I agree with John that the Democrats should keep hitting the foreign donors angle to discredit this new round of corporate advertising. Maybe the DC media could take a moment from tsk-tsking and read the fucking Citizens’ United decision. Here’s the relevant passage:
Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to retaliation. Some amici point to recent events in which donors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or otherwise targeted for retaliation. […] The examples cited by amici are cause for concern. Citizens United, however, has offered no evidence that its members may face similar threats or reprisals. To the contrary, Citizens United has been disclosing its donors for years and has identified no instance of harassment or retaliation.
[…] A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today. […] With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “ ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” […] The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.
Whether or not you agree with the rest of the decision, the Court clearly envisioned transparency as part of the deal. It hasn’t happened, and the electorate is having even a harder time than usual making informed decisions and giving proper weight to different speakers and messages.
This is what’s at stake, not some piddling little argument about whether the Sierra Club has some foreign donors, just like the Chamber of Commerce. Our stupid and infinitely distractable DC media would have us believe otherwise, and in doing so, they’re letting Congress off the hook for failing to quickly enact new transparency laws.
cleek
DC media doesn’t do policy: it does politics.
Nick
Tell that to the Amazing Glenzilla.
russell
Equally clearly, the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t give a flying fuck what the Court envisioned.
If you want foreign / corporate / whatever kind of money you care to name out of politics, you need to make it illegal for that money to be in politics.
The “corporations are persons” horseshit has to come to an end. Corporations are not persons, they are not what “the founders” had in mind when they authored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they sure as hell were not what folks had in mind when the 14th Amendment was passed.
Make all the money you want, get as rich as you like, I don’t care. Live it up. But corporations are not people, and money ain’t speech.
Get the f**king for-profit corporate money out of the political process.
Enough of this bullshit.
Nick
You know, if only Obama used the bully pulpit, i’m sure his message would get through the media filter. Right?
cleek
OAWRS!
(Once Again, “What Russell Said”)!
cleek
@Nick:
yes, it would, because the media likes conflict.
notice how they won’t stop talking about what he said about the CoC ?
Nick
@russell:
This is going to require a constitutional amendment now.
mistermix
@russell: It can’t be made illegal – the court has ruled on that already.
The only way to change that is to change the composition of the court.
In the meantime, what we need is some transparency, which the court says is legal, not to mention a good thing.
Comrade Javamanphil
@cleek:
And they suck at that too.
Nick
@cleek:
Oh, are they? All I keep hearing is how much of a hypocrite he and the Democrats are and we shouldn’t take them seriously.
Moses2317
Agreed. And let’s also keep hitting the argument that secretive corporate front groups are planning to spend more than $250 million trying to defeat Democrats. We don’t know where that money is coming from because the groups don’t have to disclose their donors, but it makes clear that the Republicans are on the side of the corporate interests while the Democrats have made some significant progress on behalf of the rest of us.
Winning Progressive
MattMinus
It’s very simple. In cases such as this or the drug war, the media will side with whoever is doing ad buys.
russell
Then let’s freaking get busy.
Here is the text:
“For purposes of interpreting the language of the Constitution and any and all of its amendments, the word ‘person’ should be considered to mean natural human persons only”.
See my comment immediately above.
Fine with me, but until the issue of corporate personhood is sorted out, it’s going to be an unending game of mole whack.
The day after Dred Scott was decided, black people were, by SCOTUS dicta, property.
Now they’re not.
It’s really time to get busy on this. Push the fuck back, at each and every opportunity.
My two cents.
Keith
Our DC media is also heavily funded by foreign investors, which is part of the reason I think they’d like the Democrats to shut the fuck up about it.
Linda Featheringill
The entire nation has a problem:
There is no izvestia in pravda and no pravda in izvestia.
And if a free press is essential to a democracy, what is ahead?
Nick
@russell:
Not that I disagree, I don’t and want to see an amendment proposed
But what are the odds that enough senators and congressman get elected proposing one when the tsunami of corporate money is against them?
Kurzleg
Exactly right. As for trying to pass an amendment defining “person” to exclude corporations, I don’t see it happening politically, and at least the current and foreseeable courts will stand on the CU precedent. If we’re going to get freaking busy, the energy should be spent on pushing for the kind of transparency that will make corporations and other rich people/entities to think twice about how they spend their political contributions.
Target Corporation’s experience is a good example of why this is important. The knowledge of their contribution to MN Forward set off an uproar that definitely hurt them from a PR perspective, and they seemed to be sensitive to that.
Ed in NJ
Of course it’s a winning strategy. It not only has the pundits wagging but it’s putting Republicans on the defensive for the first time in 2 years.
By election day, 2 things will have been accomplished: the coming ad blitz will be looked upon with derision by many, and Democrats will be more likely to vote to prevent the CoC money from working.
WereBear
One thing that has happened since 2000; I’ve moved from thinking “stupidity” to thinking “malice.”
As in, “Never attribute to stupidity when maliciousness can make someone money.”
wilfred
No. We, citizens, let Congress off the hook. It’s not just the press and the government, is it?
Napoleon
@russell:
Not to throw cold water on that idea, but you do know the first thing that would happen when that text hit the floor would be someone offering an amendment that would tack on to the end of that: “. . . including those in utero and unborn.”
How confident are you that enough Dems would not bolt so that outlawing abortion would become part of the trade off in limiting corporations?
mikefromArlington
As Scalia often cites the intent of the Constitutions writers was this or that I would think it’s almost a given, after seeing this portion, it was the intention of this ruling for companies to disclose or it wouldn’t be struck down in the courts if the Congress could write in the disclosure.
I think a simple, 2 page bill should be brought up, have it site this passage. Let Democrats flood the airwaves. The public is behind them on this one.
cat48
When Rove was talking about setting up his Crossroads GPS 50lc, someone said he was planning on using some of the wealthy Swiftboaters. That’s probably why he doesn’t want to disclose his.
Well, Obama’s black voter outreach is going full steam ahead and polling shows 80% planning to vote, with 60% planning on also doing voter outreach. Obama & Michelle have been doing black radio & rallys. They could help swing 20 house seats & about 8 Senate seats in Swing states. This is good news if the rest of the demographics show up; but those others are lagging.
El Cid
@WereBear: I have listened to huge numbers of people use a cute little turn of phrase which was a joke about how widespread stupidity is — “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” — as though it was some sort of solid argument suggesting that we not only be a bit careful about attributing too much conscious malice, but that we should ignore the question of ‘who benefits’ and ‘who pays’ as apart of understanding why people make harmful but profitable decisions until such time as we have the videotaped message from the evildoer saying “I purposefully hurt these people to get myself benefit“.
Corner Stone
Only Harry Reid could be losing to a candidate as unlikeably awful as Sharon Angle.
WereBear
@El Cid: Yet another form of Denial, which has as many petals as a prize dahlia.
I went through all the stages of grief in the months after the 9/11 tragedy, probably a bit quicker than most, until I arrived at the inevitable conclusion that these were not just your regular asshole Republicans, they were some new mutant strain who didn’t give a goddam if it did happen again.
danimal
@MattMinus: I’ll be eagerly awaiting the progressive critique of corporate ad buys on Sunday morning. I’m sure that Meet the Press and the others will give a fair and balance account of the issue.
This hour brought to you for your enjoyment by Big Pharma, Big Oil and Big Ag, who are fully responsible for the views of our guests…
Steve
@Napoleon: The chance that 2/3 of either house of Congress, let alone both, would agree to a constitutional amendment banning abortion and giving fetuses due process is 0%. Don’t be silly.
Nick
@Steve: i think that’s the point. If that amendment were to pass, it would be in the text. You don’t need 2/3 to add an amendment to legislation.
Napoleon
@Steve:
Then such amendment would act as a poison pill.
(by the way, I assume you can as freely move to amend constitutional amendments which come up for a vote as ordinary legislation – that may not be the case but I can find no quick answer on the intertubes)
Dennis SGMM
A constitutional amendment to stop the avalanche of corporate money? Bwahahahahaha! Right. Congress couldn’t even pass a disclosure act – nor will it. There are enough Blue Dogs, Republicans, and self-interested dickheads in the Senate to make sure that nothing will in any way impede the influence of corporations on US electoral politics. You’d have better luck convincing the Ebola virus to do the right thing and stop killing its hosts.
terraformer
In this economy, media are happy to take in any advertising revenue that they can get.
Aggressively pursuing the millions coming from the CoC and other corporate entities may slow or even halt that gravy train. Thus, they don’t do that.
Nick
@Dennis SGMM:
In fairness, even the Blue Dogs voted for the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate.
The Republic of Stupidity
At the very least, our elected officials could start wearing corporate logos, like NASCAR drivers do…
And if they’re perhaps a little reticent about exhibiting their employers’ marks so obviously, they could always opt for the more low key, tasteful approach pro golfers have adopted…
But either way, it’d sure be nice to know WHO THE FARK HAS BOUGHT ‘EM OFF…
JAHILL10
@russell: I like you!
Maxwell James
The “foreign money” line of attack, like so many the Dems have employed over the years, has a principal effect of making them appear whiny. It amounts to a complaint that Republicans are rigging the rules of the game. That’s in part because everyone knows that Democrats are not actually biased against foreigners, so for them to raise paranoia about it is not very convincing.
What the Republicans have demonstrated time and time again is that complaints don’t work, but attacks on character do. Consider Willie Horton, to the swift boat ads, to the birther mills of today. When Republicans succeed against Democrats they do so primarily by painting them as actively seditious.
Chris Johnson
@The Republic of Stupidity: You know, digital technology has absolutely advanced to where you could overdub the logos convincingly onto footage of politicians talking in much the way ads are put onto baseball stadium footage. You don’t have to get them to wear the jumpsuits and logos, you can put them on in post, and put the project up on YouTube.
And somebody should.
Somebody really should.
Thomas
We have identified a problem, and several people upthread have proposed solutions (like the corporate personhood amendment) but then’ i think correctly’ others have pointed out how unlikely getting anything politically done to address the problem would be. this whole discussion for me once again illustrates how broken and useless our government has become.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Corner Stone: In normal times, he would be kicking her ass. If you think the economy sucks in the country as a whole, you haven’t seen Nevada. It’s the bomb crater of the housing mess.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Thomas: Has it. Or is it because we don’t want to take the time and effort to run the corrupt SOB’s out of D.C.
chopper
@Maxwell James:
and accepting foreign cash so you can get elected and help outsource american jobs to those foreign lands doesn’t sound ‘actively seditious’?
russell
I would say if you proposed it today the odds would not even be slim or none. They would just be none. It wouldn’t even come to the table.
What I’m looking for is a movement in the Overton Window. The idea of walking back corporate personhood is so far beyond the pale that it seems like total and complete quaint hippy wankery.
The idea needs to become normal. Because there is no reason it can’t be normal.
When Dred Scott was decided, the largest store of capital in this country outside of land was black people. Slaves. I can guarantee you that there was an enormous financial interest in keeping black people enslaved.
Over time, the idea that blacks were some other kind of human that were only fit to be chattel gave way. It gave way because it was not a sustainable idea, because it was demonstrably false.
Corporations are not people. This is not a difficult concept for folks to understand. It’s not difficult because it is the freaking reality.
IMVHO it would take 25-50 years of concerted effort to roll back corporate personhood. That’s a lot of time, and a lot of work.
The first step in all of it is pushing back on the underlying concept that corporations are people in the first place.
I think transparency is a great idea, I’d love to see it enshrined in law. No argument.
But and unless the idea that corporations are persons with rights equivalent to humans is challenged, it’s going to be an unending game of mole whack. Close the door, the money will come in the window. Close the window, it’ll come down the chimney.
It’s bullshit, and it needs to be called out as bullshit.
Omnes Omnibus
@Maxwell James:
I disagree strongly. Rather than whining, I see it as an expression of populist anger. People know that the big corporations are not on their side, so pointing out that the big corporations are going all out for the Republicans means that the Republicans are not on the side of the people. At the same time, the fact that the big corporations are opposed to Democrats means that the Democrats are not on the side of the big corporations. So far, it is a win for Democrats; the screeching by the usual suspects backs this up. Foreignness comes in WRT the corporations, not people, so the fact that Democrats, by and large, are not xenophobic does not enter into the equation.
chopper
unfortunately ‘the scotus envisions’ is meaningless. the decision doesn’t require any transparency, it just suggests that it would be ‘real nice’.
Steeplejack
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
Amen. I have relatives in Las Vegas, and the last time I was there I was astonished at the amount of vacant commercial real estate. My brother was there last week and says it’s worse now. And “official” unemployment is about 16 percent, I think, which means it’s really about 20 percent.
chopper
@Maxwell James:
also, you sound concerned, too.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Chris Johnson:
No… no… the jumpsuits are essential…
Nice, orange jumpsuits… w/ shiny bracelets…
Actually… photoshopping logos onto pix of our current
corporate whoreselected officials would make for an interesting project…beergoggles
@WereBear: “Never attribute to stupidity when maliciousness can make someone money.”
My dad’s an attorney, and even in non-court instances, his first reaction to anything is: who benefits. Whoever came up with the original ‘attribute to stupidity’ line was a poor student of humanity.
Omnes Omnibus
@beergoggles: Cui Bono?
Second attempt at posting due to FYWP, so my apologies if it is a double.
Ana Gama
@Maxwell James:
Apparently, you have not seen the results of the MoveOn poll:
* An overwhelming 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.
* Fifty-six percent of voters overall (including 53% of Independents) are less likely to vote for a candidate if they know the ads supporting that candidate are paid for anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.
* Forty-seven percent of all voters are more likely to support a candidate who insists that voters have a right to know who is paying for ads, with only 9% of total voters saying they are less likely to support a candidate who holds that position.
* Almost two out of three voters (63%) do not believe that the anonymous groups running ads hold the voters best interest in mind. This belief is held by 65% of Independent and 70% of Democratic voters.
* A straight majority of total voters (53%) are less likely to trust a candidate to improve economic conditions if that candidate is supported by anonymous groups.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/yes_voters_do_care_about.html
Karmakin
The only reason why this corporate money works is that they have a message which resonates with the public. If they didn’t have a message which resonated with the public, then all that money would do basically nothing.
It’s not like they’re using that money for direct GOTV operations or anything like that.
I’m all for revoking the idea of “corporate personhood”. But by the time where we make the changes in society necessary to get that through congress, it won’t be needed as much anymore.;
Congress really does the work of the “people”, if by people you ignore the bottom 25-30% or so who are too fucking tired to have a voice. The problem is that the “people” are selfish, short-sighted, and have delusions of grandeur.
Linda Featheringill
@chopper:
Any individual who really thinks that transparency would ensue without strict regulation is too naive to serve on the Supreme Court. If this individual were honorable, he/she would resign. Otherwise, that individual should be recalled.
Steve
@russell: I don’t think slavery ended because the Overton Window moved. Intellectually, the idea that slavery was evil and should be abolished was around for centuries before it actually happened. Politically, even in 1860 Lincoln couldn’t get away with running as an abolitionist, and the incremental plan to abolish slavery by restricting it in the territories never reached fruition. So I think that’s not a great example of what you’re talking about.
As far as corporate personhood goes, I don’t think most people regard it as unthinkable so much as un-thought about. If you went out on the street and said “do you think corporations should have the same constitutional rights as persons” (mind you, they already don’t) the vast majority of people would say no. So you’re not really trying to move public opinion as much as you’re trying to get people to focus on an issue that they wouldn’t care about otherwise.
Southern Beale
I did a post on this today. Seems the NRCC is running ads trying to oust Lincoln Davis, TN blue dog, by saying he supporting the economic stimulus “which sent YOUR tax dollars to foreign corporations that ship jobs overseas.”
This is the Republicans saying that. I mean, I’m laughing my ass off when I’m not bashing my head against the computer monitor. Hello? Does no one remember the whining and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the “Buy American” clause in the ARRA? No?
Well I do. And I wrote about it here. Assholes, they really DO think we’re stupid.
So yeah, if the GOP thinks this is a winning argument, then please Democrats, do NOT cave.
BottyGuy
If the court wanted transparency they should have passed a transparency law. (..oh wait they can’t).
Maybe Congress could do it. (…oh wait, they can’t since there are apparently Republicans in congress):
http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/27/senate-republicans-block-disclose-act.html
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
I completely agree. There is nothing whiny about it. It is a way to get some of that anger we’re always told the electorate is all about this year on the side of the good guys.
YellowJournalism
I watched the last twenty minutes of the Senate debate between Patty Murray and Dino Rossi last night. John would be happy to know that Murray was pushing the disclosure and funding issues with Rossi. He had some lame response about Murray getting contributions from the stimulus and health care bills, but he really didn’t have an answer for the issues she brought up.
I hope she wins. That guy isn’t a total nutbar like some of the Republicans running this cycle, but he’s the type whose only answer to the economic problems is to cut taxes and let the free market sort it out.
danimal
@Maxwell James: Rather than piling on, I’ll say that I agree with most of the crowd here that the Dems need to keep pounding away on the CofC/foreign money/big corp nexus. All the ads become counter-productive if people are skeptical of the source.
But Maxwell James has a point. The Dems need to be aggressive, even angry. Fire ’em up. The milquetoast, whiny approach absolutely does not work in this instance (if ever). If people think that the Dems are using the corporate ads issue as a whiny excuse, the Dems are sunk. IOW, go on the offensive and ignore the whiny GOP response. Hit ’em hard and don’t stop to attend to the wounded GOP pride.
Uloborus
@Corner Stone:
Only Sharon Angle could be in any position but blowing Reid out of the water. That man is HATED by his constituents.
Cat Lady
I’m pleasantly surprised at the attention this issue is getting – really, it’s a winner. When the CUNT (!*) decision was announced, coupled with Cosmo McTrucknutz’s election, it was a gut punch. I felt a visceral, more than an intellectual, response that this was truly the death of democracy in this country, and everyone other than the teatards can understand the very simple concept of what the power of money does to our politicians. Unfettered capitalism has always been the enemy of democracy, and vice versa, with only the government and the press able to keep the playing field somewhat level. We’ve seen how that worked out. Most of us can’t play with the big money boys, but knowing who we’re playing against is essential, and gives us the only chance to be in the game at all. Votes still matter.* * (as of 10/15/10 )
Southern Beale
@YellowJournalism:
Wow, did CNN put this debate on TV last night? Or do they just air debates involving Christine O’Donnell on TV?
In other news, the astroturfing of the Tea Party has now been exposed in that new documentary, clips are leaking out all over the place. Here’s a good one from The Young Turks people should watch … One of the Koch brothers TELLING a crowd of people how he started Americans for Prosperity and started the Tea Party rallies. Amazing.
Michael
Don’t worry – when it goes up again in front of Our Sainted Conservative SCOTUS, they’ll eliminate the transparency language. Scalia will giggle and chortle about it at his well compensated Federalist Society speeches.
Has Jane Hamsher given a thought to how Senators Angle, Brown, Paul and Boozman will be voting on the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Steve:
I think russell’s larger point is still valid, even if our modern concept of an Overton Window may be an awkward fit to 19th Cen US politics – amongst other things, the 19th Cen did not have a dominant mass media (with a small concentrated ownership) acting as a primary gatekeeper of what is, and is-not an acceptable topic of debate, in the way that we do today. Nevertheless he has a valid point that we have to start talking today about what is unthinkable, rather than merely settling for what crumbs from the table the powers that be are willing to share with us. And his anti-slavery analogy is not that far fetched because abolition was a minority position which grew in size and influence over time, owing to both cultural factors which were unrelated to slavery as a specific political issue (e.g. the upsurge in Puritan religiousity during the mid-19th Cen, disgust with the Mexican War) and because of conspicuous political overreach by the slavocracy (the Dred Scott decision, the Fugitive Slave act, the battles over extension of slavery into the western territories).
The Citizens United decision falls into the latter category of political overreach, the question is, what do we have to work with today which falls into the former category of long range cultural change?
Steve
@Michael: The disclosure issue was decided 8-1 by SCOTUS. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito all voted in favor of disclosure, and it’s not like they failed to realize that corporations would prefer they vote the other way. In fact, Scalia had some very tough pro-disclosure language in the Washington referendum case, basically saying that political debate requires people to stand behind their words and not be cowards.
Nick
@russell: Slavery didn’t end because of the Overton Window. Slavery ended because the parts of the country where it was popular left the country and then we beat them in a war and forced them to comply.
If the red states succeed, I think progressive reforms would be a hell of a lot easier, don’t you?
Nick
@Michael:
Fix it.
Corner Stone
@Uloborus: I agree he got lucky but how is this thing tied?
Just a brutal job by him.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Steve:
I think this is an angle we should push hard on, both to discredit the ads running in the current election cycle and to put pressure on Congress to pass tough disclosure laws. Which is that only cowards hide behind a cloak of secrecy. The question which should come up every time one of these ads runs is: What are they hiding? What are they ashamed of, that they don’t want us to know, or don’t want to be associated with?
And the transparent answer in most cases is that these ads are a tissue of shameful lies. Nobody would want their reputation to be associated with this dirt, which is why they have to hide behind front groups.
You want to get really nasty about it? Run a web ad comparing these corporate front groups with jihadists who record their vile propaganda videos while hiding their true faces behind masks.
YellowJournalism
@Southern Beale: Actually, it was PBS. It was a debate in Spokane. There’s one in Seattle coming up. I just happened to catch the tail end of it. This debate was not for CNN. Not enough witchcraft!
Xenos
@Nick: Good point. It was a hella easier to pass the XIIth and XIVth amendments when the southern states were under occupation and had not been formally reintegrated into the union.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Nick:
That wasn’t the only factor. The war and the events which led up to it had a radicalizing effect on purely northern opinion. In 1850 you would not have been able muster a majority even in just the northern states alone to support the actions against slavery which Lincoln eventually took during the war. But by 1864 he was able to run on that record and win, and northern support for radical anti-slavery and anti-southern action outlived both Lincoln and the war, lasting up until about 1876 or so.
Michael
@Steve:
You’re making an assumption not in evidence – that the fat fuck has any integrity whatsoever.
He doesn’t – it has always been about advancing the agenda of his paymasters forward. When it is convenient to make the concerned sounds in order to dampen criticism, he’s happy to do it.
He represents the most mendacious side of the upper rungs of Catholic jurisprudence.
I keep waiting for the inevitable explosion of his and Clarence Thomas’ hearts, but I guess all that soc!alist health care we’re paying for is keeping them alive.
lol
And now Ezra’s on the concern troll bandwagon because this line of attack that’s been in operation for, what?, all of a week hasn’t change the trend line for the generic ballot on pollster already.
Steve
@Michael: Yes, I’m sure it never occurred to Scalia when he agreed with the majority in Citizens United and disagreed with Thomas on the disclosure issue that the corporations would want him to vote the other way. You nailed it, I was totally basing my comment on the assumption that Scalia is a man of deep integrity and not at all on the fact that he already decided how to vote on the exact same issue in the exact same context where the exact same corporations would prefer he switch his vote.
russell
I agree with this.
I think a lot of people responded to the Citizens’ United decision with a massive “WTF?!?”, because they had never considered the idea of corporate personhood, or what the consequences of corporate personhood were.
There’s another case on the docket this year, FCC vs ATT, which argues that corporations deserve the personal privacy exception in the FOIA.
The opportunity is there to bring this front and center.
If folks don’t think the slavery analogy makes sense, that’s fine with me. The only point I’m trying to make there is that things that had “of course it’s that way” status, and that had SCOTUS blessing, can change.
russell
me gusta!
Maxwell James
@Ana Gama,
An overwhelming 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.
For that reason it is the anonymity of funding, rather than the source, which is important. The Democrats’ attack would be more potent if it emphasized not foreignness, but cowardice. Again, they need to attack the Republicans’ character in a convincing way. That the Republicans are cowardly shielding their donors is a real weakness that can be exploited.
@danimal,
The Dems need to be aggressive, even angry. Fire ‘em up. The milquetoast, whiny approach absolutely does not work in this instance (if ever). If people think that the Dems are using the corporate ads issue as a whiny excuse, the Dems are sunk.
Yes, exactly my point. Again, it’s about character. Too many Dem attacks come off as complaining, when what they need to do is undermine.
Roger Moore
FTFY. Put the blame where it belongs. The Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the DISCLOSE act, and if we had majority voting in the Senate it would be the law of the land. It’s Republican obstructionism that blocked it, not the failure of “Congress” as a whole.
Nick
@Roger Moore:
Well duh, when the Republicans are in charge, it’s the Democrats’ fault, when the Democrats are in charge, it’s everyone’s fault.
John - A Motley Moose
This is an awesome idea.
Something along the lines of having a person in a mask saying, “This message brought to you by an unknown corporation that may or may not be foreign.”
Phoenix Woman
How do we know it’s an effective argument? The GOP/Media Complex doesn’t want the Dems to use it:
Washington Post, please define “unsubstantiated”
October 14, 2010 11:20 am ET filed under Blog
The media’s foreign money double-standard
October 13, 2010 1:39 pm ET filed under Blog
Press claims Chamber of Commerce story’s too “convoluted.” Like Whitewater wasn’t?
October 13, 2010 12:21 pm ET filed under Blog
LA Times has trouble finding “some Dems” to quote
October 12, 2010 2:10 pm ET filed under Blog
Erickson revives myth that Obama was “the biggest recipient” of BP cash
October 11, 2010 6:53 am ET filed under Blog
The New York Times ignores key facts about the Chamber of Commerce’s foreign funding
October 09, 2010 5:03 pm ET filed under Blog
Cacti
I believe that the majority in Citizens United envisioned corporate spending transparency to about the same extent…
that the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson envisioned their decision leading to separate but equal accomodations for non-whites.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
@danimal: This.
Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Whatever need to come out swinging on this. We need to be as ruthless as the other side.
It may seem distasteful, but politics never ought to be in good taste.
brantl
No, they used intended transparency to cover over the lawless idiocy of their decision with a fig leaf.