rssU.S. Chamber Predicted Its Undisclosed Speech Would Be Met With Skepticism
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 10:31 am
- 7 Comments
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is playing the role of unsuspecting victim in the face of attacks from Democrats over the undisclosed nature of its campaign spending, but the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein argues that it really shouldn’t be at all surprised:
When the business lobby was arguing the very idea that donor disclosure isn’t necessary, it made the point that balance already exists: those who fail to name donors face an intrinsic if not justified punishment in the form of public skepticism.
In the amicus brief it filed in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — which allows corporate expenditures in political campaigns — the Chamber appears to have predicted the backlash it is now facing:
“Moreover, it is common experience that, where the supporters of exempt speech are not disclosed, opponents can and do exploit the silence as a reason for discounting the speech. The fact that many speakers decline to identify their donors, even though doing so weakens the credibility of their speech, again confirms that required donor disclosure is burdensome and likely to suppress speech.”
From the U.S. Chamber’s mouth to the Supreme Court’s ears: Undisclosed speech risks a greater chance of being viewed by the public as lacking credibility.
Follow Jesse Zwick on Twitter7 Comments
Pingback posted October 12, 2010 @ 10:36 am
[...] U.S. Chamber Predicted Its Undisclosed Speech Would Be Met With … [...]
Pingback posted October 12, 2010 @ 11:10 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Chael Montgomery, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: U.S. Chamber Predicted Its Undisclosed Speech Would Be Met With Skepticism http://bit.ly/c3baRz [...]
Pingback posted October 12, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
[...] U.S. Chamber Predicted Its Undisclosed Speech Would Be… [...]
Comment posted October 12, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said “the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections” Yes, Mr. President, we do deserve to know who is trying to sway our elections. So here are a few questions for you. You have an undisclosed $25,000,000 for your 2008 campaign. What is the source of that $25,000,000? What role did ACORN play in getting you elected? Why did the stimulus package contain such a huge pork payout for ACORN? What about voter intimidation from Black Panthers? Why did your Attorney General not even investigate? Why are my tax dollars paying for a guy that wants to put a mosque near ground zero to tour the Middle East? When is anyone in Washington going to realize you need to balance the budget? Why was the healthcare debate not broadcast on C-Span like you promised during your debates? I think we deserve answers too, are you ever going to answer the questions we are asking?
Comment posted October 12, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
May there be sufficient medical care to help your sick head. Start with learning and telling the truth. No secret slush fund. No Acorn scandal. No huge pork payout in the Stimulus Bill. AG Eric Holder did investigate, but declined prosecution, and explained his reasoning (whether you agree with it or not). Your tax dollars don't pay for the charity that has proposed the so-called Ground Zero mosque. 911 wasn't a conspiracy. Oh ye gods, folks like you are hopeless, spreading malicious lies like traitors who hate America. LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
Comment posted October 13, 2010 @ 12:26 am
Perhaps if you actually read the stimulus package instead of listening to the talking heads who blow nothing but hot air and who wouldn't know truth if it walked up and slapped them in the face, you would know that any money that ever went to ACORN was for a home program administered through ACORN for low income working people. As with any grant type program, administrative costs are generally less than 15% to pay for staff costs. ACORN has since disbanded, meaning that other groups have to try to take over doing the job ACORN did. Contrary to the rights frothing at the mouth, while ACORN did register people to vote and encourage them to take part in the democratic system, which is their right and duty as citizens, they did not tell people how to vote, as that would have been a violation to the non-profit rules. The right vilified the organization- as did the supposed pimp-hooker video that was so edited it no longer resembled truth- solely because poor people have a tendency to vote democratic and the rethuglicans don't want them to vote. There was no ever a “big payout for ACORN”. There were funds to help disenfranchised people but republicans have never cared about them.
Any contributions not listed from the Obama campaign were from donors that contributed less than $200.00 which are not required to be individually listed. A lot of us gave small amounts- what we could afford.
The “black panther” bull was just that- bull. One of the men who was targeted as a black panther was a poll watcher, paid to be there to watch and make sure things were going as they should. With the rights history of targeting black people trying to get to the polls with harassment designed to keep them from voting, it should surprise no one that the polling places, especially those where a largest majority of the voters are black, would have watchers in place to protect the rights of citizens to vote. And the Attorney General’s office did investigate and said the accusations had no merit. You must have missed that?
The Inman you are referring to, a US citizen for more than 30 years, was first employed by the Bush administration to get the message to predominantly Muslim countries that the US had no war with Muslims, only with the radical extremists who would target the US. This administration, namely the State Department, has continued to use the Inman to reach out to the same countries so this administration is doing nothing different than the previous one did with regards to this Inman. He is an American who wants to help bring other countries together with the US, who wants Muslim people to know that it is the radicals that are the problem- not the moderate, peaceful Muslims. We pay for C streeters to go overseas on their own private junkets that are not necessarily in the best interests of the rest of us. I don't hear you screaming over that!
You do realize that the president isn't in charge of C-Span don't you? Nor can he make decisions for the Congress. I wish more would have been televised- you could have then seen the republicans not earning their pay. They are supposed to be there to work together to find solutions. They are the ones who didn't do any work except to say no. They weren't working.
I seem to recall a balanced budget some years back- oh yeah- when we last had a Democrat president. And then some very foolish people elected a man who had nothing going for him except being born with a silver spoon in his mouth and the wrecker of several businesses. And wouldn't you know- that president took a surplus and turned it into the largest government in history, started two wars with only one being justified and created the largest deficit ever- one that was even higher than most people realized since that president didn't include the war costs in his budget. So then we elect a new president who had to come in and try to save a country teetering on the edge, with a huge deficit that can't be addressed until the economy comes back enough and the tax cuts for the wealthiest have expired. They have had the tax breaks for 9 years- I don't see the jobs they created. Do you?
Pingback posted October 28, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
[...] US Chamber Predicted Its Undisclosed Speech Would Be Met With Skepticism [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
