Chamber of Commerce

[3rdnlng]

Wow.

 

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/10/11/barack-obama-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy/

 

It amazes me how really out of touch he is.

Edited October 11, 2010 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

Of course, the story is inaccurate, but...well...nevermind.

[3rdnlng]

Of course, the story is inaccurate, but...well...nevermind.

 

 

Explain please.

[Magox]

It looks like the W.H is taking a lot of heat on this one. As they should, because they are bunch of whiny ass Puszies.

 

New York Times article

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=2

In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

 

Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations, Mr. Obama said. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.

 

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

 

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

 

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

 

In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service.

 

Richard L. Hasen, an election-law specialist at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said there were legitimate questions about whether foreign money could be making its way into campaigns, particularly because many groups are not required to disclose their donors. But he added, Ive seen no proof of the chamber funneling a penny of foreign money into U.S. elections.

 

The specter of foreign money entering American campaigns has been a potent political issue over the years. President Bill Clintons 1996 re-election campaign gave rise to evidence of illegal contributions from overseas.

 

Mr. Obama himself faced accusations by conservative opponents in his 2008 campaign that his large online fund-raising efforts may have generated contributions from foreign nationals barred from contributing. No allegations were substantiated.

 

People who live in glass houses shouldnt 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.

 

The issue of the chambers funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline Exclusive: Foreign-Funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.

 

The piece detailed the chambers overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns. Still, liberal groups like MoveOn.org pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chambers offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself.

 

White House officials acknowledged Friday that they had no specific evidence to indicate that the chamber had used money from foreign entities to finance political attack ads.

 

And then on CBS this weekend, THIS was hilarious.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20101011/pl_dailycaller/schiefferonaxelrodschamberattacksisthatthebestyoucando

 

A weekend report by the New York Times undercut the White Houses recent attacks on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which charged the chamber with influencing American elections with gobs of foreign money. There is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers, the Times reported.

 

By Sunday, the president was backing off the charge, and David Axelrod was asked about it by a skeptical Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation.

 

They do spend heavily on politics, Schieffer said of the chamber. But this part about foreign money. That appears to be peanuts, Mr. Axelrod. I mean, do you have any evidence that its anything other than peanuts?

 

Axelrod was defiant, suggesting the chamber is lying and the New York Times report was inaccurate.

 

Well, do you have any evidence that its not, Bob? The fact is that the chamber has asserted that, but they wont release any information about where their campaign money is coming from, and thats the core of the problem, here, Axelrod said.

Schieffer closed with a devastating question for the Democratic strategy guru.

 

I guess I would put it this way. If the only charge Democrats can make three weeks into the election is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?

 

What a tool

 

 

They have managed to demonize just about everyone that doesn't share their same POV. This is the most thin skinned administration that I have ever seen, ranks right up there with Nixon.

 

They have managed to demonize

 

1)health insurance companies

2)GM bond holders

3)banks

4)hedge funds

5)drug companies (until they cut a deal with them)

6)Oil Industry

7)Credit card companies

 

 

They have created so many bogeymen it's ridiculous. When they first realized that the Tea Party was a threat to them, they called them racists and when they saw that wasn't working then they called them bigots, now they are trying to paint them as extremists. Then they turned their focus to FOX news and that didn't work, it only made FOX gain more viewers while making the W.H appear infantile. They also went after Joe Barton and of course people were like "Joe Who?". Then they went after John Boehner, with similar results. Then they went back after FOX and of course that didn't work. So now they are going after the Chamber of Commerce with unfounded claims.

 

 

"is that the best you can do?”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdhP2gqBs28

 

 

 

The fact that when asked:

 

But this part about foreign money. That appears to be peanuts, Mr. Axelrod. I mean, do you have any evidence that its anything other than peanuts?"

 

and Axelrod responds : "Well, do you have any evidence that its not, Bob?"

 

WTF, is this communist Russia? Where you are guilty until proven innocent? No Axelrod, the burden of proof is on you to find if there is anything illegal going on, not the other way around you dipshit.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Magox

[Magox]

http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

 

Fact check has weighed in and they have concluded that Obama is talking out of his ass.

 

Also, I mentioned that it was ridiculous that they the W.H would go with the "Guilty until proven innocent" tactic.

 

Here's what Factcheck said:

 

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

 

Nevertheless, some Democrats are taking the position that the Chamber of Commerce is guilty of using foreign contributions until proven innocent. MoveOn.org is using this claim in a fundraising appeal, both in e-mail messages and on its website:

 

MoveOn.org website: Foreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats this election cycle. Ask the Justice Department to investigate.

 

President Obama, in recent campaign appearances, has been a bit more circumspect, but not much. He has hedged his claim with words like "maybe" and "could."

 

At a campaign rally for Illinois Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias at Chicagos Drake Hotel, Obama said:

 

Obama, Oct. 7: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources.

 

So the question for the people of Illinois is, are you going to let special interests from Wall Street and Washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be?

 

He repeated the claim three days later at a DNC rally in Philadelphias Fulton Elementary School Park:

 

Obama, Oct. 10: pecial interest groups … are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads attacking folks like Patrick Murphy, attacking folks like Joe Sestak just attacking people without ever disclosing whos behind all these attack ads. You dont know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You dont know because they dont have to disclose.

 

Now, thats not just a threat to Democrats thats a threat to our democracy.

 

 

Its certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.

 

Here's the AP's take:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CHAMBER_FIGHT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-10-11-19-03-15

 

SPIN METER: Foreign money in politics? Not proven

 

Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration and its allies are going all out against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and GOP-leaning groups, accusing them of using foreign money to help finance political ads. Trouble is, they're providing no evidence.

 

The mere idea, lack of proof aside, is part of a Democratic message that tries to tie Republicans to foreign interests and to jobs shifted overseas. On Monday, the liberal group MoveOn.org began airing an ad in Illinois against Senate candidate Mark Kirk using his support from the chamber to link him to foreign corporations that, in the ad's words, "threaten American jobs."

 

Here's ABC's take:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-foreign-money-us-chamber-commerce-ads/story?id=11853117

 

Yet while Obama is trying to tie Republicans and some of their backers to the specter of foreign interference in U.S. elections, an examination of the evidence provides little support for the claims.

 

"We have no idea if the Chamber or any 501© organization as defined by the IRS code, is taking foreign money for the purposes of playing politics," said Dave Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics. "Saying that that foreign money is actually going toward attack ads or any type of messaging in the political realm, you just don't know. It's speculation and nothing more."

 

Some funding for the Chamber of Commerce does come from foreign companies and foreign-based Chamber affiliates (called "AmShams") similar in operations of some international nonprofit groups and labor unions.

 

All these rules are equally applicable to many groups on the left -- but they are not spending money like their conservative counterparts this year.

 

"This isn't going to help the White House win votes by doing this," said Shaiko. "They're grasping at straws."

 

Step one: Create Bogeyman

Step two: when step one doesn't work, demonize corporation

step three: when step two doesn't work go back to step one

Edited October 12, 2010 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

The Schieffer thing is getting the most play time, right across the globe, as it should. I'm now convinced this administration comprises the single most incompetent group of politicians I've ever consciously witnessed in my lifetime. The simple fact that a guy in Axelrod's position would not only throw an accusation like this out there, but when asked to dispute, his naive, childish connerific response is "It's not up to me to disprove it."

 

The image of someone running out of bullets and throwing the gun as a last resort is on full display right now. Every time I think this group couldn't be more embarrassing, they set the bar at new lows.

 

Way to make the most of a landmark opportunity, libs.

[3rdnlng]

http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

 

Fact check has weighed in and they have concluded that Obama is talking out of his ass.

 

Also, I mentioned that it was ridiculous that they the W.H would go with the "Guilty until proven innocent" tactic.

 

Here's what Factcheck said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the AP's take:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CHAMBER_FIGHT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-10-11-19-03-15

 

 

 

Here's ABC's take:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-foreign-money-us-chamber-commerce-ads/story?id=11853117

 

 

 

 

 

Step one: Create Bogeyman

Step two: when step one doesn't work, demonize corporation

step three: when step two doesn't work go back to step one

 

 

I can state without a doubt that Obama may or may not have accepted foreign donations in the 2008 election. He's obviously guilty of allowing foreign powers to influence American politics.

[RkFast]

Not only all the other stuff mentioned above, but the Obama campaign had millions in financing from sources not disclosed that was reported on. Plus theres that George Soros guy.

 

 

Its like Devid Lee Roth bitching about Lady Gaga's sense of decorum.

[drnykterstein]

http://i.imgur.com/k6Aoz.jpg

[Magox]

http://i.imgur.com/k6Aoz.jpg

Looks like an ad that would come from the DNC

 

Desperation

[drnykterstein]

Looks like an ad that would come from the DNC

 

Desperation

It is very weird that you call factually accurate assessments "Desperation".

[IDBillzFan]

Looks like an ad that would come from the DNC

 

Desperation

Throw the gun! Throw the gun!

 

It is very weird that you call factually accurate assessments "Desperation".

What is factually accurate, conner?

[drnykterstein]

What is factually accurate, conner?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130291350&ps=cprs

[IDBillzFan]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130291350&ps=cprs

Meanwhile, back to the topic; what was factually correct about the cartoon? Answer in your own words, please. C'mon, conner. You can do it. Think for yourself. We have faith in you.

[drnykterstein]

Meanwhile, back to the topic; what was factually correct about the cartoon? Answer in your own words, please. C'mon, conner. You can do it. Think for yourself. We have faith in you.

That is an 11 minute auto clip. You did not take a moment to listen to it and educate yourself.

[3rdnlng]

In the 2008 election the Obama website turned off the Address Verification Service mechanism preventing anyone from finding out where the donations were coming from. Why would they want to do that?

[drnykterstein]

In the 2008 election the Obama website turned off the Address Verification Service mechanism preventing anyone from finding out where the donations were coming from. Why would they want to do that?

I know you don't pay attention to anything that happens in reality. So I'll help you out: Obama returned that money.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/03/obama-s-good-will-hunting.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25420.html

[3rdnlng]

I know you don't pay attention to anything that happens in reality. So I'll help you out: Obama returned that money.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/03/obama-s-good-will-hunting.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25420.html

 

 

Obama returned what money? The money that couldn't be verified from where it came? Connor, you are absolutely the iron man of stupidity. Day after day after day you keep your moron streak alive.

[IDBillzFan]

That is an 11 minute auto clip. You did not take a moment to listen to it and educate yourself.

All I'm asking for is for you, conner, to give your own explanation as to why that cartoon was factually accurate. Are you unable to think for yourself, conner? Is your ability to generate original thought so lost that you have nothing left but to post other people's thoughts that you mindlessly agree with?

 

C'mon, conner. You can do it. The first time can hurt, I know, but I have confidence in you.

 

In your own words; how is the cartoon factually accurate?

[drnykterstein]

Obama returned what money? The money that couldn't be verified from where it came? Connor, you are absolutely the iron man of stupidity. Day after day after day you keep your moron streak alive.

I don't think you know how credit cards work. Yes you can refund with just the number and expiration date.

 

 

All I'm asking for is for you, conner, to give your own explanation as to why that cartoon was factually accurate. Are you unable to think for yourself, conner? Is your ability to generate original thought so lost that you have nothing left but to post other people's thoughts that you mindlessly agree with?

 

C'mon, conner. You can do it. The first time can hurt, I know, but I have confidence in you.

 

In your own words; how is the cartoon factually accurate?

This is a weird weird post. Do large words and long radio segments hurt your head or something?

 

There exist political attack ads on the TV machine. Nobody knows who paid for them, and nobody legally has to tell anyone they made them. To date, all of the attack ads attack democrats. Most suspicions are that large corporations and multinational conglomerates are the ones responsible, as they have the motive and funds to do this.

 

LA, You are lazy.

Edited October 12, 2010 by conner