GRAPHIC: How The Chamber Gets Its Foreign Money

[ProSense]

GRAPHIC: How The Chamber Gets Its Foreign Money

After consulting with the Chamber of Commerce’s chief lobbyist Bruce Josten, the New York Times and the Washington Post publish articles today largely dismissing concerns about the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding as a means to raise money to air political attack ads.

Both the Times and the Post articles fail to appreciate the scope of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding, focusing instead too narrowly on independently-run, foreign-based “AmChams.” The Times casually disregards our report as part of a “Washington spin cycle” (which apparently also involves the New York Times editorial board). Eric Lichtblau writes:

“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” said Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the chamber, as he recalled the 2008 allegations.

He accused Mr. Obama of using “smear tactics” in bringing up the issue at two separate campaign stops this week in order to deflect attention from his own record as the midterm elections approach. “This is a White House that seems to like to pick an enemy and use it as a foil to advance an agenda,” he said.

Mr. Josten said the Chamber of Commerce had 115 foreign member affiliates in 108 countries, who pay a total of less than $100,000 in membership dues that go into its general fund.

Similarly, the Post’s Dan Eggen writes:

R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs, said in an interview Friday that the group “has never and will never” use dues collected from overseas business councils, known as “AmChams,” for U.S. political activities. He said the chamber is the victim of “a smear campaign” orchestrated with the involvement of the White House.

In fact, as ThinkProgress has noted, “AmChams” are only a small piece of the puzzle. Most of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funds come from large multi-national corporations which are headquartered abroad, like BP and Siemens. Direct contributions from foreign firms also are accepted under the auspices of the Chamber’s “Business Councils” located in various foreign countries. Here’s a visual graphic that demonstrates the Chamber’s foreign sources of funding:



Neither the Times nor the Post appear to have pressed the Chamber to answer two critical questions:

more

Ah, the corporate media. Don't worry, the NYT will wait a few years and then issue an apology or justification.

While they're being shills for the Chamber of Commerce, maybe the NYT or WaPo can publish an excuse for the shawdow GOP groups that Republicans are attempting to justify by claiming unions do it too.

[Spazito]

1. Excellent graphic!

Spells out the danger and the reality very well.

Thanks for posting this, it is very helpful.

Recommended.

[great white snark]

2. Very informative, thanks.

Know thy enemy.

[ProSense]

3. Gillespie...NY Times And Wash. Post Have ‘Refudiated’ ThinkProgress On Secret Corporate Spending

Gillespie Claims NY Times And Wash. Post Have ‘Refudiated’ ThinkProgress On Secret Corporate Spending

Moron.

[ProSense]

4. Some needs to smack down Ed Gillespie

WaPo op-ed by Gillespie: Democrats' desperation tactics on campaign finance

In their latest attempt to distract voters from their job-killing policies, President Obama, his White House and senior Democrats in Congress have added to their long list of bogeymen the outside groups that seek to help elect Republicans in November. They threaten congressional investigations, leak private tax information and level baseless accusations of criminal activity against those who have been public in seeking to defeat Democratic candidates and their liberal agenda. Without a trace of irony, powerful Democratic officeholders lament that many who support these groups wish to remain anonymous.

None of these Democrats expressed concern about such outside spending in 2008, when more than $400 million was spent to help elect Barack Obama, much of it from undisclosed donors. The liberal groups and Democrats who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which established the legal framework for this new campaign spending, were much faster to adapt to its contours than the Republicans and conservative groups that largely opposed it, and liberal outside groups massively outspent Republicans in the past two election cycles.

When conservative groups and their backers moved closer to spending parity (Democrats' cries of being outspent omit the more than $200 million being spent by labor unions this cycle), Democrats tried to change the law again. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Sen. Chuck Schumer, who chaired the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, tried to jam through a new campaign finance reform bill that would force the disclosure of donors before Congress adjourned but carefully adjust the disclosure thresholds to exempt labor unions. After this transparently political effort failed, the Democrats unleashed a torrent of calls for government investigations into groups for abiding by the law they passed in 2002 but failed this year to change.

<...>

[disndat]

5. Axelrod must have all the evidence

necessary. Don't forget the Democrats now control the DoJ, FBI, CIA,etc.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Send this to Chuck Todd, who said the WH was being "McCarthyesque" this morning.

You can send him a Tweet and a link: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chuck+todd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8