, no matter how you twist the facts.When a senate candidate from Nevada raises 14 million dollars in a quarter there’s a big huge red flag a wavin! Republicans are selling our votes to the highest bidder, and that bidder is Corporations from countries that will gain American jobs and resources. We’re the losers in all this.

Posted by: Erin | October 13, 2010, 4:34 pm 4:34 pm

So, the INTERNATIONAL brotherHOOD of electrical workers, really isn’t INTERNATIONAL?? I guess they just like the way that sounds so “worldly” or something??
Ditto the service employees INTERNATIONAL union???
And so on and so forth….

Posted by: George Johnson | October 13, 2010, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

make me sick again more money,where did YOUR money go. when you show me yours “soros” I’ll show you mine. Whatever is ill gotten gain return and watch the dems run,point fingers, deny, and finally blame it on the repubs,tea party or odonnel and it thats the case it went up in smoke

Posted by: John | October 13, 2010, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm

Why did the Republicans vote against a small business bill that would have allowed the actual small businessmen/women to invest in their their communities future. The GOP & their Tea Party Patriots will vote No on anything that will give President Obama a bit of sucesses even at the expense of this Great and Proud Nation.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 4:37 pm 4:37 pm

This is also just like the made up memo about George Bush that the idiots are 60 minutes were pushing a while back.
If you remember, it was “the seriousness of the charges, not the facts supporting them” that means this must be investigated.
So, liberals, democrats tout out there some charge, any charge, and just because of the charge itself, means “it must be investigated” even though there are NONE, ZERO facts to back them up.
That’s just typical liberalism.

Posted by: George Johnson | October 13, 2010, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm

I find it rather interesting that tapper put the ‘Note:’ in there regarding the afl-cio but you never see them do the same thing when odumbo/dems lies are exposed – interesting, well not really it’s typical of the scumbag msm and their blind love for an empty suited charlatan and un-American coward who has done nothing but attack one group of Americans after another and try to force big brother down our throats!
Where was tapper when all the questions about foreign money making it to odumbo’s campaign were raised? Oh, that’s right – he was too smitten like the rest of the unprofessional clods. Where was tapper when odumbo tried to have the DOJ silence and American citizen and talk radio when they dared *gasp* to question his character (or lack there of) integrity (are you kidding) or his utter lack of experience?
Where was tapper and abc (and the rest of the msm) when 500 union thugs from the seui descended on a private citizens home terrorizing his teenage son because he worked for BOA?
Tell you what, you clowns in the msm stop pretending like your doing your job by covering for obama and we’ll stop pointing back at you for your hypocrisy… mmmkay?

Posted by: DJH | October 13, 2010, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm

“So we know what the purpose here is. It’s to harass and intimidate.”
That’s all this is. And for anyone who thinks there’s no harm in releasing the identities of all their donors, just ask the Prop 8 backers in California whose businesses were targeted after their names were leaked. Ask the Bank of America executive whose front yard was descended upon by hundreds of union thugs earlier this year.

Posted by: Adam_ME | October 13, 2010, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm

the dues the unions pay to be a part of the federation ONLY come from American workers
=========
Must you be an American citizen to be a member of the AFL-CIO if you work in America?

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm

It seems to me there’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around. It’s OK for unions but not for corporations? We need jobs but we hate the corporations who provide them. The class warfare has to end as well as any favoritism! Calling patriots racists is another thing that needs to stop.
Bottom line….nothing is agreed until all agree!

Posted by: HardAssets | October 13, 2010, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm

Why did the Republicans vote No on Bill to support the Firemen, Police & many other Emeregncy personnel from 9/11.
Why?

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm

Where are the names of those attending the closed door fundraisers that Barack Obama is holding? Where is the transparency?

Posted by: Daisy21 | October 13, 2010, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

As they ssay, people in hell want ice water, too!

Posted by: sandyinohio | October 13, 2010, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm

Well, the list of Obama’s enemies is long.
Now, we add american business and commerce groups.
The tactics employed by this administration to silence dissent should be noted and discussed by the media.
But not a peep so far. Figures.

Posted by: A Taylor | October 13, 2010, 4:56 pm 4:56 pm

I think that the Chamber of Commerce is exactly right.The thugs that run the Democratic Party now wouldn’t hesitate to intimidate its membership.It will be wise to remember that Eric Holder’s grasp of the machinery of Federal Law Enforcement has a rapidly diminishing shelf life though

Posted by: Susan in NY | October 13, 2010, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm

Georgie_Bushie — Are you done spewing? The price we pay for the global marketplace is going to cost us dearly. What did you think was going to happen when Americans simply started buying cheaper imported products? We can’t compete, especially when you look at union costs. This can only end 2 ways. 1) We lower our standard of living to meet the rest of the world or 2)They raise theirs. Since I can remember, I have bought what I can made here. How many posters on this site alone have foreign cars, Sony’s, PS2′s, etc? I told the story earlier about Ford wanting to build one of the most technologically advanced auto plants in the world in or near Alabama a few years ago. They couldn’t come to an agreement with the union and it is now in South America. Whether we like it or not, we have overpriced ourselves in a global marketplace.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm

Ryan C:
The right wing nonsense that free speech means freedom from criticism should not become codified law.
====
So what kind of criticism goes too far?
A negative ad against your political opponent?
A protest on your front lawn?
Your address published by protest groups?

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm

“”"”"Why did the Republicans vote No on Bill to support the Firemen, Police & many other Emeregncy personnel from 9/11.”"”"”
Posted by: Wave06
Did you read the initial bill?

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm

Dues collected from foreign corporations are being used to fund ads. That money is under a 501(c)6 status and organizations are not required to disclose their donors. Since mid Sept. 8,000 political ads have aired, the vast majority of them for Republicans. Because the Commerce uses it’s general account to air these ads, the money is being donated by foreign corporations, whether American corps. or not, no one knows. Which means our elections are being influenced by outside sources. Which is why the Democrats tried to stop the supreme court ruling, only to be foiled by Republicans. And it’s apparent the money is being used to influence the election by favoring Republicans. Republicans that outsource our jobs to Foreign countries. Really not that hard to figure out. Follow the money

Posted by: Bea | October 13, 2010, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm

Obama knows if he can destroy jobs gives him more power and what better way to get that power than to destroy jobs through the Chamber of Commerce. Each job lost means one more person dependent on the government for a handout. Obama must have thought he was indestructible during the 2008 elections cannot figure out that Americans are finally waking up.

Posted by: justavoter | October 13, 2010, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm

Good job Jake! Now would you go and ask the president with the same level of diligence why he refuses to rectify his legitimacy as the president of the United States of America by disclosing his REAL live birth BC and all the other pertinent personal/professional/education records he has put away in a lockbox?
Now would you do that and THEN we can call you a REAL journalist.

Posted by: fish story | October 13, 2010, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm

Corporate Businessmen are telling the unemployed that they need not apply for a job, because the corporations have stated that they will only employ individuals with a job. Catch22, Murphy’s law or Political Manipulation. I want to know who is doing the funding. Limit these unknown donors to 1/4 of the allowed political contribution of a normal citizen ,one individual! For comlete transparency corporations should be allowed 100% of the contributions of a normal citizen.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 5:11 pm 5:11 pm

Liberals are all the same, read what you want to see then complain when you don’t understand. VOTE EM ALL OUT IN NOVEMBER.

Posted by: 7 | October 13, 2010, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm

anyone one that quotes the WH – is a moron.

Posted by: 7 | October 13, 2010, 5:13 pm 5:13 pm

The administration shouldn’t be worried about some issue ads run by the COC–regardless of where the funds came from.
They should be worried about the private donations, coming from the AMERICAN ELECTORATE. And those private donations are overwhelming in support of Constitutionalist candidates.

Posted by: WM | October 13, 2010, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm

You want to settle these issue? Political donations should only be made by private individuals via tax forms so they are traceable. On the same block you check for political campaign donations, private citizens should be able to donate up to $200 one time. That takes unions, special interests, banks, big business, oil, etc out of the equation.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm

“It means all the world to us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who are keeping the spirits clean around us,” First Lady Michelle Obama said on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show” today.
**********
Keeping the spirits clean around us? Which spirits?

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm

Keeping the spirits clean around us? Which spirits?
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Oct 13, 2010 5:19:03 PM
The ones leaking out of your head.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2010, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm

So – The Putz-in-Chief Messiah wants to see records that are legally allowed to be sealed. Mr. Messiah, Sir! Are you sure you want to go down that road? Because if you do, all the sudden the idiot Birthers might no longer be idiots. After all, what have you got to hide, Mr. Messiah, Sir! How about them college records of yours? How about all the donors who didn’t have to reveal their identities when they contributed to your sorry behind?
Are you sure you want to go down the road of accusations being more important than the rule of law, Mr. Putz-President-Messiah, Sir!?
Of course, I never thought you were all that smart, anyway. So the notion of a double standard probably doesn’t even register in the tiny little brain of yours.
But not to worry your little head about it, Mr. Messiah, Sir. Come November, we’re sending you some help – in the form of conservatives who can (a) do math, (b) actually defend the Constitution and who (c) love America without having to Fundamentally Transform her.

Posted by: harry | October 13, 2010, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm

“Government spending may have some apparent short-term positive affects”
I’m glad you could bring yourself to admit that. Now I suppose you will claim Democrats are proposing stimulus spending for the long-term, which as far as I’m aware of they never have.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

“So what kind of criticism goes too far?
A negative ad against your political opponent?
A protest on your front lawn?
Your address published by protest groups?”
Anything that is not a threat of violence or incitement of violence or direct threats of intimidation (ie: burning things on people’s lawns)

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm

For most of us, this is one in the same. You’ll see this November.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 13, 2010 1:19:54 PM
You undercut your message by saying I’ll “see in November.” I’m not all that worried about just November. November in and of itself won’t fix a darned thing. I’m worried about January, February, March, the remainder of 2011, 2012, 2020, 2043, the future, my son’s future, the country, the planet, etc. For me it doesn’t end when certain goofballs do or do not get elected, when one party or another wins. Its about the issues. Its about solutions, results, policy. Its about human rights, transparency, equal opportunity, continued prosperity, the environment, sustainability, education, first responders, a safety net, jobs, foreign policy, American ideals. Ken Buck wants to privatize the CDC, for pete’s sake. Boehner is already handing out “pork.” Americans disagree with Republican positions and don’t trust or approve of their party. Their job approval ratings rank at the bottom of the heap. Not one of our problems will be resolved in November. Not. one. Particularly if the crazy cons “win” — though longer term that will benefit sensible people. The rest of you will just go back to sleep until the Koch brothers send a sleeping giant to roar at ya again.
What a scam.

Posted by: progressive mama | October 13, 2010, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm

Anything that is not a threat of violence or incitement of violence or direct threats of intimidation (ie: burning things on people’s lawns)
===========
So publishing abortion doctor’s addresses– ok or not?

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm

The Obama administration should be afraid to open this can of worms given the questions about the funding of their presidential campaign in 2008. They’re not afraid though because they control which stories will be pushed by the press. Why didn’t the news media show this much curiosity about campaign contributions back then? I’m really glad that Mr. Josten talked about the threats by the SEIU and other groups. That’s another story that the news media should be chasing, but won’t.

Posted by: CM | October 13, 2010, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm

Tapper – that guy just “OWNED” you. He answered every question you had with a full thoughtful reasonable answer unlike Axelrod who just throw bombs and then says the other guy has to prove me wrong. Why don’t you go after the dems like this? Everyone knows Obama got millions of less than $250 donations from people outside the country and he wasn’t required to disclose nor did he CHOOSE to disclose.
Look up getting “OWNED” because you just got OWNED!!!!!!

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2010, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm

Jake Tapper of the American Broadcasting CORPORATION wants to regulate and limit the speech of other corporations. Be careful what you ask for Jake. I think all “journalists” should have to vote publicly and DISCLOSE all their holdings and investments … just so we know where they are coming from. How ’bout it Jake?

Posted by: JJinCO | October 13, 2010, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

Can’t wait for the election results in November when the right wing will not make the gains they feel they have a right to – and will start whining the election was fixed by the evil communists.
You guys are so cute.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2010, 5:44 pm 5:44 pm

if this administration doesn’t watch out they will be on the list for removal

Posted by: jackspratt1 | October 13, 2010, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm

“So publishing abortion doctor’s addresses– ok or not?”
Home Addresses on Wanted Posters?
That would seem to be covered under the incitement of violence standard.
But are you really conflating publishing a doctor’s home address with disclosure of corporate giving or donor giving to c campaign?
You’re doing quite a dance maybee to pretend that you agree with me on disclosure yet obviously you do not.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 5:50 pm 5:50 pm

RE “When some of those corporate names were divulged, not by us, by others, what did they receive? They received protests, they received threats, they were intimidated, they were harassed, they had to hire additional security, they were recipients of a host of proxies leveled at those companies that had nothing to do with the purpose of those companies. So we know what the purpose here is. It’s to harass and intimidate.
Much like we’ve seen in California with ballot initiatives — when the proponents of ballot initiatives’ names have been divulged to the public — those people were harassed, they were threatened with violence and they were intimidated.”
Nice to know the Chamber thinks they should be immune from the consequences of their actions. And that their free speech rights come with the added bonus of denying me my free speech rights to protest their actions.

Posted by: Madeline | October 13, 2010, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm

Looks to me like the Chamber guy won this debate. Obama and his cohorts are losing so they will attack even an American icon,like the Chamber of Commerce. I do not at all doubt that the Obama cohorts in SEIU,the media,etc., would intimidate the opposition. The administration is a disgrace trying to stifle free speech,via contributions.

Posted by: Mauren | October 13, 2010, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm

It would seem the conduct of this administration is similar to that of Hugo Chavez – both like to intimidate those who disagree. Chavez gets better intel than Obama, but Obama is trying to change that.

Posted by: Rich | October 13, 2010, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm

But are you really conflating publishing a doctor’s home address with disclosure of corporate giving or donor giving to c campaign?
=======
No. I thought you were saying Right Wingers! can’t handle the idea that there will be push back on their ideas (and you quoted Scalia).
Josten very clearly said he was afraid of harassment, not just of criticism. He gave a few very recent examples.
So I was trying to find out what you thought he should tolerate.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm

Wow look at all the astroturf right wingers sucking up to corporate.
Usually you guys are bit more subtle.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm

Tapper, you are are such a biased tool. Why doesn’t organized labor, moveon or Obama get questioned about their massive ad spending? These desperate fools want to cling to power like noone I’ve ever seen, even if it means suppressing all opposing viewpoints. The American people are not buying it.

Posted by: Paine | October 13, 2010, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm

Georgie_Bushie —- Funny you continue to regurgitate by gone crap. According to you, Obama should create plenty of manufacturing jobs. Maybe the Dems should be touting that? Or maybe run on the successes of the Democratic party in the past 20 months? Maybe they should stop ridiculously inexperienced accusations and actually run on what they have all called successes. Hmm, I wonder why that is not happening? Oh, my narrow view huh? I thought you could connect the dots between cheap foreign made products Americans are buying and why American manufacturers are having such a hard time.

Posted by: lfrichar | October 13, 2010, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm

The Chamber of Commerce is telling everybody how this administration works, Chicago mob tactics. I guess that makes us racist, because we disagree with Obama.

Posted by: savage24 | October 13, 2010, 6:05 pm 6:05 pm

When the Supreme Court allowed the Citizens United Case. That was when America was put on the Auction Block.

Posted by: Wave06 | October 13, 2010, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm

“Josten very clearly said he was afraid of harassment, not just of criticism. He gave a few very recent examples”
He gave generalities
“It led to physical violence, vandalism and economic reprisals from against those people and their homes.”
There were a few death threats against prop 8 supporters who spoke at rallies that were investigated by police and some eggings/vandalism but I never saw anything about donors dealing with such
I see this one note
“”I got about two dozen e-mails and hate phone calls,” said Mr. LiMandri, who lives in San Diego. “They were calling me Nazi, homophobe, bigot. I tried to engage people once or twice – I said that Proposition 8 had nothing to do with being bigoted, it was about preserving marriage – but people don’t want to engage on the issue.”.
No death threats so I go back to the Scalia standard.
But that last part struck me…economic reprisal.
As if people can’t boycott your business if they disagree with your politics.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm

Wow.
Obama is a true McCarthyite.
He would make Nixon blush.
What a gigantic fraud!

Posted by: mfsheldon | October 13, 2010, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm

Jake, How come you give the professional left a chance to rebut in line, but never the right when we are (untruthfully) hammered?

Posted by: kc | October 13, 2010, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm

No reason to be subtle here, he’s dead right in his defense of not disclosing. His books are open to the IRS to show there is no illegal transfer of money and thats all that is required. This is just a bad political play by Chicago political thugs for the purpose of unleashing their SEIU dogs on.

Posted by: john738 | October 13, 2010, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm

The problem with Jake is that his voice is muffled when he speaks about Obama because only his feet stick out.

Posted by: Ellen O'Day | October 13, 2010, 6:27 pm 6:27 pm

President Obama,
Though millions of idiotic American’s voted you in- many of them now bemoan the fact, you need to understand that your days are numbered as the holder of our nation’s highest office.
Our nation cannot overcome much more of this so it is nothing personal but you must go if this Country is to survive.
This is just another example of how you want to destroy our Republic. Like an army of Red Ants your kool aid drinking followers will so cowardly attack the Chamber of Commerce if they find out who the the donors are. They will use deplorable and reprehensible intimidation methods to scare people.
They will do this because they hate America.

Posted by: Will | October 13, 2010, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm

No death threats so I go back to the Scalia standard.
=====
OK, so the Ryan C standard seems to be…anything short of a death threat is acceptable political behavior.
Mr. Josten says in this interview that his group does not wish to take that on, given that it is their legal right not to.
So we know why he won’t disclose his donors.
Why do other groups, like ThinkProgress and CAP not disclose their donors?

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 6:34 pm 6:34 pm

So let me get this straight, the President pursues policies that are destroying the small businesses in the country, so the group representing small businesses fights back…and the President then seeks to make false accusations against them and seeks to destroy personally more small businesses that support the Chamber.
God, I cannot wait for November 2nd!

Posted by: Gary | October 13, 2010, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm

I went to the afl-cio website looked ibew and right there was a canadian based union. I love the internet because I love to learn the truth.

Posted by: mark | October 13, 2010, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm

“But that last part struck me…economic reprisal”
Indeed!
JOSTEN:”That company has had a boycott…”
Out of all that verbosity he finally said something that belies the standard right-wing MO.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm

“OK, so the Ryan C standard seems to be…anything short of a death threat is acceptable political behavior.”
Wrong. I said no threats of violence. no incitements to violence and not threats of intimidation giving the example of burning something on someone;s lawn (whether it be an effigy or what have you).
Getting called a Nazi or a bigot or similar names while unpleasant do not constitute threats.
I know where you live and I am going to hurt you would.
“Mr. Josten says in this interview that his group does not wish to take that on, given that it is their legal right not to.”
Then stay out of politics if you can’t answer for your millions of dollars spent trying to influence it.
“Why do other groups, like ThinkProgress and CAP not disclose their donors?”
The Center of America Progress runs campaign ads? When did that start?
Besides I thought we were discussing what should be the disclosure laws.
So should I mark you down for being against disclosure and for donor secrecy?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm

“JOSTEN:”That company has had a boycott…”
Out of all that verbosity he finally said something that belies the standard right-wing MO.”
Its the O’Reilly standard of boycotts are UnAmerican except when he leads them.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm

But heaven forbit anyone be called a qu33r, right, Ryan C?
You want tolerance for anyone with whom you agree, but if you disagree with them they should get wrath and scorn.
You’re a hypocrite. Aside from that, calling for behavior like this is what’s wrong with politics these days. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Joe Sixpack | October 13, 2010, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm

This smack of Hugo Chaves tactics. threats,take over’s,attacks on your opponents with made up lies. Obama is looking more and more like a dictator and less and less like a serious president.

Posted by: Wade Johnson | October 13, 2010, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm

Josten Translation: We want foreign businesses to be able to dump huge sums of money into Republican campaign coffers without free market consequences.

Posted by: Skip | October 13, 2010, 6:56 pm 6:56 pm

It remain to be seen whether Karl Rove will sue the Dem. machine for its accusation that Rove used the foreign money to influence the election process, which is punishable by law.

Posted by: austin | October 13, 2010, 6:57 pm 6:57 pm

“But heaven forbit anyone be called a qu33r, right, Ryan C?”
Its a nasty word and not for polite company but its not against the law.
“You’re a hypocrite.”
Oh I get it.
You’re upset when I call you and the rest of the the right wingers out for bigotry therefore I should be against someone calling someone that they disagree with a bigot.
And that’s the point.
Speech should be countered with speech.
Its why in this country your friends in the Klan can march and and people who oppose the Klan can plan for massive counter demonstrations.
If you can’t handle criticism that may come with a controversial opinion, feel free to remain silent.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm

Everyone knows that Obama’s 2008 Presidential run was partially financed by the Chinese Communists who funneled “donations” through fake names or people who did not give permission to use their names. C’mon Tapper – INVESTIGATE!

Posted by: Liberal Liars | October 13, 2010, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm

“Everyone knows that Obama’s 2008 Presidential run was partially financed by the Chinese Communists who funneled “donations” through fake names or people who did not give permission to use their names”
ROFLMAO!
Now we take a trip down insanity lane with the right wing!

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm

When I cited what took place in California, there is a gentleman who has done research for the Institute for Justice in California,”
Sourcewatch:the Institute for Justice is a US libertarian public interest law firm – “In pursuit of its goal of a radical laissez-faire capitalism, the Institute has initiated a number of lawsuits aimed at ending government regulation of business. While the lawsuits generally involve small businesses, often in communities of color, the goal is to set a legal precedent for the deregulation of big business in general. Utilizing both litigation and public advocacy, the Institute has also played a critical role in the groundbreaking school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland”
Oh and this shocker….The initial funding for the Institute came from the Koch Family Foundations,

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm

Besides I thought we were discussing what should be the disclosure laws.
=======
Oh. I thought we were talking about what *are* the disclosure laws.
So a loud protest on someone’s front lawn when you don’t know if the target of your protest is home- or if his kid is home alone. Intimidation or no?
And no, as far as I know CAP doesn’t run political ads. It does something much more powerful- it puts talking points directly in the mouth of the President of the United States while he’s campaigning.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm

“I know, but look, Target corporation in Minnesota, which is a very progressive company and exceptionally progressive with respect to the gay and lesbian community in that state, out some money behind a ballot initiative in that state on economic growth. And it just so happened that one of the people running for governor connected to that, is anti gay and lesbian rights.”
Lie with right wing dogs, get up with fleas.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm

Oh and this shocker….The initial funding for the Institute came from the Koch Family Foundations,
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:12:39 PM
**********
Source please?

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm

“Oh and this shocker….The initial funding for the Institute came from the Koch Family Foundations,
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:12:39 PM
**********
Source please?”
That was all from SourceWatch.
Foot notes are on the website.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm

“So a loud protest on someone’s front lawn when you don’t know if the target of your protest is home- or if his kid is home alone. Intimidation or no?”
That would probably depend upon the chants.
“And no, as far as I know CAP doesn’t run political ads. It does something much more powerful- it puts talking points directly in the mouth of the President of the United States while he’s campaigning.”
Does that mean you’re for disclosure from the Heritage foundation?
I’m all for disclosure for think tanks and basically all contributors to the political discussion, though I think the legal mechanisms don’t exist for such as they do with direct political spending.
But let’s stop dancing, are you for disclosure or are you for secrecy of donors?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:28 pm 7:28 pm

“Odd statement coming from one of the biggest race-baiters in these blogs”
Funny phrase race baiter.
If you mean right wingers here get so annoyed with me that their true racist colors show clearly then I consider it a badge of honor.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm

So people on the blog, let’s start voting on what we think there should be.
More disclosure by of donors by all groups(campaigns, PACs, 527s and other classification of political groups engaged in campaign spending) doing political advertising or the status quo secrecy of donors?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:36:05 PM
Who’s annoyed? Your posts demonstrate left wing lunacy at its finest. Now that the left is totally losing it, the posts are downright comical.

Posted by: Chuck | October 13, 2010, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm

That was all from SourceWatch.
Foot notes are on the website.
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:24:42 PM
*****
SourceWatch front page: “To get started, there’s a link to your left on the basics of how you can help write history.”
Nice. I can’t wait to see how the Koch lawsuit turns out. How DID Obama know their tax records??

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm

“Posted by: Chuck | Oct 13, 2010 7:41:21 PM”
So Chuck are you for donor transparency or donor secrecy?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm

We need a 2nd bill of rights to address this outrage! This is a complete assault on our freedoms and liberties of our republic!

Posted by: Jedi Rock | October 13, 2010, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm

I’m all for disclosure for think tanks and basically all contributors to the political discussion, though I think the legal mechanisms don’t exist for such as they do with direct political spending.
But let’s stop dancing, are you for disclosure or are you for secrecy of donors?
==========
That’s not an easy answer, as you acknowledge in the first paragraph of yours I quoted.
I don’t see why groups who do advocacy tv ads should be treated differently (disclosure-wise) than those who do advocacy writing or blogging. I don’t think one is substantially more influential than the other. Especially when political parties make ads based on the “research” of advocacy groups.
So while I like the idea of disclosure, and would prefer it, I don’t think it makes sense to create inequity. As we have seen, creating campaign finance laws has been like squeezing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You clamp down in one place, and the filling oozes elsewhere.
I think groups and campaigns should be audited by an independent body to make sure laws are being followed.
And I wish everyone would make honest ads and not harass those with whom they disagree.

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm

“SourceWatch front page: “To get started, there’s a link to your left on the basics of how you can help write history.”
Feel free to read the Jane Mayer piece in the New Yorker.
“Nice. I can’t wait to see how the Koch lawsuit turns out. How DID Obama know their tax records??”
Many of their tax records are public.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm

Holy Crap–who is this Josten guy?? Tapper actually posted this? Josten put the biggest verbal beatdown I have ever seen in my life on a smarmy reporter. Josten for President, jeeze!

Posted by: Interested Observer | October 13, 2010, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm

This is simply a partisan trick whose only purpose is to intimidate and harass Republicans and those who support them. The MSM and people like you, Jake, are ignoring the unions who have the same problem.
Major unions have members in states that have no right to work laws, which means that if you refuse to join the union and pay dues, then the union can have you fired. The SEIU is one of those unions.
That same SEIU has thousands of members who are here illegally, and these are dues paying members. That money taken in the form of dues is then given to Democrats and is also used in attack ads against Republicans on behalf of those same Democrats.
So yeah, Jake, if you want the C of C to open up their books so we can see who their members are, then let’s ask why the unions can’t open up their membership list so we can see who is here legally. After all, those illegal members of the union are basically foreign nationals, and Democrats are receiving some of their money, through the unions, either directly or through paid ads.

Posted by: Ron | October 13, 2010, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm

“I don’t see why groups who do advocacy tv ads should be treated differently (disclosure-wise) than those who do advocacy writing or blogging. I don’t think one is substantially more influential than the other. Especially when political parties make ads based on the “research” of advocacy groups.”
I don’t either.
I just don’t see a way to regulate that based on case law dealing with free speech beyond the standard professional ethics.
But with campaign ad spending, we do have case law that allows for disclosure.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm

And in the It Cuts Both Ways department, from the Providence Journal, Oct, 12th: (projo dot com)
“By Peter B. Lord
Journal Staff Writer
It was no secret when unions successfully targeted several General Assembly candidates for defeat in last month’s primary. But what wasn’t widely known is that the unions created a new organization that could legally ignore longtime election expense rules and spend unlimited amounts of money for or against any candidates it chooses.
Under the old rules, political action committees for unions or corporations are limited to contributing $1,000 annually to each candidate
The new union group, called the Working Families Coalition, raised $27,230 and spent most of that money on organized direct mail campaigns and newspaper ads — all targeted to defeat five incumbent representatives and support five candidates for School Committee in Pawtucket.”
Well, well, well. Lookie what the unions can do! Imagine that!

Posted by: Woody | October 13, 2010, 7:58 pm 7:58 pm

How many times were you rebuffed trying to do the admins business jake?
Why should a private organization subject it’s contributers to union thugs working for the prez? Why not ask how the unions spend money jake?
Do you jake you lapdog not understand that political speech is the most important free speech. Jake your a lapdog hack. How weak.

Posted by: Guck Jake | October 13, 2010, 8:04 pm 8:04 pm

Interesting that the Chamber takes a beating over disclosure but you don’t hear the outrage over the unions and their lack of disclosure.

Posted by: marksarah1 | October 13, 2010, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm

“Well, well, well. Lookie what the unions can do! Imagine that!”
And what did ya know, they actually had to disclose their donors!
From the same article
“Unions and individuals funded the Working Families Coalition. It got $5,000 from the National Education Association, Rhode Island; $5,000 from the United Food and Commercial Workers in Providence; $3,500 from the Service Employees International Union District 1199; $5,000 from the Rhode Island AFL-CIO; $2,500 from the Rhode Island Alliance of Social Service Employees, Local 580; and $5,000 from the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals.”
And then there is this
“Also, late last week, a Providence-based conservative group called Americans for Common Sense Solutions, launched a televised attack ad against Democrat David N. Cicilline in the race for Congress in the 1st District…..
…..So far in Rhode Island’s two congressional races, it looks like the first independent expenditure television ad was the one that began on Friday criticizing Cicilline.”
So to recap, unions do disclosure, right wing groups…not so much.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm

The NAACP was for donor secrecy (1950′s case that made it law that donor lists to 501(c)4 organizations could be kept private) before they were against it (now).
If these donor lists become public, be prepared for retaliation in hiring practices of individuals, among other issues (which include possible violence from wackos).

Posted by: NAACP Man | October 13, 2010, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm

“Do you jake you lapdog not understand that political speech is the most important free speech”
Therefore it must be done in secret by large donors without any public knowledge.
God Bless America

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:09 pm 8:09 pm

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:43:31 PM
I’m all for transparency…especially when it comes to your most recent tax records. Because I’m not sure you’re being totally honest with your fellow taxpayers, Ryan. Can you please post that information? And please include all sources of income. In the interest of full disclosure, of course. We need to make sure you’re not a paid blogger for Obama. You have nothing to hide, do you?

Posted by: Chuck | October 13, 2010, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm

As a matter of fact, I think the NAACP doesn’t want donor secrecy overturned. They just want it overturned for everyone other than them.
And of course, organizations like John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (which also does not disclose its donor lists) should be allowed to keep their donor lists private.

Posted by: NAACP Man | October 13, 2010, 8:15 pm 8:15 pm

“And of course, organizations like John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (which also does not disclose its donor lists) should be allowed to keep their donor lists private.”
When The Center for American Progress begins running campaign ads, you might have a point.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm

“I’m all for transparency..”
So Chuck you think the Chamber should discloses its donors as should other groups that engage in campaign advertising (or even political advertising)?
Or were you just looking to change the subject lest you be forced into an uncomfortable position?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm

“So when did you stop beating your wife Chuck?”
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 8:18:06 PM
Since you refuse to disclose your sources of income, then we’ll assume you’re a paid blogger.
My wife passed away two years ago.

Posted by: Chuck | October 13, 2010, 8:26 pm 8:26 pm

“Or were you just looking to change the subject lest you be forced into an uncomfortable position?”
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 8:22:40 PM
I couldn’t care less. I don’t debate left wing lunacy. I work to ensure those with your world view never reach public office. Looks like it’ll be a banner year.

Posted by: Chuck | October 13, 2010, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm

“Since you refuse to disclose your sources of income, then we’ll assume you’re a paid blogger.”
Ah yes the McCarthy standard of inquisition where you accuse and consider that in itself proof of your accusation.
In reference to your wife, I am sorry.
It was an expression of the line of accusation you were taking which despite it being apt is very much in poor taste given your disclosure.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm

Spoken like a true left leaning liberal. It looks like liberal bias is still alive and well in the media. This guy is the White House Correspondent? Mr. Tapper if you want to know the sources of the chamber of commerce funds, you can add my name to the list. Because of your post, I’m donating $100.

Posted by: Joe | October 13, 2010, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm

Oh I get it now, right wingers are STILL furious about the James Byrd ads the NAACP ran 10 years ago.
Could you point to something a little more relevant?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm

Oh I get it now, right wingers are STILL furious about the James Byrd ads the NAACP ran 10 years ago.
Could you point to something a little more relevant?

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm

“I couldn’t care less. I don’t debate left wing lunacy.”
I know.
You run away whenever you can.
So run away now Chuck.
Its ok, it won’t be the first, nor the last.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 13, 2010, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm

America is acting like a third world banana republic. Don’t you guys know that if you allow people donate money undisclosed in your elections your democracy is in jeopardy? Every advance democracy I know has campaign finance laws that does not allow corporation, including foreign once, to donate to parties undisclosed. No wonder your unemployment is 9.6 percent.
If you stupidly think that corporate entities would spend this much and allow your legislators to pass law to prevent them from kissing the Chinese in the butt for cheap labour while at the time lobbying for them using “American Chamber of commerce”.
I use to think highly of American democracy, but not now. American democracy is aristocracy under cover of popular consent.
The man with most money, and not reasoning controls America. That is why your country is lowly descending.

Posted by: joe jones | October 13, 2010, 8:40 pm 8:40 pm

To the posters who think that the Chamber of commerce should disclose.
1) What they are doing is LEGAL not illegal.
2) I haven’t heard on the news of any conservative organizations attacking or harassing democratic donors.
(Ca. Prop 8, the health care debate)
3) Obama still has not released his donor list from when he was running for president.
4) When it comes to the democrats what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Posted by: Rob123 | October 13, 2010, 8:46 pm 8:46 pm

Does Tapper have a hint of objectivity? We need to see who’s paying him, and who he contribute to! Hypocritical scoundrel!

Posted by: don | October 13, 2010, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm

Ah yes the McCarthy standard of inquisition where you accuse and consider that in itself proof of your accusation.
=============
Oh, irony!

Posted by: MayBee | October 13, 2010, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm

Why doesn’t President Obama release a list of donors to his presidential campaign? He never revealed the identity of all the donors to his campaign. The same arguments apply to Obama, why doesn’t he publish his list?

Posted by: mbs | October 13, 2010, 9:19 pm 9:19 pm

“Interesting that the Chamber takes a beating over disclosure but you don’t hear the outrage over the unions and their lack of disclosure.”
Probably because unions do have disclosure laws they comply with while the Chamber feel they can ignore disclosure.
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 8:08:51 PM
*******
Probably??? Another “Gibbs “Look at thre Presidents statements carefully” comment? Can’t be sued because there is no actual atatement, just a suggestion?
******
“Nice. I can’t wait to see how the Koch lawsuit turns out. How DID Obama know their tax records??”
Many of their tax records are public.
Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 7:54:15 PM
*******
Once again, the operative word. Many, but NOT the information that the Obama administration was blabbing. That was private information. Which brings us back to the lawsuit that our lovely media won’t cover.

Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 13, 2010, 9:23 pm 9:23 pm

Hmmm sounds like the reverse of what the Klu Klux Klan used to do

Posted by: RepInFlorida | October 13, 2010, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm

@Ryan C, apparently you missed that the Commerce department is obeying the law in their disclosures. Even the President admits they are not breaking laws.

Posted by: win | October 13, 2010, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm

Palestinians/ Hamas ran phone banks in Gaza to fund raise for Obama and the Democrats in 2008. Why aren’t you interested in that fact, Jake?

Posted by: BellTolls | October 13, 2010, 9:42 pm 9:42 pm

Had it not been for illegal foreign campaign contributions to Obama he would NOT be President now!
George Soros funnelled funds to Obama’s campaign through offshore banks with untraceable debit cards.
The only reason they want to know who is opposing this administration is so they can go after them as they did with the auto dealerships which they closed down and gave to their friends. All the auto dealerships closed down by Obama had contributed to Republicans except one that contributed to Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton did the same thing when he had all those FBI files pulled on Republicans so he could blackmail them.
These people are desperate, have a rotten record on which they cannot run.
Remember “Grandma will be eating dogfood” the left screamed years ago. How anyone could vote for these disgusting specimens is beyond the pale.

Posted by: Annabel | October 13, 2010, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm

I hope that ABC News also breaks in on the transcript to spout what they believe is true when liberals are being interviewed.

Posted by: Michael R Henson | October 13, 2010, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm

I have only one thing to say to these corporate elites-
If your political activities make you feel embarrassed or guilty, then don’t do them.

Posted by: Flash Override | October 13, 2010, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm

They would never press Obama and the “progressive” left like this. And if the right were doing this, the onus would be squarely on them. The relevant non-disclosure laws were instituted to prevent civil rights orgs from having to name their donors so they could avoid reprisal. Fifty years later the shoe is on the other foot. As Bob Scheifer (spelling? no one watches him anyway) said, is this the best you’ve got? Tell us about your wonderful policies

Posted by: Upstater | October 13, 2010, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm

Now that’s a good one, Chamber. But you really don’t need to try with repubs and baggers, they’ll believe anything. Caught O’Donnell tonight? LMAO!!!

Posted by: pamp205 | October 13, 2010, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm

BellTolls Said: “Palestinians/ Hamas ran phone banks in Gaza to fund raise for Obama and the Democrats in 2008. Why aren’t you interested in that fact, Jake?”
=====================================
LOL!… Uhmmm, maybe because it’s not true and only Fox News puts out tabloid type news…hehehehehe.

Posted by: Jake | October 13, 2010, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm

I’ll trade Obama’s Happy Ass for the doners of over seas who gave to his campaign. and also a copy of the photo that the battered photographer got at the Demorat Convention.

Posted by: john smith | October 13, 2010, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm

Posted by: Jake | Oct 13, 2010 10:22:07 PM
Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan. Google them.

Posted by: Mary | October 13, 2010, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm

Via WaPo:
* A Chamber ad was yanked from two Pennsylvania TV stations after they determined its claim about Pennsylvania Senate Dem candidate Joe Sestak and Nancy Pelosi was false.
* A Crossroads GPS ad slamming Sestak over health care reform and Medicare was skewered by FactCheck.org for its “wild exaggeration” and dismissed as “badly misleading.”
* A Crossroads GPS ad attacking California Senator Barbara Boxer for voting to cut Medicare spending by $500 billion was rated by Politifact as “barely true” and “seriously misleading.”
* Two Chamber ads attacking Boxer for favoring freshwater fish over jobs were dismissed by Factcheck.org, though with some caveats, as follows: “Strictly speaking, both ads are untrue.”
* Also in the above link, FactCheck.org slammed Crossroads GPS for making similiarly misleading claims about health reform in an ad targeting Kentucky Dem Senate candidate Jack Conway. FactCheck.org’s conclusion: “Don’t let Crossroads GPS steer you down the wrong road.”
* An American Crossroads ad blasting Harry Reid with various claims about unemployment and the stimulus was dismissed by the Las Vegas Sun for “egregious” stretching of the facts and “gross distortions.”
* That same ad was also ripped by FactCheck.org for distorting the truth and by Politifact as “false.”
* An American Crossroads ad hammering Ohio Dem Senate candidate Lee Fisher over job creation and tax hikes was skewered by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as “incomplete” and “mucked up with distortions.”
* An ABC affiliate in Colorado found that a Crossroads GPS ad attacking Senator Michael Bennet made a misleading claim about Bennet on government spending and conflated opinion for fact on the stimulus.

Posted by: Flash Override | October 13, 2010, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm

Harassment, intimidation, boycott, personal attacks are classic tactics of the left. They are right out of the Saul Alinsky play book. And the Internet makes it easier to spread malicious and untrue information. On the positive side, the internet, conservative talk radio, and Fox News make it a lot more difficult for the government in power and the left-leaning media to cover it up or gloss over it. Americans are sick and tired of this, and In November they will make their displeasure known.

Posted by: Ed Ross | October 13, 2010, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm

What happened to “Freedom of Association?”

Posted by: DMike | October 13, 2010, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm

Oh, boo hoo! Lets get out the fainting couch for Ed Ross and his corporate sponsors.
The corporate elite seems to feel that democracy is beneath them.
How dare the great unwashed know what we do with their money!

Posted by: Flash Override | October 13, 2010, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm

The recent gathering at the Lincoln Memorial was nothing less than an enormous, nationally televised coming-out party for closet Marxists. Washington watchers have long known about the love affair between the Marxists in America and other major political forces. Here are a few of the organizations that are marching, lock-step, in support of the Democratic majority that is advancing a Marxist agenda:
Communist Party USA (CPUSA)
Democratic Socialists of America
Committee of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation
Friends of the Earth
Center for Biological Diversity
NAACP
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
AFL-CIO
UAW, International Union
SEIU: Service Employees International Union
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of University Professors
AFGE: American Federation of Government Employees
(And more than 300 other organizations)
The Democrats and their coalition of Marxist organizations say the Reid-Pelosi Marxist majority must be returned to Congress because the Republicans will return to the “failed policies of the past” and run the “economy into the ditch” again.
Any honest analysis of why the economy ran into the ditch has to begin with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, promoted by the Carter administration and many of the organizations that “came out” last weekend. The purpose of the law was to make it easier for low-income families to get mortgages.
Marxists, of course, believe that adequate housing is a right, and that government has the responsibility to see that every person has adequate housing. The Clinton administration, goaded on by many of the organizations that “came out” last weekend, lowered the credit requirements to the point that NINJNAs (No Job, No Income, No Assets) were buying upscale houses all over the country with what were called “subprime” mortgages. To his credit, George W. Bush tried in vain to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Democrats Charles Schumer and Barney Frank and even Obama himself led the charge to defeat tighter controls. ”
It was clearly the failed policies of the Democrats and their Marxist buddies who ran the economy into the ditch, not eight years of the Bush administration.

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:03 pm 11:03 pm

I don’t think it’s anybody’s business who I donate money to or what political positions I support or oppose. We have secret ballots for a reason. If the chamber discloses this ad paid for by the chamber, that’s enough for me. Ask the people in California who were fired, crucified, attacked, or had their businesses destroyed because they gave money in the Prop 8 campaign how they feel about secrecy. If you work for a foreign based company with 50,000 US employees, do you really agree with the dems that your employer has no right to advocate for or against a regulation that could hurt their business, or cost Americans their jobs? Face it, this is ALL about the dems trying to silence the opposition. When the president does it, it’s an elected official actually trying to silence dissent. Frankly, the president silencing his opponents is much more dangerous to the country than any private group or individual.

Posted by: Dave C | October 13, 2010, 11:04 pm 11:04 pm

Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes; More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee, etc, AKA Obama is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In spite of all this Congressional Democrats still want ACORN to be eligible for federal money.
This is the first president in history to flout election campaign laws and receive millions from foreign countries (including Gaza), blockbusting stories that broke at Atlas all during the campaign.
“Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”
The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
“Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm

Hey ryan c, how do they know you so well below?????
Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder
WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.
“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm

Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Similarly, government bureaucracies never solve problems, they manage them and exacerbate the ones they created by interfering with market forces and processes.
If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse the conservatives of.
The amount of wealth in any given area is inversely proportional to the amount of Democrats running it.
Liberalism only succeeds when the public is scared into believing that it will not survive without it.
When liberalism conflicts with reality, reality must give way.
Facts are the enemy of liberalism.
Things are different when you are a Democrat [regarding his allegations of the media’s ignorance towards Democratic scandals and misconduct].
A Liberal is any person for whom two thousand years of human experience and history means nothing now that they are here.
To liberals, intentions are more significant than the outcomes they achieve.
Liberals never think what they are doing is wrong, they only think they haven’t done enough of it yet or it is underfunded

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm

“Profiling” is what groups call common sense when they have a problem they don’t want to talk about.
Democrats and liberals do not engage in debate, they try to silence you. If they engaged in debate, they’d lose.
Democrats are political opportunists.
Liberalism is based on unproven and/or disproven theory.
Liberals view the world the way they think it should be, not the way it is.
So why then do liberals profile the tea party movement as racist?????

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm

Why didn’t Obama disclose his donor list in 2008?
Why didn’t Gibbs disclose his organization’s donor list in 2004?
This fraudulent invention of a dishonest “issue” is why these people are going to lose, and lose big. The electorate has seen enough.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 13, 2010, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm

President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency,” but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch’s Freedom

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm

To all of you who voted for Obama and are now whining about him, I say: Cry me a river. The rest of us told you before Nov. 2008 that this guy had zero experience, was dangerously naive about foreign policy, would not produce records the rest of us have to provide all the time (including even a valid birth certificate – and, no, that thing he posted on his campaign website was not a birth certificate, it was a “certification of live birth”, which was issued by Hawaii to babies born outside of the US), associated with known domestic terrorists, Communists, Socialists, and the like, and attended a church for 20 years with a pastor who hated America. We told you he would be a disaster. But because we wanted to know the most basic information about his background, questioned his incredibly naive beliefs about America’s role in the world, questioned his advocacy for “redistributionist” policies, and the like, you called us “racists”. Even my own step-mother did, for crying out loud! Now you have buyer’s remorse. Congratulations. The chickens have come home to roost, to borrow a phrase. I hope all you all stay home for every future election.

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm

Neil Sankey, a former British policeman who’s now a licensed private investigator in Los Angeles, initiated a preliminary background investigation of Barack Obama and uncovered 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers.
Forty-nine different addresses? Sixteen different Social Security numbers? That’s beyond bizarre.
At the Illinois addresses listed for Obama, two Social Security numbers appear with frequency. One begins with the number 042… the other begins with the number 364.
The Social Security number beginning with 042 was issued in Connecticut… even though Obama apparently never lived or worked in Connecticut.
One can only ask why? Is the President of the United States a victim of ID fraud? Or, is something else entirely going on?

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm

Just REMEMBER in NOVEMBER and vote these scum out, vote out anyone who would do anything to support this rat vermin traitor Obama.
If you support Obama and his Regime, you support an Statist authoritarian who is an empty suit who speaks in platitudes who is beholden to the oligarchical collectivists and banking cabals. You are against freedom, liberty and our constitutional republic and the notion that all of our rights are inborn and are given by our creator. Some autocrat in Washington does not grant rights – the constitution simply enumerates them for added protection. The constitution also limits the Powers of the Federal Government yet an expansionist authoritarian view is used in modern times contrary to what Madison had intended. If you support Obama you support the biggest threat to our free will in our history, and when the last bastion of freedom in the USA falls, there is nowhere else to go.

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 13, 2010, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm

The funny thing is that Obama who had millions of $$$ contributed by Saudis and other foreign organizations including some donations by members of Hamas — for his presidential campaign refused to disclose those donations and return them. His campaign refused to open up its books and disclose foreign donations. Now in desperation Obama tries to intimidate organization like US Chamber of Commerce to show list of donors to destroy political enemies. Typical methods of Soviet style government — if you expressed views different from official propaganda you would be destroyed, put in jail or mental institution in a best case scenario.

Posted by: Rudy | October 13, 2010, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm

Personally, I like to know who is giving to politicians running for office. I like websites like Open Secrets that lists the industries and companies that are supporting them. That will no longer be possible because now Corporations are “persons” too according to the Supreme Court. Very dissatisfied with the Ruling.

Posted by: cat48 | October 13, 2010, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm

Man this reported is really carrying a torch for Obama, he believes every word they say….
This is why I don’t care for mainstream media, the blatant bias.

Posted by: Gary Pate | October 13, 2010, 11:29 pm 11:29 pm

I will say this: Both Partys have totally screwed this nation up.
Time for a Revolution.

Posted by: PanzerFaust | October 13, 2010, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm

All you have to do is look at what Obama’s surrogates did to Target in Minnesota to know what the Chamber is concerned about.

Posted by: looneytoonsindville | October 13, 2010, 11:45 pm 11:45 pm

I agree with Rush-Barry’s salary is being paid by the Chinese(a metaphor,of course)

Posted by: nc southern belle | October 13, 2010, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm

Hold the course & do not give in to these crimanals!

Posted by: ken Dickson | October 14, 2010, 12:30 am 12:30 am

It is very obvious that the COC has something to hide. And, the fact that we do not here Republicans voicing concern over their practice shows exactly what type of party they are.

Posted by: enclaved | October 14, 2010, 12:31 am 12:31 am

Face it people the Republicans are bought and paid for. Big Business runs this country for the benefit of Big Business, and that includes Foreign Big Business. They will do anything, including hanging the American people out to dry, to gain power.

Posted by: enclaved | October 14, 2010, 12:34 am 12:34 am

After the Supreme court narrowly passed their decision that Corporations have the same rights as people, I wanted to smack all 5 of those who voted in favor of such a ridiculous law. Having been the victim (along with 80,000 other citizens) of a large disability insurance company’s proven scam to ruthlessly deny legitimate claims because they did not want to pay them.
In my minds eye I can see scalia ( no caps intentional) insubordinantly shaking his head indicating “no, nope”, as our president said he felt the justices had given a free hand to large ns to unfairly influence our government.
scalia can shake his head no until he dies. scalia, thompson, roberts, alito and roberts sold our country to foreign interests and they should be replaced immeadiately. SECRFEG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 14, 2010, 12:35 am 12:35 am

UnumProvident is the name of the most vicious insurance company that was ever a gig on a hard drive in Delaware. UNUMProvident remains the most sued, fined, and vilified disability insurance company in America. UnumProvident’s home office is in Chattanooga Tenn. UNUMProvident, a place where cretins, miscreants and animals all feed from the same trough.
So you understand I am not bitter due to finances. UnumProvident was ordered by the courts to write me a check in the amount of $3.4 million dollars.
According to scalia UNUMProvident a multi billion dollar company and you and me are on an even playing field, with the same rights, is completely and utterly ridiculous. SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 14, 2010, 12:46 am 12:46 am

It’s clear whom Liarcons and Pee Partiers side with, big business. Did all of America’s lost jobs (7 million) disappear into thin air? Or were they packed up and exported to countrys which use masses of slave labor? Who benefits from our countrys bloodletting of jobs? Big corporations do? Given tax breaks, allowed to outsource jobs, clarge corporations are the only beneficiaries of a Liarcon party in power. What Josten does not talk about is that Think-TRank does not pay for attack ads. Today we know of $850,000 which has been taken into the COC and no disclosure as to what these funds were used for. COC has spent 75 million on attack ads. All but a handful were for Dems. SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 14, 2010, 12:55 am 12:55 am

enclaved (more like ‘enslaved’) said:
“Face it people the Republicans are bought and paid for. Big Business runs this country for the benefit of Big Business, and that includes Foreign Big Business. They will do anything, including hanging the American people out to dry, to gain power. ”
–
Listen up dummy, and listen well – this imaginary ‘big business’ enemy that you’re referring to IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The ones of us who actually stand up and get to work building businesses and hiring sorry people like yourself. The Chamber represents business interests…you know that thing called business which happens to hire EVERY American out there! You know, that thing ‘business’, that the government and the union thugs depend on to actually generate something that they can leech off of.
If Repubs are all for business – AWESOME! If Dems are against business – get out of the US then and run off to some socialist place where people would rather sit at road-sides waiting for assisstance instead of doing something worthwhile.
You know why US has been the strongest force in history? Because of Business – because we worked hard and built up this great nation. Dems and leeches like you have brought us down in the last 40 years…and this doesn’t have to do with who’s in power, but rather with what kind of policies are in effect. During Bush we had many liberal and anti-business policies that led to the disasters in the economy…like lending to people because they were black or hispanic with no thought give to the fact that the thugs would never be able to pay back their $million loans…oh and your great ‘savior’ obummer was one of those who harassed banks to make sure they’d give people’s savings to these losers just because they were of a certain skin color or from certain economic background.

Posted by: Yeah Right | October 14, 2010, 12:55 am 12:55 am

OK, ABC, where are the questions about all the Chinese money that was bundled to fund Obama’s election.

Posted by: wallace1303 | October 14, 2010, 1:01 am 1:01 am

“The Chamber and some other trade groups and corporations are pouring millions of dollars into our political system in secret, using the tax laws to hide their own involvement, as well as their donors.
Even worse, questions are being raised about whether the Chamber, which has pledged to invest up to $75 million in this campaign cycle, is providing a conduit for foreign businesses to influence the elections. The Chamber denies it, but so far has declined to open its books for inspection.
Our democracy is not based on secrecy. If disclosure is what we deserve from the people who run for office and the people who contribute to candidates, surely it’s what we deserve from EVERYONE who invests in our political system, especially those investing millions of dollars.
Even if every penny of the Chamber’s political spending comes from domestic sources, the money – and all the rest of what’s being spent under the cloak of secrecy – is tainted.
And the sad fact is this all could have been avoided. The DISCLOSE Act, twice blocked from even coming up for a vote in the Senate by a minority of senators through the filibuster, would have imposed reasonable disclosure requirements on the Chamber and other groups now exploiting campaign finance laws.
And the Fair Elections Now Act, ready for passage in the House when it comes to a vote, would let candidates run competitive races without having to rely on big donors, foreign or domestic. ” (Common Cause, a a nonpartisan, grassroots organization )
Understand the issues. And if you support strengthening public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government and ensuring that government and the political process serve the common good, rather than special interests, then press for action, no matter who you vote for (though voting for people who support action versus obstruction would be a prudent and practical first step).
• Curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections and illuminate the connections between lobbying money coming in and government expenditures going out;
• Promote fair, honest and transparent elections;

Posted by: Gen X | October 14, 2010, 1:05 am 1:05 am

What’s funny about Republicans and Tea Partiers is that they hate the TARP law (signed by President Bush on October 3rd, 2008) so much, yet little do they know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied both for the passage of TARP and also passage of President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Quote: “After backing the Bush administration’s controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the group swung behind Obama’s $787 billion fiscal stimulus measure…”
SOURCE:
www[DOT]usatoday[DOT]com/money/companies/2009-11-11-Chamber11_cv_N.htm
(replace the two [DOT] with “.”)
LMAO!…But would you really expect a Tea Partier / Republican to know this? ANSWER: “Duhhhhhh, No.”
Republicans are such fools, they don’t even know who or what they’re arguing for…i.e., the Chamber of Commerce, even though the Chamber was the # 1 lobbyer for the passage of the # 1 thing they complain about most…bailouts.

Posted by: Georgie_Bushie | October 14, 2010, 1:08 am 1:08 am

“UnumProvident is the name of the most vicious insurance company that was ever a gig on a hard drive in Delaware. UNUMProvident remains the most sued, fined, and vilified disability insurance company in America. UnumProvident’s home office is in Chattanooga Tenn. UNUMProvident, a place where cretins, miscreants and animals all feed from the same trough.
So you understand I am not bitter due to finances. UnumProvident was ordered by the courts to write me a check in the amount of $3.4 million dollars.
According to scalia UNUMProvident a multi billion dollar company and you and me are on an even playing field, with the same rights, is completely and utterly ridiculous. SECREG_756″
No, you don´t have “the same rights” – the rights and duties of corporations are very different from those of individuals when it comes to everything from doing your taxes to publishing accounts.
What the Supreme Court found was merely that the first amendment isn´t affected by how the person speaking is organized. If you represent a union, the government can´t stop you from speaking because of how you are organized. If your represent a corporation, the government can´t stop you from speaking because of how you are organized, etc.
Giving the government the right to regulate political speech, and who can speak and when, is just as contrary to the constitution. If we accept the anti-corporate speech view, the only thing preventing the government from, say, shutting down newspapers (remember, newspapers are nasty corporations) that do not please them, is the whim of congress and the President.

Posted by: eko43 | October 14, 2010, 1:09 am 1:09 am

“The Chamber represents business interests..”
***
Allegedly, however, many small business owners would agree with Deborah Ruh, who wrote an op-ed I agreed with back in August of this year (Multinational Shell Game Hurts Local Business):
“[...] in recent years the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stopped representing my interests. They’re a different creature than my local chamber of commerce and other business associations, like the U.S. Business Leadership Network and the National Association of Women Business Owners.
The U.S. Chamber today represents 300 huge global companies, the same companies that hire teams of lawyers and accountants to find or create tax loopholes. Avoiding taxes is central to their business model, and the Chamber sides with them against the rest of us.
These global conglomerates can’t compete with me on customer service or who can build a better widget, so they have to use their political power to create some other advantage. According to The Washington Post, the Chamber spent $150 million in direct lobbying funds in the last year–$3 million a week–to block health-care reform and financial reform, and to protect tax loopholes such as overseas tax havens.
More than 65 percent of all new jobs come from the small business sector. We’re part of a new economy rooted in our local communities, creating real goods and services. We’re not playing shell games with our taxes.
As a nation we can keep subsidizing global companies that outsource jobs and aggressively avoid taxes, or we can bolster the homegrown business sector. We better decide soon before the rest of Main Street vanishes.”

Posted by: Gen X | October 14, 2010, 1:10 am 1:10 am

Caught O’Donnell tonight? LMAO!!!
Posted by: pamp205 | Oct 13, 2010 10:09:19 PM
I didn’t know anything about Chris Coons and found him to be very sharp. The mismatch was so humiliating and O’Donnell’s automaton recycling of tired talking points– including the Marxist namecalling, which was way off base– was so childish, it was almost embarrassing watching the whole thing. She doesn’t have a good grasp on the issues. I hope the citizens of Delaware were watching and listening and are sensible.

Posted by: Gen X | October 14, 2010, 1:16 am 1:16 am

thank god we have fox news!

Posted by: vr | October 14, 2010, 1:37 am 1:37 am

whatever the reason, your thank god for fox news ended all discussion on this site. SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 14, 2010, 1:50 am 1:50 am

Has anyone seen Rhupert Murdoch’s Nazi memorabilia collection? SECREG_756

Posted by: secreg756 | October 14, 2010, 2:04 am 2:04 am

Wallace, I agree with you about the money that obama took in in 2008. Many beleive it was over 40 million and the other big question is which gave him more: Red China or the Saudi Sheik’s? And you wonder why he went around on an apology tour after he got elected!

Posted by: Sarge31 | October 14, 2010, 2:31 am 2:31 am

These ultra-rich people (who make over a quarter million dollars a year) are just trying to keep their big income and estate tax cuts. This will in turn cause our national debt to grow larger and larger. All while shipping jobs overseas. They’re destroying the American dream.

Posted by: giantslor | October 14, 2010, 4:06 am 4:06 am

So basically its ONLY okay for Obama to not disclose his donors or anything for that matter. Yet everyone else has to?

Posted by: TrippleH | October 14, 2010, 5:51 am 5:51 am

“I have only one thing to say to these corporate elites-
If your political activities make you feel embarrassed or guilty, then don’t do them.” – Flashy
I don’t know what story you read Mr/Mrs Override, but I didn’t get even a hint of guilt or embarrassment from what Bruce Josten said. He was confident, at times defiant and well informed. I was left wondering why can’t NoBo get someone like him to replace Bobby Gibbs who stumbles, hesitates and is uninformed and many times dead wrong.
The corporations don’t want to disclose and for good reason.
Remember what the liberal harassment forced Sarah Palin to do.
It’s the out of control progressive way or the highway hate filled attacks that’s hurting our country. If the left could learn to be even a little bit tolerant we’d all be better off.

Posted by: Noz | October 14, 2010, 7:50 am 7:50 am

We desperately need to stop thinking about government like it’s a game or a national sport. This government has grown so large that it is in every aspect of our lives, we don’t need it. Read A Revolution by Dave Leonard and see if you don’t agree that we could do so much better with a lot less. Think of all the money they are borrowing in our names and spending n crap that does us no good, like 250 billion for the defense of Europe.

Posted by: Mark | October 14, 2010, 7:53 am 7:53 am

As soon as Obama releases where all his campaign funds came from in 07′ and 08′ then the Chamber of Commerce can release theirs.

Posted by: Steve | October 14, 2010, 8:03 am 8:03 am

The bias in this article make it unreadable. Once upon a time we used to have journalist, now we are left with brain dead partisan democra-tic outside consultants who work full time for so-called ‘news’ organizations.

Posted by: cj | October 14, 2010, 8:06 am 8:06 am

@giantslor — These ultra-rich people (who make over a quarter million dollars a year) are just trying to keep their big income and estate tax cuts. This will in turn cause our national debt to grow larger and larger. All while shipping jobs overseas. They’re destroying the American dream.
========================
So what is the difference between these evil corporations and the tyrants in Washington who waste Trillions of our tax money and tell us to like it?

Posted by: Steve | October 14, 2010, 8:07 am 8:07 am

This article is so biased!

Posted by: Steve | October 14, 2010, 8:09 am 8:09 am

Prove it.

Posted by: seanmahair | October 14, 2010, 8:29 am 8:29 am

I totally support the chambers of commerce on this one. The administration is swinging wildly hoping they hit something that will resonate on election day…this ain’t it!

Posted by: millie | October 14, 2010, 8:35 am 8:35 am

“The administration is swinging wildly hoping they hit something that will resonate on election day…this ain’t it!”
You don’t get such long winded excuses in defense of something when you just swing wildly….it was a direct hit.

Posted by: Skip | October 14, 2010, 8:39 am 8:39 am

Perhaps the Chamber should demand that Obama release his school records and his original birth certificate. There is no proof that Obama is a natural born citizen, and that the greatest fraud in US electoral history hasn’t been committed by him.

Posted by: Kelvin | October 14, 2010, 8:46 am 8:46 am

“So what is the difference between these evil corporations and the tyrants in Washington who waste Trillions of our tax money and tell us to like it?”
Unless you’re claiming our elections are all invalid there can’t possibly be tyrants in Washington….but that aside the difference is when Democrats are in Washington there is some segregation between these entities, but when Republicans are in charge there is no difference at all because the corporations are actually running the government.

Posted by: Skip | October 14, 2010, 8:52 am 8:52 am

“This article is so biased!” – Steve
“Prove it.” – seanmahair
OK
JOSTEN: Pretty fascinating, I mean who’s the principal start-up supporter of MoveOn, and again the Center for American Progress. He’s a Fat Cat under your definition, named George Soros and the Sandler family.
TAPPER: Right.
(Note: Doug Gordon from MoveOn writes to say: “MoveOn was started in 1998. It got a one time donation from Soros in 2004. He did not give before and has not given since. To say he is the ‘principal start-up supporter’ is just a flat lie.”)
(Note on the Note: One could make the argument that MoveOn pre 2004 was not much of a player, that it was the rather large (more than $1000 (snicker)) donation by Soros that really got MoveOn going. Thus the label ‘principal start-up supporter’ is correct and justified)
An unbiased Media Organization would have let the Josten comment go without the note. We have seen flat out lies from the NoBo administration go by without notes. Why the need to do it in this blog story?

Posted by: Noz | October 14, 2010, 8:56 am 8:56 am

As a registered republican I agree with the concern over the sources of money coming into the Chamber. It is a strange collection which of course, the right extremists would be very critical of if the money was going to the dems.
I can’t get over how the Drudge looks and reports like a junior high school paper. It’s no wonder the GOP is so despised-the perception among reasonable people is that Drudge types are the only GOP left in the U.S..

Posted by: Jeff | October 14, 2010, 9:00 am 9:00 am

FlashOverride seems to value the opinion of factcheck.org. Here’s their opinion on the chamber of commerce issue:
“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.”
So, no proof. Not even a shred of valid evidence of any wrongdoing. Seems like fear-mongering to me…

Posted by: Texan | October 14, 2010, 9:04 am 9:04 am

Curmudgeon blathering buckets of double-negatives. It’s like years worth of socialist talkingpoints being recycled.
Disclosure should start at the top. We would like to start with a simple VALID birth certificate and move on to full disclosure of donors. I’m sure the integrity of the left is ready to lead by example, correct? Didn’t think so.

Posted by: Texan | October 14, 2010, 9:09 am 9:09 am

This White House will stop at nothing.

Posted by: Dutra | October 14, 2010, 9:22 am 9:22 am

Do you think Jack will get around to asking the President why he set up a website to solicit funds that was intentionally set to allow anonomous donors to contribute, with no way to tell where the money came from?

Posted by: Tim | October 14, 2010, 9:25 am 9:25 am

Jake, nice work on the especially repetitive questions that begin with “Don’t you understand..” as if you’re advocating. Here’s a tip – you should be just as dogged and an advocate in your pursuit of this administration’s screw-ups and idiocy.
Do this and you’ll be a hero and a decent journalist/reporter.

Posted by: Joe Woodwell | October 14, 2010, 9:33 am 9:33 am

The unions have to give the list why not the Chamber of Commerce? Are they above the law? This channeling of money without disclosure if a bad thing. First they denied that any money was coming from foreigners and now we learn that there is money coming from them. They said they are keeping this money separate. Baloney…they know who and what is getting it. Big business, oil companies, insurance companies and the like are behind this and if nothing is irregular..why not disclose. Whenever someone refuses to fess up…you know this is something to hide. This is a sham…the republicans think there is nothing wrong but these companies are already pushing for more overseas jobs and if you think they are trying to keep jobs here…think again. Someone’s palm will have to be reimbursed for this money. I am appalled at the republican’s attitude about this because they are so on Obama about everything he does being out in the open and yet when it comes to them, it doesn’t have to be. It is fine now because these people are backing them but what happens in the future..we are opening pandora’s box and the next time it will be another party and then what will they do…complain about being behind closed doors again. What can happen with outside influence is frightening…we need to take a step back and forget about party and think about the future of this country. K. Rove is the most dishonest person and will stop at nothing to achieve what he wants like the lies he told about Ms. Richards of Texas that she was gay and the lie about McCain that he fathered a black child when they adopted this child…and the outing of an FBIlady. He has no morals and if you think he is thinking of you and this country -think again. He wants his powere back.

Posted by: talmag | October 14, 2010, 9:50 am 9:50 am

millie: “The administration is swinging wildly hoping they hit something that will resonate on election day…this ain’t it!”
Skip: “You don’t get such long winded excuses in defense of something when you just swing wildly….it was a direct hit.”
A direct hit would have required evidence supporting the accusation. Instead, all we have is a classic, baseless Democrat smear before an election. Who’s trying to improperly influence elections again? Those who still have a working brain will let you know come November.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2010, 9:53 am 9:53 am

This does not happen to be a swingless hit…this is now turning into fact. Check it out…they are taking money from foreign countris and are finally admiting it. What else are they hiding. They know dollar for dollar who is getting what and if you think this is just trying to make a show…think again. Our country will be taking a hit when these foreign companies come back with what they want for this money. Believe me …they will want something and fact is that outsourcing is one item this top of the list….you need to check your facts.

Posted by: talmag | October 14, 2010, 9:58 am 9:58 am

Josten seems to be doing his best to give a FULL description of simply how things work. Tapper’s been in Washington to long to understand that it’s not a political issue. Chamber of Commerce has many members covering the entire political spectrum. They have to do what’s best for business and growth. That’s their duty, and it’s one I agree with. Labor unions are a different story. They have members of all stripes as well, but all of their dues are spent primarily on Democrats, on a severely systematic basis. The Chamber of Commerce contributes to candidates who represent its members’ best interests, regardless of stripe, while Labor Unions represent their own interests, regardless of their members’ stripe

Posted by: Phil | October 14, 2010, 10:06 am 10:06 am

Here’s the problem:
“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.” (fact check via Texan @ 9:04:01 AM)
“The Chamber and some other trade groups and corporations are pouring millions of dollars into our political system in secret, using the tax laws to hide their own involvement, as well as their donors.
Even worse, questions are being raised about whether the Chamber, which has pledged to invest up to $75 million in this campaign cycle, is providing a conduit for foreign businesses to influence the elections. The Chamber denies it, but so far has declined to open its books for inspection.
Our democracy is not based on secrecy. If disclosure is what we deserve from the people who run for office and the people who contribute to candidates, surely it’s what we deserve from EVERYONE who invests in our political system, especially those investing millions of dollars.
Even if every penny of the Chamber’s political spending comes from domestic sources, the money – and all the rest of what’s being spent under the cloak of secrecy – is tainted.” (common cause via Gen X @ 1:05:38 AM)
“So to recap, unions do disclosure, right wing groups…not so much.[Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 13, 2010 8:07:51 PM]
Finally, see TP’s latest, “Exclusive: Chamber Receives At Least $885,000 From Over 80 Foreign Companies In Disclosed Donations Alone: “In addition to multinational members of the Chamber headquartered abroad (like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens), a new ThinkProgress investigation has identified at least 84 other foreign companies that actively donate to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6)….the information above documents the fact that foreign donations go directly to the Chamber without any intermediary, for instance, through an “AmCham” or another Chamber affiliate organization. The same Chamber account funded by these foreign corporation is running a $75 million attack campaign. In fact, a Chamber spokesperson acknowledged the foreign funds go into the Chamber’s general account. Any responsible reporter should have to note these direct donations given to the Chamber, which the Chamber has refused to discuss.”

Posted by: regressing to Nixonian political tricks | October 14, 2010, 10:16 am 10:16 am

Meanwhile, as leftwing useful idiots lose their minds attacking the US Chamber, more of Obama’s green shoots appear!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New U.S. claims for jobless benefits rose last week, hardening the view the central bank will pump more money into the economy, and keeping pressure on Democrats poised to lose congressional seats in November 2 polls.
At the same time, record-high imports from China helped push the U.S. trade deficit wider in August, while rising food and energy prices pushed inflation at the wholesale level up twice as fast as expected last month.
Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose to a higher-than-expected 462,000 in the latest week, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
Economists polled by Reuters had expected initial claims at 445,000 in the latest week.

Posted by: Mary | October 14, 2010, 10:52 am 10:52 am

“Check it out…they are taking money from foreign countris and are finally admiting it. What else are they hiding. They know dollar for dollar who is getting what and if you think this is just trying to make a show…think again.” – talmag
They = Obama Camp

Posted by: Noz | October 14, 2010, 11:04 am 11:04 am

Posted by: Noz |
If it was the Obama camp, would you be okay with it? If not, why not? If so, would you understand the complaints?
Now take that response and apply it to the Chamber and Republican shadow groups.

Posted by: regressing to Nixonian political tricks | October 14, 2010, 11:57 am 11:57 am

“An unbiased Media Organization would have let the Josten comment go without the note”
Not that would be the propaganda outlet.
Like FoxNews where Republican talking points if not read directly by the TV personalities are left unquestioned when uttered by guests.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 14, 2010, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm

While Ryan C rails against a highly successful network he never watches and knows nothing about except what leftwing blogs tell him, another historical Obama milestone is reached!
From Reuters today:
“Banks foreclosed on 102,134 properties in September, the first single month above the century mark, RealtyTrac said. There were 347,420 total foreclosure filings in September, 3 percent higher than August and 1 percent higher than a year earlier.”
CHANGE THAT MATTERS!

Posted by: Mary | October 14, 2010, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm

Obama’s on a roll… Yet ANOTHER record broken…unexpectedly, of course…
Trade gap widens on record deficit with China
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The U.S. trade gap widened to $46.3 billion in August, driven by a record-breaking deficit with its largest trading partner China.
The trade balance, which measures the difference between the nation’s imports and exports, widened from $42.6 billion in July, according to a government report released Thursday.
Economists had expected the deficit to narrow to $44.5 billion during August, according to Briefing.com.
As the U.S. trade deficit has deepened, China is running a trade surplus. On Wednesday, China announced a surplus of $16.9 billion for September, down slightly from its $20 billion surplus in August.
But the U.S. ran up a record-high $28 million deficit with China in August.
“The jump in bilateral trade with China to a record high will fuel growing fears of a currency war,” Paul Dales, a U.S. economist with Capital Economics said in a research note.

Posted by: Mary | October 14, 2010, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm

“We’re going to work with your employers to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family, per year.” – Barack Obama, August 6, 2008
Or not.
WASHINGTON (NYT) — The Obama administration, aiming to encourage health insurance companies to offer child-only policies, said Wednesday that they could charge higher premiums for coverage of children with serious medical problems, if state law allowed it.
Earlier this year, major insurers, faced with an unprofitable business, stopped issuing new child-only policies. They said that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the new health care law would allow families to buy such coverage at the last minute, when children became ill and were headed to the hospital.
In September, the administration said that insurers could establish open-enrollment periods — for example, one month a year — during which they would accept all children.
Now, on Wednesday, the administration, answering a question raised by many insurers, said they could charge higher premiums to sick children outside the open-enrollment period, if state laws allowed such underwriting, as many do.
Insurers “can adjust their rates based on health status until 2014, to the extent state law allows,” said Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The difficulty in preserving access to child-only insurance policies is the latest example of unintended consequences of the new law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Posted by: Mary | October 14, 2010, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm

“While Ryan C rails against a highly successful network he never watches”
Foggy’s got the dress on this afternoon.
It is bizarre that right wingers consider the mark of success for a journalism organization to be how many people stop to watch the trainwreck.
I guess the studies showing that FoxNews viewers are no only less informed than consumers of other media but that they also far more likely to believe things that are not true (yet were pushed by the propaganda arm of the GOP, what you call FoxNews) are too embarrassing.
Besides the fact that FoxNews is getting beat by its real competition in cable, professional wrestling.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 14, 2010, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm

“Banks foreclosed on 102,134 properties in September, the first single month above the century mark, RealtyTrac said. There were 347,420 total foreclosure filings in September, 3 percent higher than August and 1 percent higher than a year earlier”
NPR:”Bank of America, Chase and GMAC Mortgage have put tens of thousands of foreclosures on hold and lawmakers are calling for a nationwide moratorium after bank employees acknowledged that they failed to conduct required reviews.”
In a completely unrelated story Republicans are fighting like hell to keep huge donors for business friendly ventures secret.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 14, 2010, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm

“If it was the Obama camp, would you be okay with it? If not, why not? If so, would you understand the complaints?” – regressing to Nixonian political tricks
Legit questions.
First off the hubbabaloo from Gibbsie and the Demos is not to be taken seriously because they are just as guilty.
For me, I can understand your concerns but I don’t believe you can really regulate all of this. Hey look at how fast Obama dropped the pledge to take the matching funds when it was obvious he could raise much more money. If someone like Obama doesn’t adhere to campaign limitations I doubt anyone would. So for me, it’s the wild west and let’s have both sides go at it.

Posted by: Noz | October 14, 2010, 8:07 pm 8:07 pm

Ryan C: “In a completely unrelated story Republicans are fighting like hell to keep huge donors for business friendly ventures secret.”
In another completely unrelated but more important story, in less than two years Obama is responsible for more US soldier casualties in Afghanistan than Bush. Thirteen in the past two days alone. And he’s also responsible for a large number of civilian casualties, including women and children, in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan. The media instead focuses on non-stories like the US Chamber of Commerce. And the hypocritical anti-war crowd no longer cares about war now that Obama is doing the killing.

Posted by: Mary | October 14, 2010, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm

Your all too obvious attempt at diversion will not be successful Mary; there are a great many people who are very concerned about these possible developments at the Chamber of Commerce. We all saw it coming when the Republicans on the Supreme Court sold us out to corporate interests just like good little corporate peons always do. So we’re supposed to rest content their cohorts have somehow discovered scruples and aren’t trying to take advantage of the situation. Republicans in government simply don’t make that much effort without some perceived payoff, and we strongly suspect that payoff is coming in through the back door of the Chamber of Commerce right now.

Posted by: Skip | October 14, 2010, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm

Posted by: Skip | Oct 14, 2010 10:16:11 PM
Whaaa whaaa whaaa Boo Hoo
Republicans are outspending us this time around.
It ain’t fair.
(tears flowing)

Posted by: Noz | October 14, 2010, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm

Skip: “there are a great many people who are very concerned about these possible developments at the Chamber of Commerce.”
You mean there are a great many useful idiot lemmings on the left who can’t think for themselves and believe the lies of ThinkProgress who is trying desperately to divert attention from the epic economic policy failures of the Obama administration and Democratic Party. Even the NYT, Washington Post, CNBC, and FactCheck.org didn’t find anything.

Posted by: Mary | October 15, 2010, 8:22 am 8:22 am

“Republicans are outspending us this time around.”
We actually don’t know if it Republican’s outspending Democrats or shadowy foreign interests.

Posted by: Wild West | October 15, 2010, 9:05 am 9:05 am

” in less than two years Obama is responsible for more US soldier casualties in Afghanistan than Bush.”
I must have struck a nerve as foggy is so upset, he’s comparing Bush losing Bin Laden and the Taliban gaining control of Afghanistan with Obama going after the Taliban and Al Queda.
“And the hypocritical anti-war crowd no longer cares about war now that Obama is doing the killing.”
I was against the Iraq War, ya know the war started over lies against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The one that cost 4000 American soldiers their lives with tens of thousands more with serious injuries.
So I guess you’re not pro-war foggy just pro-stupid war.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 15, 2010, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | Oct 15, 2010 6:42:02 PM
Tell it to the parents of the dead.
Washington (CNN) – American support for the war in Afghanistan has never been lower, according to the latest CNN polling. The low numbers just the latest figure in the complex math being calculated to determine how the US should proceed in the ten year war.
The latest poll from CNN and Opinion Research Corporation found only 37% of all Americans favor the war, 52% say the war in Afghanistan has turned into a Vietnam.
Those numbers are going down as US commitment to the war is going up, significantly. 30,000 more troops added this year. At the time the troop increase was announced, military leaders were aware it would mean a rise in troop casualties and were vocal in trying to warn Americans that it would happen.
Still the daily headlines about troop deaths is staggering. 16 NATO troops have been killed in the last three days. The US has lost 386 troops so far this year.

Posted by: Mary | October 15, 2010, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm

You mean we can see the bribes related to Obamacare votes? And facts about union shake down money (86 times the Chamber’s contribution) used against will of members? Woooo, some “boogie man” foreigner gave to a REPUBLICAN? LOL the TELEPROMPTER PREZ!

Posted by: 1musicwayne | October 19, 2010, 8:10 am 8:10 am

“Tell it to the parents of the dead.”
That’s right.
They are dead.
A horrible sacrifice to our national interests.
Which is why when the United States commits itself to military action it should not be based on lies like we got from the Bush admin.
Because American soldiers are going to die.

Posted by: Ryan C (resident curmudgeon) | October 19, 2010, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm

Top

Chamber of Commerce: The White House Wants Our Donor Lists So Its Allies Can Intimidate Our Donors

Related Videos

Leave a Reply