FEC U.S. Chamber of Commerce Election Spending Investigation

[Guest Friend of Dusty]

Why not just show who the donors are?

[Guest IHATETAXES]

The last time donors were revealed protesters started marching in front of their corporate doors. Unions historically work by threats and intimidation. Why would the US Chamber of Commerce allow this to happen again?

[Guest Sly]

Channeling large amounts of money through a series of intermediaries to anonymously deliver your message is scarier to me. That is the way the mafia gets what it wants.

 

[Guest goog2k]

The chickens have come home to roost.

 

The Supreme Court decision now allows corporations to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. -- So, they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.

 

If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.

 

"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."

 

We haven't seen nuttin' yet.

[Guest Ron]

The message is loud and clear.

 

SUPPORT COMMUNISM

 

BUY MADE IN CHINA

[Guest HUMAN]

It is with in our Economic National Security to have a Manufacturing Base

In the United States.

 

It is not an either or; it’s an Economic National Security Issue.

 

That's it.

[Luke_Wilbur]

It is with in our Economic National Security to have a Manufacturing Base

In the United States.

 

It is not an either or; it's an Economic National Security Issue.

 

That's it.

 

I am with you on this one.

 

How do we get both sides to agree that Made in USA is National Security issue?

[Guest Human]

Henry Kissinger is for it, getting my side on board won’t be that difficult.

With the democrats latest stunt? I don’t know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am with you on this one.

 

How do we get both sides to agree that Made in USA is National Security issue?

[Guest Derek in DC]

While you two are discussing what could be done the truth is finally getting out. Here is the foreign money found so far. More will be coming out.

 

4G Identity Solutions Hyderabad, India $7,500

A2Z Maintenance & Eng. Gurgaon, India $7,500

Amarchand Mangaldas Mumbai, India $15,000

Apollo Hospitals Chennai, India $7,500

Arshiya International Mumbai, India $15,000

Astonfield Management Mumbai, India $7,500

AXA Group Paris, France $7,500

Avantha Group India $7,500

Avasarala Technologies Bangalore, India $7,500

AZB & Partners Mumbai, India $15,000

Azure Power New Delhi, India $7,500

Bharat Forge Pune, India $15,000

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Toronto, Canada $7,500

Brookfield Asset Management Toronto, Canada $7,500

Cameco Corporation Saskatoon, Canada $7,500

Credit Suisse Zürich, Switzerland $15,000

Devas Multimedia Bangalore, India $15,000

DSK Legal Bombay, India $7,500

Dua Associates Hyderabad, India $15,000

Educomp Solutions Ltd Delhi, India $7,500

Essar Group Mumbai, India $7,500

Fox Mandal Little India $7,500

GMR Bangalore, India $15,000

Hindalco Group, The Mumbai, India $15,000

Hinduja Group, The London, UK $15,000

Hindustan Construction Company Mumbai, India $15,000

HSBC London, UK $15,000

ICICI Bank Mumbia, India $7,500

Infosys Bangalore, India $15,000

Infotech Enterprises Hyderabad, India $7,500

International SOS Assistance Singapore $7,500

Ireo Management Gurgoan, India $15,000

ITC Group Kolkata, India $15,000

J. Sagar Associates Mumbai, India $15,000

J.B.Boda Insurance Mumbai, India $7,500

J.M. Baxi & Co. Mumbai, India $15,000

Jagran Prakashan Kanpur, India $7,500

Jindal Power New Delhi, India $15,000

Jubilant Organosys Noida, India $7,500

Kimaya Energy New Delhi, India $15,000

Kotak Mahindra Mumbai, India $7,500

KPIT Cummins Pune, India $7,500

KPMG Amstelveen, Netherlands $15,000

Lahmeyer International Frankfurt, Germany $7,500

Larsen & Toubro Mumbai, India $15,000

Leela Hotels Bengaluru, India $7,500

Linklaters LLP London, UK $7,500

Luthra & Luthra New Delhi, India $15,000

Macquarie Capital Sydney, Australia $15,000

Majmudar & Company Mumbai, India $7,500

NIIT Technologies Delhi, India $15,000

Nishith Desai Associates Mumbai, India $15,000

Novartis Basel, Switzerland $15,000

Oberoi Group Dehli,India $7,500

Patni Americas Mumbai, India $15,000

Punj Lloyd Gurgaon, India $15,000

QuEST Global Singapore $7,500

Ranbaxy, Inc. Gurgaon, India $7,500

Reliance Industries Mumbai, India $15,000

Reliance Communications Navi Mumbai, India $7,500

Rolta Mumbai, India $7,500

Sanofi-Aventis Paris, France $7,500

SKP Crossborder Consulting Mumbai, India $7,500

SNC Lavalin Montreal, Canada $7,500

State Bank of India Mumbai, India $15,000

Sun Life Financial Toronto, Canada $7,500

Tata Group Mumbai, India $15,000

Tatva Legal India $15,000

Urenco Investments Slough, UK $7,500

Trilegal India $7,500

Walchandnagar Industries Mumbai, India $7,500

Welspun Mumbai, India $7,500

Wipro Bangalore, India $15,000

TAIB Bank* Dubai $20,000

Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C Kingdom of Bahrain $10,000

Bahrain Financial Harbour Holding Company Kingdom of Bahrain $10,000

Gulf Air Kingdom of Bahrain $10,000

Midal Cables Kingdom of Bahrain $10,000

The Nass Group Kingdom of Bahrain $10,000

Bahrain Maritime & Mercantile International Kingdom of Bahrain $5,000

The Bahrain Petroleum Company Kingdom of Bahrain $5,000

First Leasing Bank Kingdom of Bahrain $5,000

Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company Kingdom of Bahrain $5,000

 

TOTAL $885,000

[Guest Soldier of God]

‘Made in America’ label has been way to corrupted.

[Guest Pink]

Henry Kissinger is for it, getting my side on board won’t be that difficult.

With the democrats latest stunt? I don’t know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have not seen any statement that Henry Kissinger is for American manufacturing. I do know that he bought into the eugenics theory.

 

http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf

 

The official policy of the U.S. regarding population control in foreign policy is spelled out in U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), written by Henry Kissinger. NSSM 200, subtitled "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests," warned that increasing populations in developing countries threatened U.S. strategic, economic, and military interests. It suggested that competition from new world powers would rise when developing nations had sufficient populations to utilize their national resources to their full potential.

 

Thus in order to ensure U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest, at the expense of developing countries, it proposed population control to address potential population growth and specifically targeted 13 countries whose growing populations suggested coming power. The report spelled out a plan to bring about "a two-child family on the average" throughout the world "by about the year 2000." Interestingly, NSSM 200 went into detail about avoiding U.S. responsibility for population-control programs by ensuring that the UN and international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank adopt population-control policies as prerequisites to their giving of aid. The report suggested furthering the camouflage by mandating that countries accepting aid from the UN or the banks form their own population-control ministries.

 

NSSM 200 also noted that the U.S. government played "an important role in establishing the United Nations Fund for Population Activities to spearhead a multilateral effort in population as a complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries." It added that "with a greater commitment of bank resources and improved consultation with AID and UNFPA, a much greater dent could be made on the overall problem." Moreover, the report asserts that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now."

[Guest Ron]

‘Made in America’ label has been way to corrupted.

 

"What is in America's interest" has been changed to "What is in China's interest"

[Guest Fedup]

I disagree.

 

 

"What is in America's interest" has been changed to "What is in Capitalist interest"

[Guest HUMAN]

Our Economic Opponents must be loving this. hummm!

[Guest U.S. Chamber Watch]

U.S. Chamber Watch is requesting an investigation into a series of transactions initiated around the 2004 elections and continuing to the present day that appear to violate the law. Under the watch of CEO Tom Donohue, the nonprofit National Chamber Foundation appears to have illegally funneled $18 million of charitable funds to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These millions came from the Starr Foundation, headed by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, then the head of insurance giant AIG.

Last year, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. Chamber’s contributions came from just 25 contributors. While it claims 3 million members, the U.S. Chamber’s three biggest (and anonymous) donors accounted for nearly one in every five dollars raised by the lobbying firm, which operates as a non-profit trade association.

The Wall Street Journal unmasked the strategy as early as 2001. Donohue’s big innovation was setting up separate accounts to take in money for projects on behalf of individual companies and industries. It allowed corporations “to use the Chamber as a means of anonymously pursuing their own political ends,” the Journal reported. Unlike most Washington trade groups that concentrate on narrow concerns and shun partisan politics, the U.S. Chamber has allowed itself to be bought by its largest donors, who are driving an inflexible, highly partisan agenda.

[Guest LAW]

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 10/14/2010

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 

Q Going back to the back-and-forth the White House is having with the Chamber of Commerce, can you respond to the argument that the Chamber is making that this might -- opening up their books might cause potential harassment to their donors?

 

MR. GIBBS: I mean, again, I think this is a nonsensical argument to make in order to continue to hide and shroud the identity and the agenda of those that are giving -- writing million-dollar checks to influence the outcome of elections and ultimately influence the next legislative body. Are those donors -- is their identity being hidden because the voters in a certain state would rather not be confronted with the fact that they’re for rolling back Wall Street reform? Maybe they want a whole host of things from the next government that knowing their identity would know their political agenda. It’s the easiest problem in the world to solve; simply open your books.

 

Q On the Chamber and Karl Rove and all that -- and I might have missed this if anybody already asked it -- but Tim Kaine compared it to Watergate, said this could be the biggest political process scandal since Watergate. Does the President feel that way, too.

 

MR. GIBBS: I haven't seen what Chairman Kaine said. Look, obviously what happened around -- this is pure conjecture about what he’s discussing, but after that campaign we passed what -- the campaign finance laws that we now have on our books that require the giving to a federal candidate, that giving to be reported -- who that person is, who they work for -- the basis of our campaign finance and our disclosure laws. I think what everyone should be able to agree on is that sunlight and disclosure are the best policy.

[Guest HUMAN]

I was waiting for your post.

 

Union-Backed Critic of U.S. Chamber Seeks Probe by IRS of Group's Funding

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-15/union-backed-critic-of-u-s-chamber-seeks-irs-s-probe-of-group-s-funding.html

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

U.S. Chamber Watch is requesting an investigation into a series of transactions initiated around the 2004 elections and continuing to the present day that appear to violate the law. Under the watch of CEO Tom Donohue, the nonprofit National Chamber Foundation appears to have illegally funneled $18 million of charitable funds to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These millions came from the Starr Foundation, headed by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, then the head of insurance giant AIG.

 

Last year, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. Chamber’s contributions came from just 25 contributors. While it claims 3 million members, the U.S. Chamber’s three biggest (and anonymous) donors accounted for nearly one in every five dollars raised by the lobbying firm, which operates as a non-profit trade association.

 

The Wall Street Journal unmasked the strategy as early as 2001. Donohue’s big innovation was setting up separate accounts to take in money for projects on behalf of individual companies and industries. It allowed corporations “to use the Chamber as a means of anonymously pursuing their own political ends,” the Journal reported. Unlike most Washington trade groups that concentrate on narrow concerns and shun partisan politics, the U.S. Chamber has allowed itself to be bought by its largest donors, who are driving an inflexible, highly partisan agenda.

[Guest Brad]

Memorandum

 

To: Editorial Writers and other Interested Parties

 

From: Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee

 

Re: Transforming Our Democracy: Secretive Donations and Anonymous Ads

 

Date: October 14, 2010

 

Something is happening in this election that goes beyond partisan politics, that is more important than who is up or who is down and has potentially greater consequences than which political party comes out on top on November 2. It is also something that has far reaching consequences for our Democracy and that too few Americans know about. What are we referring to? The growing and pernicious effects of secret, special interest money being used to determine the outcome of our elections.

 

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that four Republican groups – Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS; former Republican Senator Norm Coleman’s American Action Network; and the Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity, established by a Republican consultant who managed Bob Dole’s campaign for President in 1996 – plan to launch a $50 million coordinated advertising campaign in advance of the November 2nd elections. Given the high stakes in this election, such spending might seem routine, if it weren’t for the groups’ mysterious funding sources: like many other well-financed and highly active Republican organizations this year, three of the four groups participating in the $50 million campaign refuse to reveal their donors while the fourth does so only infrequently.

 

Anonymous special interests and unnamed corporations are pouring tens of millions of dollars into electoral politics this fall, money that has the potential to tip the scales in close races across the country, with the vast majority of such spending by any measure benefiting Republican candidates. Yet the American people have absolutely no way to evaluate the motives behind these ads which are being produced by groups created explicitly to raise unlimited funds and to hide the identities of their special interest sponsors.

 

As the Media Matters Action Network noted yesterday morning, Republican groups have “dropped a CEO's salary to influence our elections in just a few days. Makes you wonder what they're expecting in return…” It’s a question that voters, pundits and the press should be asking this election season as our democracy and electoral process is being auctioned off to the highest bidder – in secret.

 

From big oil to big insurance to, potentially, big foreign companies, the special interests funding third-party electoral groups this year aren’t simply interested in bankrolling campaigns– they expect results from the candidates they support. And if you take a close look at the policies adopted by many of the Republican candidates backed by such groups this year – from rolling back health insurance reform and its Patients’ Bill of Rights to undoing Wall Street reform to opposing legislation that would roll back special interest tax breaks which have resulted in American companies shifting jobs and profits overseas – it seems those groups might already be getting what they’re paying for.

 

And all of this, of course, was not unforeseen – the vast rise in corporate and special interest spending by right wing groups in support of Republican candidates expected to do their bidding in Congress in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision was predicted by everyone from President Obama to neutral observers, pundits and campaign watchdog groups. And, it has played out exactly as predicted:

 

Numerous right-wing groups, many founded by the architects of the failed economic policies of the last decade which benefited the well-to-do and the corporate special interests, grew like weeds.

 

Big banks, big insurance companies and big oil used these groups to fight tooth and nail against President Obama and Democrats’ efforts to pass needed reforms to health care, Wall Street, student lending and our use of energy.

 

Republicans joined big banks, big insurance companies and big oil in opposing these reforms and blocking others that would benefit middle class Americans at the expense of the corporate special interests.

 

Republicans have joined big banks, big insurance companies and big oil in fighting to return to the failed policies of the previous administration, including extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at a cost of $700 billion and preserving special interest tax breaks which encourage American companies to shift jobs and profits overseas.

 

Republicans joined their corporate special interest allies, the very entities which had the most to gain by influencing elections as a result of the Citizens United decision, in blocking the Disclose Act, which would have at least required these groups to reveal who is behind the millions of dollars in attack ads.

 

And now, by a margin of almost nine to one, Republican candidates are benefiting over Democratic candidates from the spending of outside groups that take unlimited funds from secret donors.

 

All of this is not a coincidence. Republicans in Congress support policies favoring the super rich and corporate special interests at the expense of middle class families. Republicans oppose requirements that groups taking money from corporate special interests disclose their donors. Republicans receive a massive infusion of secret, special interest spending in support of their campaigns. Need one even ask what will happen when the sources of all these contributions come calling on Republicans on Capitol Hill?

 

With that in mind, there are three things that should be understood regarding outside spending this year:

 

1. Third-party expenditures this year are unprecedented in size and scope, and overwhelmingly benefit Republican candidates;

 

2. Republicans enabled and embraced anonymous expenditures by cheering the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which opened up the floodgates for this type of spending and by blocking the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required these groups to disclose their sources of funding so the public could evaluate the motives behind these ads for themselves;

 

3. The American people are angry about this perversion of the Democratic process, because they deserve to know who the candidates they are voting on will be fighting for in Congress.

[Guest Brad]

Outside Spending in the 2010 Midterms is Dwarfing Outside Expenditures Made in the 2006 Midterms

 

According to a Washington Post analysis, outside interest groups are spending five times as much ($80 million) on the 2010 midterms as they did in the 2006 midterm elections ($16 million). In addition, more than half of the money being spent this year comes from groups that do not disclose their donors. In contrast, the donor sources of more than 90% of the 2006 expenditures were disclosed. [Washington Post, 10/4/10]

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Evan Tracey, head of Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks campaign-ad spending, called the combination of ad outlays by the groups ‘historic’ in its size, an assessment echoed by other campaign-finance experts and officials. [Wall Street Journal, 10/13/10]

 

In addition, those outlays are going primarily to Republican candidates. Indeed, the Wesleyan Media Project reported that outside interest groups are spending almost nine times as much on Republican candidates as they are on Democratic candidates and among the top ten interest group spenders, Republican-leaning organizations have outspent Democratic ones by ten-to-one. [Wesleyan Media Project, 10/13/10] In fact, in some races outside spending has topped spending by campaigns. In the Colorado Senate race for example, outside groups including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads have spend $6.5 million since August 10 on advertisements, many of them for Republican candidate Ken Buck. In contrast, the Buck campaign itself has spent just $1.1 million and the Bennet campaign has spent just short of $2 million. [Denver Post, 10/5/10]

[Guest Brad]

Combined Spending By American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS and American Action Fund

 

Colorado $3,611,388.38

Illinois $3,357,041.70

Missouri $2,348,249.60

Nevada $1,952,090.15

Washington $1,546,082.80

Florida $1,221,562.01

Kentucky $1,108,865.78

Ohio $820,605.00

Pennsylvania $809,195.70

New Hampshire $658,330.00

Wisconsin $455,000.00

[Guest Brad]

Secret Donations and Increased Outside Spending Have Been Embraced & Applauded by Republicans

 

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which opened the door to this year’s flood of anonymous donations and third-party spending, was cheered by Republican leaders.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that with the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court took a step toward “restoring…first Amendment rights.” [AP, 1/21/10] RNC Chairman Michael Steele said that decision served as “an affirmation of the Constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first Amendment.” [RNC Statement, 1/21/10] And Senator John Cornyn said, “I can’t think of a more fundamental first Amendment issue.” [New York Times, 1/9/10]

 

In addition to supporting the Citizens United decision, which places the well-being of special interests above the best interests of middle-class American voters, Republicans have repeatedly blocked passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements regarding donors to outside interest groups. Only two Republicans supported passage of the DISCLOSE bill in the House, and Republicans continue to filibuster this critical legislation in the Senate.

[Guest Brad]

The American People are Angry at the Amount of Special Interest Spending, and They Overwhelmingly Support Efforts to Limit Corporate Influence on Elections

 

According to a recent Hart Research Associates poll, 85% of Americans worry that corporations have captured too much influence in the political system and 77% think Congress should support measures to limit the amount that U.S. corporations can spend to influence elections. [Washington Independent, 7/27/10]

 

In addition, 47% of respondents in a recent Bloomberg polls said they would be less likely to support a candidate whose campaign was aided by advertising by anonymous business groups. [Bloomberg, 10/10/10]

[Guest Old Timer]

I applaud your enthusiasm on this topic. But, I fear that this is too complex for many to understand. I also think the DNC is just as guilty. Was it not Senator McCain that wanted campaign finance reform? The RNC tried to play fair and square. But, the DNC did not want any part of it when they realized they could launder thousands of dollars in small campaign contributions. So, if the DNC wants to see the RNC books, they better be ready to disclose their own. I see the way both sides are running campaigns as a major threat to democracy.

 

I get that we are being influenced by foreign capitalist. But, we do the same thing to them.

 

Can we put theatrics aside after these elections and do what is best for America? That would be great. Whoever wins, the other party needs to accept it and not be obstructionist for the sake of the voters who elected them.

[Guest Ya Buddy]

I totally agree. The chamber is backing 10 Democrats. Why doesn't the media talk about that?

[Guest HUMAN]

Union-Backed Critic of U.S. Chamber Seeks Probe by IRS of Group's Funding

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-15/union-backed-critic-of-u-s-chamber-seeks-irs-s-probe-of-group-s-funding.html