Axelrod: Chamber must prove foreign money allegations false

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has the burden of proving false the charge by Democrats that the business group is funneling foreign money to Republican campaigns.

Axelrod was pressed by CBS’ Bob Schieffer on Sunday for evidence that the foreign campaign contributions benefiting the GOP is more than “peanuts.”

“Do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Axelrod said on “Face the Nation.” “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that’s at the core of the problem.”

A new ad by the Democratic National Committee accuses the Chamber of “benefiting from secret foreign money” and said that the business group and Republican operatives are “stealing our democracy.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/123539-axelrod-chamber-must-prove-foreign-money-allegations-false

[Arkana]

1. I'm sure Doddering Bob went the distance to protect his Republican friends.

And to think I used to respect him.

The fact that Republicans are getting so pissed off means the ad's working.

[rbilancia]

3. He always does. He and CBS are fucking RePUKE shills, like most of the corporate MSM.

[Politics_Guy25]

93. Fun fact: Spread this everywhere-Katie Couric's executive is a Rove republican

Katie Couric, another republican shill and known GOPer, her chief executive producer worked for Rove in the Bush W.H. That's why Katie's newscast is nothing but GOP propaganda now.

[Politics_Guy25]

91. Hehe my first thoughts exactly

Not amused by Bobby's feigned outrage for his GOP friends.

[rbilancia]

2. Good Dave! Punch them in the fucking eyeballs! If they are innocent, then SHOW THE RECORDS !!

[the redcoat]

8. Are you kidding?

What, so anyone can say anything they want about you, but YOU have to disprove it?

I thought DU members were supposed to be better than this.


Saying they should show their records just because they're innocent is like saying it's ok to be strip searched at any time if you have nothing bad on you.

[LiberalFighter]

12. The burden of proof is on the Chamber to prove they are not accepting foreign money

in violation of federal law. If you think it is okay to believe the word of anyone that they are not then DU is not the place for you. Transparency has always been the belief of everyone here.

[the redcoat]

14. Transparency is different than saying

"You're doing something bad! Now prove to me that you're not!"

If they're breaking a law, it is the duty of enforcement to collect evidence.

I don't care if it's in a court or not, having to prove your innocence is a dangerous road to go down, and it's a fundamental shift from the American principles we take for granted.

[rbilancia]

24. How can you ENFORCE if they don't have to SHOW the records? Fuck them !

[backtomn]

119. It's called "probable cause" and a "warrant"

Please tell me that you were just joking.

[ProSense]

127. What is with conflating Axelrod's claim with a criminal case?

This is an accusation of political influence substantiated by mounting evidence.

This is not a friggin criminal charge.

[ProSense]

26. BS

Some people have no problem accusing the Obama administration of selling out the American people with secret deals. The Obama adminstration released the visitor's log, etc. to refute the claim.

This is an allegation that has a trail, even if circumstantial. All they have to do is disclose their funding sources.

[backtomn]

122. Poor analogy

A government is US and so it cannot legally withhold the information. WE own those documents.

This is a private organization. Demonstrate that there is more than your word that something is wrong and you can ask the courts to force them to produce the documents.

[ProSense]

124. "This is a private organization"

So are unions, and our elections are not playground for private influence fueled by foreign cash.

"WE own those documents."

Also, we don't own our elections?

[backtomn]

130. Same is true for unions......

....no one can ask them to provide documents without facts.

[ProSense]

132. "no one can ask them to provide documents without facts."

Wrong

[dotymed]

151. LOL...you have NO idea

of the hoops that Unions must jump through to account for every penny. Especially when it comes to political contributions.

[boppers]

59. "having to prove your innocence"?

It's a business, not a person. They don't get to claim rights as if they were a person.

[24601]

86. If that were the case, you couldn't prosecute a company. However,

go ask anyone who used to work for Arthur Anderson if that's so. It's not.

[joeglow3]

160. Arthur Andersen alum here

Still bitter over that one.

[24601]

173. Don't blame you at all. I'm just disgusted at those who want to

prosecute companies without regard for the innocent ones inevitably affected - and at the same time insisting companies don't have rights.

[elias7]

100. Obama didn't make the statement in a vacuum

In fact, Obama has never thrown around any casual accusations. I would bet there is some merit there. $10 million in Chamber of Commerce funded ads this week alone. What's the source?

Your principles make sense if their was no basis for accusation. If it is just a baseless smear, then I agree with you...

[livingonearth]

125. From what I've read the allegations were not out of the blue.

It was known that Foreign money has come in. The question is: has it gone to political campaigns?

[rbilancia]

25. Here Here! Just show the records ! What do they have to hide?

[EFerrari]

53. No, it isn't. Axelrod is not the Attorney General

and the Chamber of Commerce is not on trial.

And the Democrats shouldn't go into this with their elbows out because they all take campaign contributions and it might just come back to bite them in their backsides.

[ProSense]

57. Axelrod stated his opinion based on the allegations being level, he

doesn't need to be the AG to accuse the Chamber or demand full disclosure.

[EFerrari]

62. He can demand anything he likes but there is no burden here

if he chooses to behave like a Faux news host.

[ProSense]

64. Then why are you upset and

why is Karl? Accusing Axelrod of being Fox News for pointing out the obvious is funny.

They got caught and Axelrod nailed them for it.

Bravo!

[backtomn]

123. ....and the Chamber is free to ignore him.

.....if you want to have it that way.

Just provide the information that gets you a warrant.

[ProSense]

129. And people are free to continue demanding disclosure

I don't give a damn what the Chamber feels free to do. Legitimate allegations were made, they can ignore them, but that does not get them off the hook.

People and organizations are accused of making illegal contributions all the time, sometime legitimately and sometimes out of malice

These allegations are legitimate, and the Chamber can move to counter them, or they will continue until there is a full investigation. There is nothing unusual about the way this is playing out.

[wordpix]

154. +1 add me to those wanting disclosure from CoC, obviously protecting the multinational corpos

Just prove the Dems wrong, Chamber, that's all you have to do. Open your books :evilgrin:

[fasttense]

150. See, the thing here is that it is illegal to take FOREIGN campaign contributions.

No, Democratic leaders DO NOT take foreign campaign contributions.

The US Chamber of Horrors is taking FOREIGN money. They take it from Nationalized corporation in Communist China, they take it from corporations in India, in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, in Pakistan, anywhere. It is provable, it is documented it is reality.

The problem is that they take billions from foreign corporations then turn around and say, "Oh no we don't use THAT money on campaigns against Democrats. Oh no, all that foreign cash is not spent to influence American elections. See, we use different money to influence American elections."

So a clear trail of money from Communist China going into the coffers of the US Chamber of Commerce exists. But they want you to believe the impossible. That they are not using Communist China's money to influence how You vote. Only a fool would believe that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[24601]

It's not who you believe but who has the burden of proof. I can

make all sorts of charges - but if I do, then it's my responsibility to prove them. The idea that anyone can make a charge and then you have to prove your innocence is repugnant to the Constitution and any DUer should stand for principle over political, or else we have become what we abhor.

[backtomn]

126. Exactly.....and.....

agreeing with you doesn't mean we don't want this properly investigate. I hate all of this all-or-nothing crap.

[bluerum]

136. The burden is on the COC when they solicit $$$'s from foreign sources.

Moveon.org asks DOJ to investigate Chamber’s funding

[wordpix]

155. just sent $ to MoveOn. "We have a system" ---CoC

snip: An earlier statement from the Chamber assured Politico readers that they "have a system" to keep foreign donations from going toward US political activities. It did not elaborate on what that system is, how it works or who oversees it.

"The Chamber has claimed that it 'has a system in place' to prevent foreign funding of its political activities," MoveOn continued. "But the solicitation of foreign money, from companies being told simultaneously of the importance of the U.S. elections, and the use of that money by the Chamber at a time when it is spending millions on political advertising, is a violation of this ban on indirect receipt and acceptance of foreign contributions, even if the Chamber purports to maintain some artificial segregation of the funds its uses for that political advertising."

snip

If COC has a system, let us know what that is and how it works, that's all. The fact they're not responding except to say they have a system looks shady to me.

[wordpix]

156. EXACTLY - and they'd better have good bookkeepers and records

when they're doing it. None of this "We have a system," end of subject BS.

[rbilancia]

23. Bullshit ! They take foreign money and won't release the records. Whose side are you fucking on?

[24601]

84. How about on the Constitution's side n/t

[the redcoat]

143. It's not about WHAT they're doing

The issue is not about what they're doing. In fact, I have absolutely no doubt that they are guilty of shitty backdoor politics. You know why? Because there are ALWAYS shitty backdoor politics happening.

Clearly, you THINK that me saying the DOJ needs to prove guilt instead of the COC releasing documents means that I'm on the COC's side. That's complete bullshit.

What I'm saying is that the American way of life values innocence until proven guilty. Regardless of how broken our system may be, this means that everyone has a fighting chance if they are accused without basis. If there is proof, then documents can be obtained legally. This is not the fucking 1950's anymore. So REGARDLESS of what side you're on, you fight against McCarthyism because some day you might need that same promise of innocent until proven guilty. There is no "unless..." clause. You apply the same rules to everyone.

[ProSense]

27. "I thought DU members were supposed to be better than this."

You think DU members were better than demanding transparency?

What's beyond disgusting is watching people try to give the Chamber of Commerce a pass in a situation that demands transparency: funding American elections.

[backtomn]

128. You have this issue ALL WRONG

Government agencies are supposed to operate transparently.....because they are US. We own that information. We do not own all information from private organizations. We can ask for them to be transparent and they can say "no". Government does not have that option.

If you have proof of the Chamber using foreign money in our elections, let's see it. If it is so obvious, courts should be demanding this information tomorrow. Let the system work. We may ask for the system to be fair to us some day soon.

[ProSense]

131. No, you have it all wrong

Our elections are not supposed to be bought and paid for by foreign funds.

You are trying to defend this despicable organization with the claim that because they are private they can do whatever they want to.

[Egnever]

163. no one is trying to give them a pass

the idea that you have to prove a negative though is ridiculous. For example i can say prosense is a paid republican tool....


Do you then think it becomes your responsibility to prove you are not?

Transparency is something I think we all agree should be the norm in campaign financing.

[AndrewP]

169. +1

God forbid the Democrats try to do something political to win an election

[geckosfeet]

28. I am not asking you to prove you are NOT a corporate shill - I will let your post speak for itself.

[JDPriestly]

31. In a court, everybody shows everything that is relevant.

It's called discovery. If the Chamber is violating a law and faces some sort of legal action, it will have to provide its documentation.

The Chamber receives money from foreign sources. It therefore has an obligation to separate that money from the money it receives from American sources and to show that its ads are funded only by the portion of its money that it receives from American sources.

I believe that this question arose because of the Chamber's accounting procedures on this and because the amount of money it gets from sources that are not definitely American is pretty large.

[backtomn]

133. You can't request EVERTHING in "discovery"

You would need to provide the judge with information with proof that the requested information will mean what you say. What keeps courts from requiring that all corporations immediately release all of their documents, in case something in there might be illegal. If "discovery" meant anything requested, it would be limitless......it is not.

[JDPriestly]

144. If the cases get past the very initial stages, it is quite likely that

yes, almost anything related to the case can be discovered. Remember the Paula Jones case and how Clinton was asked about Monica Lewinsky at his deposition? That's how it works.

[Iowa]

32. The rules pertaining to the purchase of elections by corporations are not the same as...

...the rules pertaining to an individual's civil rights; nor should they be. Allowing elections to be purchased and controlled by foreign governments and corporations is a massive threat to the liberty of the people of this country. We must require that some types of behavior be performed in the light of day. Many transactions are a matter of public record for very, very good reasons. This is one of them.

Corporations are not people. As a liberal, it's important to make that distinction. This is where your logic fails you, and why you are meeting with such resistance.

[backtomn]

134. Assumption on top of assumption

You assume (because someone said so) that foreign money is coming into are elections and assuming that elections have been "purchased and controlled" by that money. Where is your proof??

By the way.....whether we like it or not......the Supreme Court just decided that Corporations ARE people.....no distinction between the two.......logic intact.

[Iowa]

137. No, no, and no.

"You assume (because someone said so) that foreign money is coming into are elections and assuming that elections have been "purchased and controlled" by that money. Where is your proof??"

You're missing the point entirely. There should be no reason to presume anything. Force the bastards to document that they are on the up-and-up. There should be no secrets when it comes to buying elections - period.

"By the way.....whether we like it or not......the Supreme Court just decided that Corporations ARE people.....no distinction between the two."

Wrong again. Just because the Supreme Court went off the rails does not make it so. You tip over WAY too easily.

"logic intact"

Ha! Not even close. Your post was one of the most illogical posts I have seen in a long time.

Three strikes in one post... it appears you took a wrong turn and ended up on the wrong site buddy.

[ooglymoogly]

36. And what a red herring that was.

Asking where the money came from when it so strangely appears, might be asked of any of us and often is by the irs, feds or dea. Many have gone to jail when lots of money strangely appears and is often used as the key damning evidence.

Money has got to have roots when it comes into the spotlight; otherwise money laundering is a prime suspect; often used to put we the wee people in jail. The common phlying pug phuk; so easily shot down

[backtomn]

135. You must have proof to charge people with money laundering.

Nothing is different here.

[ooglymoogly]

139. When evidence mounts.

We do not have the legal status to charge anyone; or put anyone in prison or any penalty other than ridicule until the subject proves us wrong.

We are casting a spotlight on the obvious and asking Justice to investigate. The implications are momentous and suggest treason on steroids is afoot.

Not investigating in such circumstances is malfeasance. Are you claiming the suspicions are not well founded and these suspicious piles of money that have garnered favors in the past, by an organization soliciting money from foreign interests; dangling the carrot of dire consequences in front of them; not be investigated.

Rightwingers always become indignant progressives when their criminal tricks are about to be exposed. Its the principal of the thing, not the crime, donchaknow.

The only thing constructive about wingers is their ability to construct straw men and red herrings ad nausium.

[ooglymoogly]

140. To get proof you must have an investigation.

Normally someone suspected of a crime who is not guilty can convince a DA or detective that an investigation into his life is not called for because of a foolproof alibi or whatever, that is irrefutable; stopping that investigation in its tracks and exonerating that person from further suspicion and persecution.

So it is time for the CC to show its exonerating evidence; which it has or does not have and might halt any further investigation.

How far do you think a suspect bank robber would get by saying "trust me" caught inflagranti with hundreds of thousand of unaccounted for dollars in his pockets, suitcase or vault and refused to say where the money came from.

[zbdent]

47. them's the rules ...

at least, according to this guy ...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2010/sep/29/mark-belling/mark-belling-says-sen-russ-feingold-faked-his-tv-a/

[jpak]

76. "I thought DU members were supposed to be better than this."

Asshole Bush packed the Supreme Court with asshole conservatives that handed over our elections to big business and foreign interests.

The Chamber of Commerce is not a brothel where foreign interests now buy US elections.

Anonymously

yup

[ArcticFox]

78. The foreign donations are known

They went into the same fund that pays out for political ads. That creates a pretty strong presumption of wrongdoing. So, the burden shifts to the Chamber to show how this could be legal. My guess is they can't prove such a thing.

[pattmarty]

80. You seem to forget the "conservatives" do it ALL the time.

[Egnever]

164. and we scream like stuck pigs when they do

As we should....

[pattmarty]

170. Here is the OBVIOUS problem now. They are fucking cleaning.........

.........our clocks with loudmouths like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilley and Beck. We now have people on our side of the spectrum that finally have become visible in the media like Olberman, Maddow, Goodman and our very own "loudmouth" Ed Schultz. I have ALWAYS been for fighting fair, but with the way things are now, with the right outright lying, we have no choice in my opinion. The old fire with fire routine. If the MSM had been calling them on every time they lied things might have been different, we'll never know. If WE want to survive and for the country to survive we have to fight them in every way possible.

[Orangepeel]

83. there is reasonable suspicion. that's why the defense is "it's only peanuts"

It's not like being strip searched at any time. It is like having your luggage searched at customs if the drug sniffing dogs flag you.

[Egnever]

165. DU is often just a pile on

I distrust the chamber completely but agree with your post 100%

Congress needs to pass laws that force the transparency.

[ProSense]

187. "Congress needs to pass laws that force the transparency."

Guess who was the leading opponent?

Maybe people just understand that the Chamber of Commerce are despicable fucks.

[backtomn]

118. Is this America???

The investigation here should be vigorous.......but, how about "innocent until PROVEN guilty" ?? This is not a country where we need to prove that we are not guilty. Make an accusation and prove it. It shouldn't be that hard.....but geez....don't toss out our rights. This can be turned on our people.

[zehnkatzen]

4. I just realized how long it's been since I've watched CBS News ...

It's fallen a long, long, LONG way since Uncle Walter.

The network, as it is, isn't fit to like Dan Rather's oxfords. Seriouslys.

And since when did Bob Schieffer become the old gray eminence over there? Is that the best they can do?

[Iowa]

34. I haven't watched ANY TV news for years. None.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Ummm...so if you're accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on YOU?

Hope none of the above posters are ever accused of a crime!

[enki23]

6. they aren't in fucking court.

and red herrings are better taken po

[ooglymoogly]

48. They are in the most important court in this country.

The one that has been the cornerstone of this country for centuries. The one that has kept this country watchful of subversion and treason.

They are not facing fines, or any penal jeopardy, other than ridicule and exposure at this stage; by these questions to prove an investigation is uncalled for.

And there is the rub.

Prove to us an investigation is uncalled for or the question will hang; not only hang but become louder to the drumbeat of time.

when our country is in jeopardy, as it surely is, we the people have the right to demand answers and if not forthcoming, an investigation to find out what indeed is going on. Rules all in a democracy must live by.

We are speaking of subversion and treason;

when its defenders; folks without principal, find they are on the wrong side of the issue, it is always the principal of the thing that "hides" their malevolence. The emperor with no clothes so to speak.

[Bjorn Against]

9. Who was accused of a crime?

There is a huge difference between being accused of a crime and being asked to show where the political contributions that influence our elections are coming from. Sorry, but there is no fifth amendment right to make secret campaign contributions.

[Bette Noir]

15. Au contraire, the Supremes have, this year, established a right to make secret contributions.

It's still illegal to accept foreign contributions, which is the problem here. The Chamber is asserting its right to make secret contributions, while accepting foreign money. Hence the problem: How much of their contributions is made up of illegal foreign money?

Axelrod is wrong to say that the Chamber has to prove it's not breaking the law (America doesn't work that way), but, in light of the Chamber's practice of making secret donations while accepting foreign money, subpoenas and an investigation would be in order. The Chamber doesn't have to prove it's innocent, but it shouldn't complain if the DOJ tries to prove it guilty.

[ProSense]

41. That is not what the law did

it simply establishes the right of the corporations as similar to individuals.

The DISCLOSE act seeks to establish that if that is the case, they should be subjected to the same disclosure as other organizations.

And there is nothing wrong with accusing them of accepting foreign donations when the evidence suggests that they do.

[geckosfeet]

29. What are they hiding? Why are they hiding it? This is important enough to demand transparency.

[Iowa]

33. The rules pertaining to the purchase of elections by corporations are not the same as...

...the rules pertaining to an individual's civil rights; nor should they be. Allowing elections to be purchased and controlled by foreign governments and corporations is a massive threat to the liberty of the people of this country. We must require that some types of behavior be performed in the light of day. Many transactions are a matter of public record for very, very good reasons. This is one of them.

Corporations are not people.

[ooglymoogly]

42. You can bet if they are...the door of their house will be jackbooted

their dog will be shot, their house will be searched, every cranny; down to every molecule of smell; to prove the case and put them in a for profit prison. What planet do you live on?

[cliffordu]

63. Perfect politics.

Your defense of the Chamber is telling.

This ain't court, this is 'Murka,

Just like the cage matches, WWE and the rest of that steroid inflamed spectacle, this is what we are reduced to.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

172. I know ... it completely goes against how you and I and most people are raised. But it works ...

... and the Republicans have been using this tactic for decades. We haven't, spending much of our time and resources refuting their bullshit.

It is nice to see this used to our advantage once. I'd love to see it simply not used at all, but that'll never happen. So, time to get in the mud with them and really get them dirty.

[Richardo]

7. Way to be credible, David. Very Fox News of you. Throw the shit and make them show it's NOT true

I'm not a fan of the Chamber, and I'd not be surprised if they DID accept foreign money. But it's too serious of a charge to throw out there based on nothing. If false, the blowback will be serious.

I said it about Rove, I'll say it about Axlerod and whoever replaces him: Political advisers in the White House should be illegal. They should be at the RNC/DNC, if they have to be anywere.

[ProSense]

10. There is nothing "Fox News" about

facts

[gristy]

11. Yes, it certainly is the method that Fox News has used for years

Throw some shit and see what sticks. Make Obama "prove" he isn't a Muslim. Over and over and over again. Did Axelrod go over the "facts" you posted? If not, why not? If he did, then the OP seems to be off base, doesn't it? I didn't watch the show.

[ProSense]

16. BS

The accusations are there, the trail and the calls for investigation.

Democrats didn't make this up out of thin air.

[Richardo]

13. There is plenty "Fox News" about not citing those facts and demanding your target prove a negative

If these facts are so readily apparent, why didn't Axlerod cite them?

[ProSense]

17. Prove a negative?

What the hell are you talking about?

This is a matter of disclosure

[Richardo]

19. That's what Axlerod said.

"I say they did, I have no proof, they must prove they didn't."

The question is not 'are they disclosing everything?', it's 'what evidence do you have that what you've alledged is true'?

[ProSense]

22. What?

This isn't a court of law. And when did a political campaign ever have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt allegations that any fool could trail?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geckosfeet]

30. It's not based on nothing. If there is nothing to hide lets see the money trail.

[EFerrari]

35. It's not based on nothing but the tactic is still classic right wing bs.

Why do that.

[ProSense]

38. "classic right wing bs"

Yeah, like this?

I find it curious that anyone is here defending the Chamber of Commerce.

Also": "It's not based on nothing but the tactic is still classic right wing bs."

What?

[EFerrari]

39. Stay classy, ProSense. n/t

[ProSense]

40. EFerrari, may I refer to your screen name? EFerrari.

what relevance does your response have to my comment?

[EFerrari]

44. You mean, why is it disgusting that when we point out this tactic is shady

even if the accusation is probably true, you accuse us of siding with the Chamber of Commerce?

I don't think I can explain that to you. Have a nice day.

[ProSense]

45. No, I meant it's curious that anyone would defend the Chamber of Commerce

There is nothing "shady" about the accusation and calling for full disclosure.

[EFerrari]

50. Who is defending them? No one. I hope you don't sprain anything

on this thread.

[wordpix]

158. actually, what's shady is COC claims to "have a system," yet won't explain the system

Just explain how COC keeps its foreign solicitation$ separate from its US election$ fund. That's all.

The fact COC hasn't explained its "system" is definitely shady. But of course, COC won't do it unless/until the DOJ makes them open their books, if DOJ does it at all.

[ProSense]

20. Karl Rove is upset

boo hoo

[Just One Woman]

58. How Dare You

That is what the headlines are saying that Rove said to Obama. Funny. Hey Rove, How dare YOU! You spread lies, you manipulate news, you think we are ignorant. Guess what...we have a brain to think with and eyes to see. We are not sheeple. You and your ilk lost the election. Get over it.

[cliffordu]

65. what the fuck are you talking about???

[Just One Woman]

71. take a chill pill and read the post

sheesh, quit acting like a jerk and use your manners.

[cliffordu]

72. This is thunderdome

no manners here.

Answer the question:

WTF are you attacking in that post??

[Just One Woman]

74. read the post

I didn't attack anything. It is what Rove said. Read the post, if you can. Next time read all the way through. Not just the first line. The subject is what Rove said. And really take a breather. I think you need it.

[cliffordu]

75. No breather needed.

Yore rattin' style is odd.

[Just One Woman]

77. thank you

That is what makes us American, aye? I like being odd.

[JohnWxy]

37. I wouldn't say they are "stealing our democracy", they are SELLING our Democracy - that's what GOP

has always been about. That's what the Roberts Ruling is all about, freeing up the selling of our democracy to the Free Market. Government by the Corporations. .. the New Order is Corporate Feudalism. The loudest proponents of this are those in the Tea-Party.

Recommended!!

[EFerrari]

43. As an aside, I wonder what Axelrod has to say about the millions we funnel

to opposition groups in Latin America. Are we buying their democracy, too?

[ProSense]

46. Wow!

Are you trying to justify the Chamber's actions by claiming the U.S. does it too?

[EFerrari]

49. LOL. No, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of going after the Chamber of Commerce

when the State Department does the same thing, only on a much bigger scale.

[ProSense]

52. So you agree that the Chamber should be allowed to funnel foreign money into our elections?

The State Department's efforts to support emerging democracies against tyrannical regimes is the same thing in your opinion?

Good to know.

What's the Chamber's goal, to overthrow our democracy?

[EFerrari]

54. LOL. So I assume you support the State Department's efforts

to subvert democratic governments in Latin America while calling it aid to democracy, much as Bush did for Iraq?

Good to know. :party:

[ProSense]

55. Do you have proof?

What does Axelrod have to do with the State Department?

What does the State Department have to do with the Chamber of Commerce?

[EFerrari]

56. Does Axelrod speak for the Obama administration or not?

:party:

[ProSense]

60. What does that have to do with the

this?

Axelrod can speak for himself too, but that's irrelevant because Karl is pissed off.

[EFerrari]

61. US Should Disclose Its Funding of Opposition Groups in Bolivia and Other Latin American Countries

Friday 12 September 2008
by: | The Center for Economic and Policy Research | Editorial

Washington, DC - The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) called on the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other agencies to release information detailing whom it is funding in Bolivia - where violent right-wing opposition groups have wreaked havoc this week in a series of shootings, beatings, ransacking of offices, and sabotage of a natural gas pipeline - as well as in other Latin American countries including Venezuela. Recent events suggest there may be evidence for Bolivian president Evo Morales' assertions that the U.S. Embassy is supporting groups promoting violence and seeking "autonomy" from Bolivia, and the Center called on USAID and other U.S. agencies to "come clean" in order to demonstrate the U.S. government's good faith.

"Washington has decided to keep its ties to Bolivia's opposition shrouded in secrecy, and that's not conducive to trust between the U.S. and Bolivian governments," said Mark Weisbrot, CEPR co-director. "If Washington has nothing to hide in terms of whom it is funding and working with in Bolivia, then it should reveal which groups those are."

In the midst of the violence and property destruction, Bolivian president Evo Morales declared U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg "persona non grata" and asked him to be expelled, suggesting he is aiding organizations behind the violence and sabotage. Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. has not turned over all the names of recipient organizations of USAID funds. Bolivia is a major recipient of USAID money, with millions of dollars sent to groups there. The U.S. also funds groups in Bolivia through the National Endowment for Democracy and related organizations.

"USAID is not supposed to be a clandestine organization, but nevertheless the U.S. government refuses to divulge which groups in Bolivia are supported with U.S. tax dollars," Weisbrot said. "By providing clandestine aid to groups that are almost certainly in the opposition, it gives the impression that the U.S. is contributing to efforts to destabilize the Bolivian government."

The U.S. Embassy in Bolivia has been implicated in a number of events that suggest it may be seeking to undermine Morales' government. In February of this year it was revealed that the Embassy had repeatedly asked Peace Corps volunteers and a Fulbright Scholar to spy on people inside Bolivia. USAID has an "Office of Transition Initiatives" operating in Bolivia, funneling millions of dollars of training and support to right-wing opposition regional governments and movements.

At least eight people were killed and dozens injured in violence Thursday, the latest in over a week of protests carried out by organized youth groups in conjunction with departmental governors and other opposition leaders that also saw them sabotage a natural gas pipeline, vandalize government offices, ransack the offices of a human rights organization, and threaten to cut off natural gas exports to neighboring Brazil and Argentina.

-------

The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/us-should-disclose-funding-opposition-groups-bolivia

I don't see a problem here. Sunlight and all that.

[ProSense]

66. LOL!

Free the Chamber!

So you agree with that call for transparency, but believe the call for the Chamber to be transparent is "Fox News" like?

[EFerrari]

68. Asking someone to prove a negative is not a call for transparency.

It's a junior high school debating tactic that I would have been flunked for. You weren't apparently. :)

[ProSense]

70. What's the negative?

That they accept foreign money?

It's supported by evidence, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

Again, why is calling for transparency from Chamber of Commerce "Fox News" like, but this is not?

[Milo_Bloom]

109. Really? You don't understand this?

The negative is because Axelrod refused to CITE ANY EVIDENCE and instead said they must prove they are NOT DOING IT.

In short, Axelrod REFUSES to accept the evidence that has been presented, but still is trying to shift the burden to the accused.


The reason it is different than your other link is because the US isn't DENYING it's involvement. "Despite numerous requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. has not turned over all the names of recipient organizations of USAID funds. Bolivia is a major recipient of USAID money, with millions of dollars sent to groups there. The U.S. also funds groups in Bolivia through the National Endowment for Democracy and related organizations." What they are refusing to do is give all the names over.

In this case the CoC is completely DENYING the accusation and Axelrod, for whatever reason, is refusing to rely on the circumstantial evidence presented in the article.

[ProSense]

112. Hmmm?

"The negative is because Axelrod refused to CITE ANY EVIDENCE and instead said they must prove they are NOT DOING IT."

So you're only upset that Axelrod didn't provide the evidence that exists on a talk show?

Did you want the DNC to put the evidence in their 30-second ad too?

The evidence exists so how does this make the Democrats look like idiots as you claim?

[Milo_Bloom]

114. Then why won't they stand behind it?

And YES the evidence belongs in the ad... that way it doesn't come off looking like a cooky conspiracy theory.

And the "evidence" you keep linking to, although strong enough to call for investigations, doesn't support the claims of the ad, which is why the ad makes the democrats look desperate and wacky.

[ProSense]

116. Oh brother

"And the 'evidence' you keep linking to, although strong enough to call for investigations, doesn't support the claims of the ad"

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

121. As usual, you are unable to support your claims.

How typical.

[cliffordu]

67. QUICK!!!! HARD ASTERN!!!!! AXLEROD IS FINALLY

PLAYING HARDBALL AND WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!!!!1


ABANDON ALL HOPE!!!!

[sulphurdunn]

51. Tell me if I have this straight.

The Chamber of Commerce gets money from both foreign and domestic contributors. Only domestic money can be used to buy elections. So, a domestic dollar can go to buy a political ad and a foreign dollar can be used to replace it so that foreigner dollars could legally pay for all Chamber activities except political expenditures, thus permitting American contributors to focus their giving on buying elections. Does that sound right?

[harun]

153. I would like to hear the answer to that as well.

[Common Sense Party]

159. Yes, you're right. So should the Sierra Club not be allowed to buy

political ads because much of their funding comes from overseas as well?

[sulphurdunn]

162. It should not.

Foreign money should not influence American politics. It should be illegal for American chartered corporations to accept money from any foreign source with the possible exception of disaster relief aid. That such money can now be legally labeled "anonymous" makes such funding untraceable. It is a very disturbing situation.

[ProSense]

171. Those organizations do

not buy campaign ads.

[Common Sense Party]

174. Really?

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=163181.0

[ProSense]

176. That is not a campaign ad.

You are confusing ads in support of their advocacy with a campaign ad.

All organizations run ads supporting the positions they advocate.

[Common Sense Party]

175. Are you sure?

http://minnesotaindependent.com/50064/sierra-club-launches-bachmann-stain-ad

[ProSense]

177. Who are they supporting?

They run ads targeting any member of Congress who opposes the position on the issues they advocate.

You just posted one opposing Blanche Lincoln.

[Common Sense Party]

178. Are the Chamber of Commerce ads against or for a candidate?

[Common Sense Party]

179. I'll answer for you. The ads are AGAINST the candidate they don't like.

That's a campaign ad.

Exactly like the Sierra Club ads.

Sierra Club does it. And they get $ from foreign donations as well.

But they're on our side, so it's okay.

[ProSense]

180. The ad is from November 2009 when there was no campaign and

here are its targets: In addition to Bachmann, the ads are targeting Republican Reps. John Boehner of Ohio, Denny Rehberg of Montana, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, as well as Democrat Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania.

It is not a campaign ad for a candidate. It is an ad supporting the group's advocacy.

[Common Sense Party]

182. So a campaign ad AGAINST a candidate is NOT a campaign ad?

When does a campaign begin? For sitting members of the House, they never STOP campaigning. They're constantly fundraising, and their opponents are constantly working against them.

[ProSense]

184. It is not an ad campaigning for or against a specific candidate or political party

It is an ad focused on a specific issue, and in support of the organization's position.

[Common Sense Party]

186. Can you give me an example of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad

that does exactly what you decry?

And, when it says 'Donate to Defeat Bachman', that is NOT against a specific candidate?

I find it amazing how you keep moving the goalposts around and around the field.

[ProSense]

189. The ad says nothing about donating to defeat Bachman

They also ran one against a Democrat for taking the same position as Bachman.

Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads

[Common Sense Party]

191. Whoops. You're right. I was seeing the web-ad below the video

paid for by Tarryl Clark. My bad.

If the Chamber of Commerce did a similar ad against a sitting Democrat in 2009, you would be fine with it, then?

[ProSense]

192. The Chamber

ran a lot of issue ads against health care reform. The rebuttals then focused on the lies. They also hid behind a few of front groups and were called out for that. No one is claiming that they can't take a position on an issue.

[Common Sense Party]

194. So what exactly is Axelrod getting after them for?

Do they have specific campaign ads for or against candidates?

If they ran an ad similar to the Sierra Club ad, you would be okay?

[ProSense]

195. You know what

reread my responses the answers to your questions are in them.

[Common Sense Party]

181. Apparently, they also have campaign ads that SUPPORT candidates:

http://www.grist.org/article/rolling-in-it

[ProSense]

183. Again, this is advocacy

The ad is from 2008, and from the link: "Sixty-second ads being aired in six states ask listeners to call and thank these members of Congress for "standing up to the oil companies"

[Common Sense Party]

185. Yes, it's from 2008, during a political campaign, and they are endorsing

candidates that agree with them.

So, if the Chamber of Commerce ran the same type of ad in July 2010 listing the pukes they like, you would be fine with it?

[ProSense]

190. An endorsement is not a funding political attacks on a candidate in support of another.

Again, this was an ad thanking these members of Congress for supporting their cause.

[onehandle]

69. The entire Bush Presidency was based on foreign money.

Republicans are enemies of America.

[felix_numinous]

73. American people have the right to know.

Period. The culture of secrecy has to be broken open somehow. The government demands fiscal transparency from Americans every year to the IRS, so we should demand it of government officials!
They are just stalling while they cover their asse(t)s.

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Leave it to Democrats to F up an easily winning issue.

The way they are going about this makes it sound like a wild conspiracy theory.

"Spending Millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections." ????

Really? You had to make it sound like a nutty conspiracy theory than nailing it down to exactly what it is.

The Chamber of Commerce accepts money from foreign corporations as part of their structure. Make the simple logical connection that they are looking out for the interests of these foreign corporations and using their money to influence our election. You don't need to tie together the "conspiracy" for people.. it only makes you look crazy.

You lay out what we KNOW is true and then allow people to connect their own dots.

The AD:

"The Chamber of Commerce has spent millions of dollars this election trying to buy your vote"

"Where did the money come from?"

"The Chamber of Commerce receives money from foreign corporations"
(show images of foreign money, shady transactions)

"Is that money being used to influence our elections?"

"They refuse to say"

"Is the Chamber of Commerce looking out for YOUR best interests or THEIRS?"


Now, when the people see an ad from the Chamber of Commerce or hear their name... it is suspect.

[ProSense]

85. The Democrats didn't F up anything

As has been the case often since Obama took office, some people continue to step all over a perfectly legitimate criticism of the GOP enablers.

[Milo_Bloom]

99. Yes, they completely F'd this up.

The criticism is legitimate. Their ad is complete nonsense that makes it sound like a wacky conspiracy theory.

Now they get caught looking like idiots when they are asked to present evidence and they are forced to admit they don't have a shred of evidence to back up the conspiracy theories from the claim.

If they stated the facts as they ACTUALLY exist and wrote their ad accordingly, they wouldn't look quite so foolish right now.

[ProSense]

101. I like the ad

immensely, and so do a lot of people.

[Milo_Bloom]

103. Too bad it does far more harm to democrats.

Because it makes them look like a bunch of wacky conspiracy theorists who now are forced to admit they don't have the evidence to back up the claim.

And worse, forces Axerod to make an absolute idiot out of himself trying to claim that the burder of proof is on the accused.

It's a real shame, because it was a winning issue before they screwed it up.

[ProSense]

104. Don't agree

Your opinion doesn't mesh with the reaction to the video.

[Milo_Bloom]

105. The reaction from DailyKos???

A well known hangout for moderates and swing voters, right? Why don't we poll the user base there and see who they are voting there so we can judge our election results??

Just live the fact that the democrats screwed up a winning issue AGAIN.

[ProSense]

107. "A well known hangout for moderates and swing voters, right?" Got any more

straw men?

It's still a winning issue, and that appears to piss you off.

[Milo_Bloom]

110. Ah yes, a link to DU.. Another source of Moderates and Swing voters.

What pisses me off is that the democrats, again, lost a winning issue.

[24601]

81. I don't know what country David thinks this is, but the burden of

proof is on those making the charge. Any constitutional law professor could tell him that.

[ProSense]

82. He lives in the

US.

[24601]

90. The questiuon wasn't where it is but where he thinks it is . n/t

[ProSense]

92. And the answer is still the same. n/t

[24601]

95. Chilling thought then. Should the repugs get control of the House

and Issa runs his investigations, you and David have just adopted the standard as guilty unless you prove otherwise.

[ProSense]

97. Oooh, scary.

You think this is the same as the RW accusing President Obama of not being eligible to be in the WH because he's foreign born, don't you?

[24601]

106. No, because it's not a crime to be foreign born. The similarity is

in throwing out a charge that puts anyone, or any group, in the position of having to prove a negative.

[ProSense]

108. What?

"No, because it's not a crime to be foreign born."

Foreigners aren't eligible to become President.


"throwing out a charge that puts anyone, or any group, in the position of having to prove a negative."

Again, what's the negative?

There is evidence to support the claim.

"Prove a negative" is catchy, but it doesn't remotely apply to this situation.

[Milo_Bloom]

111. Why didn't Axelrod stand behind the evidence?????

When asked, why didn't he refer to the evidence? Why did he twist himself into a pretzel to try and shift the burden of proof to the accused???

[ProSense]

113. Maybe

he wanted to upset someone.

The evidence exists. The accusations are valid. The call for full disclosure warranted.

[Milo_Bloom]

115. So he made himself look stupid to upset someone???

Really?

He showed a basic misunderstanding of criminal law and wound up losing control of the issue to upset someone???

[ProSense]

117. LOL!

"He showed a basic misunderstanding of criminal law and wound up losing control of the issue to upset someone???"

Criminal law?

WTF?

:rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

120. You do understand the accusation is a crime, right?

He is accusing them of a crime and then claiming they have the burden to prove it is untrue.

That is a basic misunderstanding of criminal law.

[24601]

146. So why didn't the accuser produce it? This IS still the United

States isn't it?

And are our memories so short that we don't remember "We know the WMDs are there because if they weren't, Saddam would produce the evidence of their non-existence." (or words to that effect)

"Trust me, I know what I'm talking about" doesn't pass muster, regardless of party affiliation. The accuser needs to produce the proof.

[ProSense]

167. Why

you'll just ignore it to support the narrative that Axelrod needs to have court-level proof to make his accusations.

He was on CBS not in the court room, and the allegations are legitimate. The extensive handwringing about what Axelrod said instead of focusing on the fact that there is evidence to support the claim, that the Chamber refuses to disclose the source of its campaign-related funding and lobbied hard to kill the DISCLOSE Act is pure distraction.

[and-justice-for-all]

87. The CoC is taking in foreign funds and channeling it to repuke

campaigns, the CoC needs to have their ass sued for that. That should be a federal offense.

[Common Sense Party]

188. How are they channeling it to repuke campaigns?

[Exilednight]

88. What the fuck?

Since when did it become okay to make an accusation and then tell someone to prove they didn't do it? I can't believe there are actually people on here arguing that this okay.

Calling for transparency in election funding is perfectly fine, but accusing someone of breaking the law and saying that you have no evidence and then saying that they should have to prove otherwise, all in the same breath, is a complete right-wing tactic.

[ProSense]

89. Hmmmm?

"Since when did it become okay to make an accusation and then tell someone to prove they didn't do it? "

Since people accused the Obama administration of making secret deals and demanded full disclosure.

Were you against that?

[Exilednight]

94. Obama admitted to the secret deals ...........

when it came to HCR.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/obamas-secret-deal-with-the-drugmakers/

I'm not against Axelrod making the accusation, it's the point of saying that the burden of proof is now on the CoC to prove it false while also saying that he has no evidence. At least when reporters make such accusations they at least have sources to back up their claims. When you start to go down that road it quickly become a slippery slope.

[ProSense]

96. You respond by saying the administration admitted it?

"I'm not against Axelrod making the accusation, it's the point of saying that the burden of proof is now on the CoC"

They have a choice: full disclosure or the demands will continue. The accusations weren't plucked out of thin air. The accusations will continue.

My contributions aren't secret. Unions are required by law to fully disclose their funding sources.

Why the hell should the Chamber of Commerce be allowed to secretly spend money from foreign sources to influence U.S. elections?

"At least when reporters make such accusations they at least have sources to back up their claims. When you start to go down that road it quickly become a slippery slope."

Why are you ignoring that the evidence exist? Again, you respond to the point that people demanded that the adminsitration disclose the meeting by saying the administration admitted it so where is the "slippery slope"?

There is mounting evidence to support the accusation. This seems like outrage simply because people don't want Democrats to have an advantage in an argument.

[Exilednight]

102. Yes, the administration admitted it. but I can tell you didn't click the link. n/t

[Democat]

149. Republicans do it all day to Obama, but it's not ok for him to do to them?

That's bullshit.

Democrats will always lose if they try to "be nice" to bullies.

[Exilednight]

193. That's what makes them republicans, if they didn't do it they would be called Democrats. n/t

[Unvanguard]

98. That's not what he said.

What a stupid headline.

[rasputinkhlyst]

138. Some have called for the abolition of the Dept of Education....

I believe its time to abolish the US Chamber of Commerce!

[ProSense]

141. WSJ editorial

shills for business.

[TomCADem]

142. Election 2010 Will Be Seen As Corporate Coup 2010

If we think this is bad, wait until 2012.

[w4rma]

145. Awesome! Sorry, trolls, the Chamber *is* taking foreign funds. It's proven, already. (nt)

[DallasNE]

147. Here Bob Schieffer Is

Just repeating the Chamber of Commerce's talking points like a paid spokesman, making one wonder how much CBS has given to the Chamber. This "peanuts" comment arises from a single, small $100,000 fund that the Chamber agrees contains some foreign money. We know from reports that at least two other larger funds also contain foreign money and there may be some we don't yet know about. One of the main sources of foreign money is Bahrain where it is hard to tell is the money is private or governmental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain

[flamingdem]

148. REC nt

[mdmc]

152. the business group and Republican operatives are “stealing our democracy.”

A new ad by the Democratic National Committee accuses the Chamber of “benefiting from secret foreign money” and said that the business group and Republican operatives are “stealing our democracy.”

[wordpix]

157. Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) info

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

snip

The Prohibition

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
Who is a Foreign National?

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

* Foreign governments;
* Foreign political parties;
* Foreign corporations;
* Foreign associations;
* Foreign partnerships;
* Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
* Immigrants who do not have a "green card." snip

Domestic Subsidiaries and Foreign-Owned Corporations

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed below.

snip

Seems clear to me---no foreign money for US elections. My question: Since COC claims to have a system, explain the system so we know how COC keeps its foreign solicitation$ separated from $ going to US election ads, organizing and campaigns.

[melm00se]

161. Not a big fan of the chamber

but isn't Mr Axelrod basically saying:

guilty until proven innocent?

[ProSense]

166. I'm not a big fan of traitors

but how dare Axelrod call out these liars.

[Hosnon]

168. I don't see anything wrong with requiring the Chamber to open its books to prove these allegations

are false.

It would be much more effective though to sue them; then, of course, the burden would not be on the Chamber. But the stakes would be much higher.