NY Times uncovers short list of Chamber of Commerce contributions - includes foreign companies

[JohnWxy]

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/nt-times-uncovers-short-list-of-chamber.html

And yes, foreign companies are involved according to the report. Corporate America and beyond has declared war on the Democrats.


Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign - NYT

~~
~~

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.
~~
~~
These records show that while the chamber boasts of representing more than three million businesses, and having approximately 300,000 members, nearly half of its $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors. Many of those large donations coincided with lobbying or political campaigns that potentially affected the donors.

Dow Chemical, for example, sent $1.7 million to the chamber in the past year to cover not only its annual membership dues, but also to support lobbying and legal campaigns. Those included one against legislation requiring stronger measures to protect chemical plants from attack.

~~
~~

Prudential Financial’s $2 million donation last year coincided with a chamber lobbying effort against elements of the financial regulation bill in Congress. A spokesman for Prudential, which opposed certain proposed restrictions on the use of financial instruments known as derivatives, said the donation was not earmarked for a specific issue.

[FBaggins]

1. The question isn't whether they have foreign money...

We all know that they do.

The question is whether any of that money is being used to finance US political campaigning.

[JohnWxy]

2. a distinction without a difference. they use foreign money for 'non-campaign' purposes which frees

more U.S. sourced 'Roberts money' for campaigns. Foreign contributions are thus helping fund campaign activities.

The bottom line is 'Roberts money' means the U.S. Goernment is for sale to the highest bidders, foreign and domestic. We are enterring a new phase of outright Corporate Feudalism. Corporations are the new Lords. thank you John Roberts.

[FBaggins]

3. Only if you think the difference between "legal" and "illegal" is irrelevant.

they use foreign money for 'non-campaign' purposes which frees more U.S. sourced 'Roberts money' for campaigns.

Yep. Money is fungible.But plenty of groups that we agree with play exactly the same game.

It's a bit harder argument to make in this case, because we've only identified hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign funds... while the chamber takes in hundreds of millions of US dollars and is spending (reportedly) $75million of it on the campaign. It can't exactly be argued that the fungible nature of money is making much of a difference.

[JohnWxy]

4. NOBODY should be selling our government. Care to provide links, evidence?

or identify which groups you are alleging are doing this.

I am very practical. I don't give a damn if Roberts says corporations (or anybody) can contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns(or to PACs who then use it or freed up money for campaigns). THe Roberts ruling and secret contributions are obviously antithetical to democracy. The decision was without basis and had no precedent. Roberts, and anybody who voted for it, should have been impeached for this move to kill off democracy. IF it's considered legal then the law is of course wrong and should not be upheld in court.

[FBaggins]

5. Any number of them.

Think of Planned Parenthood. They receive government funds, but they are VERY careful to make sure that none of those dollars get spent on actual abortion services.

Heck... the entire 501(c)3 idea is to bypass federal campaign finance rules. Can't give more than a couple thousand dollars to my campaign? That's ok... you can write a check for $250,000 to "Americans United For Progress". There's no direct link between my campaign and their activities, but they're running ads here and need money... and they'll know where the check came from.

[JohnWxy]

7. Is this an example of secret contributions to fund campaign activities?

as opposed to funding provided by a democratically elected (theoretically, i.e. pre 'Roberts money'), non theocratic, government?

Just wondering?

[FBaggins]

16. No. Is another example of a "distinction without a difference"

N/T

[JohnWxy]

21. fortunately we do not yet live in a theocracy. Personally, I prefer democracy.

[The Magistrate]

6. Legal Liability, Sir, Is Not Required For Political Efficacy

Nor, for that matter, is any great commitment to the ruth of a case.

The fact is that the cry 'secret foreign money backs Republicans!' is a good and useful one in the present circumsatnce, and has enough tincture of fact to sustain itself.

Never give away a smidgen of argument to an enemy, Sir: it only confuses the audience....

"By definition, half the voting public is below average intelligence."

[JohnWxy]

9. How much 1) secret contributions, or 2) foreign contributions is tolerable?

Certainly, the GOP is getting more than a "tincture" of money to buy many hours of disinformation on tv.

In my opinion one contribution of any amount is too much.

The GOP counts heavily on confusing the audience ("By definition, half the voting public is below average intelligence.")....it's imperative to the successful prosecution of their agenda of Corporate Feudalism.

I am against any secret and unlimited contributions by any corporations no matter who gets them. Clubs or Organizations of INDIVIDUALS - each having equal standing and equal power to affect the policy of said organization(i.e. each member getting one vote), as long as they are not secret are okay.

NOTE that nothing is stopping Corporate CEOs or executives from joining an organization of like minded individuals (whether they are CEOs or executives or not) and that group making contributions to PACs or funding political ads.

But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good for our democracy. Unlimited and secret contributions which are then used to fund campaign activities is antithetical to democracy (one man one vote) but it certainly is helpful to the GOp in their prosecution of their agenda to further the establishment of Corporate Feudalism in America.

[hootinholler]

15. A nit, Sir

Wouldn't that be the median intelligence that half are below? Averages can skew widely with some outliers (or in this case, perhaps outliars)

Otherwise I concur whole heartedly.

-Hoot

[JohnWxy]

24. If I knew what point you were trying to make here I could formulate a response.

But as it stands, I cannot surmize any rational point, you may be trying to make, of relevance to my comments.

You say outliers can make for a misleading average. I am not talking about averages. My point is one instance is too many.

Contributions (for the influence of outcomes of elections) by corporations, domestic or foreign (but especially foreign - does this really need elaboration???) is wrong. If you think the realtive size of the contribution is significant you miss the point entirely (or are pretending to). It is antithetical to the most basic principle of democracy of "one man one vote" - that is, that PEOPLE decide what sort of government policies we should have not legal artifices, financial machines, designed to accumulate wealth. IF corporations can contribute unlimited amounts, the proportion being contributed today is not important. What is important is that they can.

THis is the direct antithesis of Democracy. (It is however a model for Fascism).

[FBaggins]

17. I largely agree.

But a lack of foundation for a charge is a very effective rebuttal when a potentially baseless
charge can appear to be a desperate attack.

Sometimes they work... But I'd rather argue with real issues.

[JohnWxy]

23. "Lack of foundation for a charge?", can you read?

to quote from the times article:

"Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending."

Does this information just float through the head of a conservative?

The ability of corporations domestic or foreign to secretly contribute to campaign advertizements goes to the very basis of Democracy: "ONe man one vote."... corporations obviously should not be allowed to influence elections with their massive wealth compared to individuals. Allowing coporations to influence our elections to this degree (without knowing whose contributing and trying to affect policy) is opening the door to the GOP dream of Corporate Feudalism.

Sophistry and obfuscation cannot change this simple truth.

(I didn't see this nonsensical comment until just now. Thus my slow response. Better late than never.)

[bemildred]

26. In practice, lack of foundation for a charge often is perfectly OK these days.

Politically speaking, cf. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4663052

[66 dmhlt]

11. Like foxes guarding the hen house ...

When the Chamber of Commerce sole self-proclaimed defense in denying the use of foreign money in our political process is:

“We have a system in place” to prevent foreign funding for the Chamber’s “political activities.”

Source:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/

Well, then that clearly is akin to having the fox guard the hen house. A little transparency would be a wonderful thing.

[ljm2002]

12. It has been established...

...that the money they collect all goes into the same account. No separation of foreign and domestic funds.

Therefore, some proportion of the money they use for ANY purpose is from foreign contributors. That includes the money they use to run political ads.

QED

[FBaggins]

18. No it hasn't.

The claim was that it went into the same organization. There's no evidence that they only have one account.

[unblock]

13. if the foreign money is commingled with u.s. money and used for polical campaigns, it's illegal

a single centavo of foreign money taints an entire account.

if they had separate accounts for foreign sourced money and u.s. sourced money, and only did political campaigning with the u.s. money, they'd be all right. ideally, they'd have separate legal entities for these purposes, but i don't think that's essential. but separate accounts certainly is.

you cannot get around the law by arguing that u.s. collections exceeded the amount of political campaign spending. it's a lawyer's and accountant's view of the world that matters here, not a financier's view.

[FBaggins]

19. Of course. But there's no evidence that that happened.

And they claim it didn't.

It would be nice to see some proof, but we can't force them to.

[unblock]

20. no, but it's perfectly reasonable to accuse them of it based on what we can see

an organization that takes both u.s. and foreign money and spends on political campaigns. that's a big red flag and a strong prima facia case against them. in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, such as audited financials detailing the clear wall between foreign money and political campaigns, it's probably enough to convict in a court of law, and plenty more than enough to convict in the court of public opinion.

[JohnWxy]

25. The NYT reporter just made up Aegon, based in rthe Netherlands

"Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending."

[FrenchieCat]

14. That questions says more about you than I care to know.

[unblock]

8. they're going to have a lot of aegon their face!

[BrklynLiberal]

10. More jobs...YAY!! Oh wait..none of them are here in the US..............

[Politicalboi]

22. This should be treated like they were drug dealers

So you got caught growing and selling Marijuana and now we the DEA take EVERYTHING because EVERYTHING was bought with ill gotten money. I hate they way they always get away with this shit. If war crimes doesn't wake anybody up, why would this?