On the one hand, first Crossroads GPS and now the Chamber have claimed that the allegations have galvanized their supporters and sent their fundraising through the roof. A Chamber official emailed Politico’s Mike Allen yesterday to brag, “I don’t have exact numbers, because money is continuing to pour in. It even crashed our servers. The phones blew up today – people were calling all day long. Bottom line: Today was the single largest day of online fundraising that we have ever had in the history of the Chamber.”

And conservative commentators like Glenn Beck pitched in to the cause, effectively turning a large portion of his radio show to a pledge drive for the Chamber and donating $10,000 while on the air.

On the other hand, a new poll commissioned by MoveOn (but carried out by the non-partisan Survey USA polling firm) suggests that — contrary to the expectations of most Washingtonians — voters do care a great deal about the amount of secret funding flooding elections. Among the findings of the poll, MoveOn points out:

* An overwhelming 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.

* Fifty-six percent of voters overall (including 53% of Independents) are less likely to vote for a candidate if they know the ads supporting that candidate are paid for anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.

* Forty-seven percent of all voters are more likely to support a candidate who insists that voters have a right to know who is paying for ads, with only 9% of total voters saying they are less likely to support a candidate who holds that position.

* Almost two out of three voters (63%) do not believe that the anonymous groups running ads hold the voters best interest in mind. This belief is held by 65% of Independent and 70% of Democratic voters.

* A straight majority of total voters (53%) are less likely to trust a candidate to improve economic conditions if that candidate is supported by anonymous groups.

While these numbers do indicate that the Democrats’ message about secret donors might indeed resonate beyond their base, I’m still skeptical that voters are faithfully connecting their stated beliefs about campaign finance to their choice of candidates in the current election cycle. If most voters were truly less likely (as opposed to just saying they were less likely) to vote for candidates supported by anonymous corporations and donors, they’d probably have more of a problem with GOP candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado, both of whom have received heavy backing in the form of ads from groups like Crossroads GPS that attack their opponents and are funded by anonymous donors.

The answer seems to be that either voters care about anonymous campaign donors but they care more about other issues, like the economy, or they’re not actually connecting the Crossroads GPS and Chamber ads flooding their states with the “anonymous corporations and wealthy donors” they say they distrust.

“This is a baseless complaint, filed by a partisan group that fundraises off of the baseless complaints they file,” Collegio said. “Crossroads GPS carefully and cautiously follows all laws governing 501(c)(4) organizations. Meanwhile, liberal groups spent more than $400 million in undisclosed campaign money in 2008 alone, with nary a peep of protest from liberal lobbyist Fred Wertheimer.”

Today, Mike Allen reports that some potential corporate donors aren’t as sanguine about the potential investigation:

One of the city’s best connected Republicans e-mailed us: “We are telling all of our clients, do not give a cent unless you accept the possibility that one day your contribution will be well be public. … i do not think you will see many blue chip companies, this is more for the wealthy.”

Because donations are not disclosed, the question of how much corporations are donating to groups like Crossroads GPS remains a guessing game. Indeed, one of the biggest draws of 501(c)s is the anonymity they can grant donors, which implies that corporations, especially those with a large direct consumer base, would choose them as their preferred outlet of giving. That a potential IRS investigation would have a chilling effect on such donations seems unlikely — lots of requests are filed with the IRS that simply go unanswered and uninvestigated — but certainly possible.

For what it’s worth, Collegio also emailed Allen with the subject line, “interestingly,” to say that “Despite the left’s coordinated … attacks, we received more new ‘likes’ on facebook today than on any day in our history.”

*UPDATE: Democracy 21, not the Campaign Legal Center, wrote the language of the document. Both groups attached their name to the complaint.

Brzezinski: “Do you think that some or all of the Tea Party candidates are reasonable Republicans? And I guess specifically I ask about Christine O’Donnell. Is she a reasonable candidate?”

Pawlenty: “Well I think in that case, Mika, she was selected by the Republican voters of Delaware in an open and fair primary. I know people are concerned about some of her comments and she’s addressing those and we’ll know more about that as it comes out. But from my standpoint if a state in an open and fair process picks somebody as their candidate, you know from a Republican standpoint, I’m going to give that person deference and say, ‘You’re part of the team. We’re with you.’”

Pawlenty insists he’ll make the decision about 2012 after his Minnesota governorship ends in January, but he’s making a number of “presidential” moves today that seem to indicate his intentions. Politico’s Mike Allen reports that he has officially signed with the speaking agency Leading Authorities to handle his engagements in 2011, and his book publisher has launched a website and video to begin pre-selling his biographical book, “Courage To Stand,” due out on January 11.

The GOP, for its part, is excited to turn the president’s words into a campaign issue across the country. Mike Allen quotes an anonymous GOP official as arguing, “The president is out of touch. Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to be outraged or upset by the insensitivity of the decision.”

The president, however, did take pains to point out and pay tribute to the sensitivities and emotions the decision engenders. He simply argued that our constitution gives the mosque the same right as any religious institution to set up shop in the area. In that respect, Nate Silver argues, the president is hardly out of touch with public opinion. While nearly two-thirds of the populace think it is “wrong” to build a mosque near ground zero, 61 of respondents still think the group has a “right” to do so.

Republicans’ decision to rally against the proposed mosque also reflects a larger shift within the party against Islam, note Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman. Under the leadership of George W. Bush — who, despite having led the march to war in Iraq, continued to court Muslims and called Islam a religion of peace — the right wing suppressed the bulk of its skepticism and mistrust regarding the religion. With Bush now largely out of the picture, however, many Republicans have openly sought to cultivate fear and hostility towards Islam and translate it into electoral advantage in November.

[T]hroughout both documents, many passages — though several are incomplete and circumstantial, actually suggest the opposite of Cheney’s contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA’s interrogations.

Allen follows up today by … quoting Cheney again.

Cheney maintains that records released this week show that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques “provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda” after the Sept. 11 attacks. A Democratic official disputed that assertion …

This is pretty amazing. Cheney claimed that confidential documents would back up his case. The documents were released, but didn’t back up his case. The result? “He-said, she-said” stories that don’t point out the crucial fact of Cheney’s deception.

“An article containing a false headline has been published by Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today regarding an issue with expansion of the National Labor Relations Board.

This article concerns two letters; one issued by ACU and another issued by a separate organization.

Mr. David Keene’s name was on a letter prepared by another organization.  This was a personal decision on his part and he was not representing ACU at the time.  No permission was given by ACU, and no logo was provided by ACU, to the organization who issued the letter in question.

ACU’s policy position on this issue has not changed and it will not change.

ACU’s positions on important policy issues have never been for sale.

ACU does not support moving businesses under the jurisdiction of the NLRB or expanding the federal government’s power, reach or authority under the NLRB.

In fact, as we pointed out last year when auto bailouts were first proposed, the actions of organized labor in Detroit helped lead to a downfall of America’s storied auto industry.  This is a clear example of what can happen when organized labor extends its fingers too far into American business.

In this regard, ACU stands with the policy that FedEx should not be placed under the NLRB.

This was ACU policy – before and after – any letters in question were drafted.

No contributions, to date, regarding this issue have been given or promised to ACU from any organization mentioned in the Politico article.

For the record.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.