 |
Coming from the king of undisclosed donations and his first lieutenant, Gibbs, that's rich. Here's one you've probably heard, too. If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obama is just pounding the table 'cause he's got nothing left.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So, because the Democrats are a$$holes, Republicans should be a$$holes too?? That won't win you any seats... Look, this is easy. All the chamber has to do is disclose... What are they hiding? Don't you want to know WHO is funding your Senators reelection bid?? Don't you want to know what the agenda is of those foreign companies?? Isn't disclosure in politics GOOD? Why do you attack the person who wants to know what Republicans are doing?
I don't know. Using your OWN right wing screed, that if you have NOTHING to hide, you wouldn't mind being searched, TELLS me that they have something to hide. NO?? Or is your right wing screed WRONG??
excon
The membership of the Chamber is no secret. The campaign contributions are coming from the American membership.
Even the NY Slimes calls the charge baseless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us...nate.html?_r=1
If Obama was asked to open his books he'd open Alinsky's' "Rules for Radicals."Quote:
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
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You know that because they TOLD you, and you TRUST 'em. I don't! In fact, I BELIEVE in your right wing screed. They're NOT disclosing because they DO have something to hide. You righty's are finally right about something.
excon
Here is the line I draw. Id like to see disclosure but also it needs to be followed by law. Just like you (I assume) they aren't getting into my house without a warrant no matter how baseless the charge is. But when the powers that exist speak of disclosue they are talking about "other" people. That is the part that bothers me most. I say let congress make no law that doesn't apply unto them also.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Me too. But the LAW in these matters, ALLOWS them to conceal their donors. The law is WRONG, and THIS is how to DEMONSTRATE that it's wrong.
Right wing media has called this an attack on corporate free speech... I don't want to attack a corporations right to speak.. I just want to know WHICH corporation is speaking. You do too.
excon
The hypocrites in the White House are witholding the political contribution records of Fannie and Freddie Mac ;and a Federal Judge last month denied public access to the agencies records . Now the records of the CofC are private records and the records of Fannie and Freddie are at least semi-public ,and doubly so since they benefitted from taxpayer bailouts.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshge...cal_gifts.html
The truth is that CofC has a vested interest in the protection of it's membership ,and that is why they keep the donations confidential . They don't want a repeat of the thuggery that Target was subject to when they made the mistake of openly donating to a Republican candidate . After they did that ,they were subject to boycotts and other vilifying by liberal activists .
The VP of the Cof C was pretty clear of this reason in an interview with Jake Tapper of ABC .They have been subject to harassment because of this before .
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ur-donors.htmlQuote:
TAPPER: But why not just settle the dispute by opening your books?
JOSTEN: I've explained to you, we're not going to subject our contributors to harassment, to intimidation, and to threats and to invasions of privacy at their houses and at their places of business, which is what has happened every time there's been disclosure here...
A year ago when we ran issue ads across this country, hundreds of them, against the patients protection and affordable care act, citing the CBO report, citing the Center for Medicare Studies--Services report, the companies that got divulged publicly were harassed, were intimidated.
TAPPER: How?
JOSTEN: The outside allies of this administration, the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, HCANN - Health Care Action Now network and Moveon.org, all combined and coordinated protests at those companies, at the CEOs' homes in some cases, as they did here with us. And they began a proxy campaign, through outside groups, the Center for Political Accountability, and another group, Walden Asset Management. This is a game, OK? And they like to play that game out. So it's clear that the game here is to harass and intimidate...
It led to death threats. It led to physical violence, vandalism and economic reprisals from against those people and their homes...
Hello again, tom:
Well, that's as good as excuse as any... It's STILL an excuse, and you buy it. I don't! What do they have to hide?
The Chamber receives funding from three foreign sources: 1) Foreign-based corporations, 2) Business Councils that operate out of the Chamber's Washington, DC headquarters to solicit foreign donations, and 3) independently-run AmChams that are based overseas. Most of the Chamber's foreign sources of funding come from large multi-national corporations which are headquartered abroad, like BP and Siemens. Business Councils in Bahrain and India have raised at least $300,000 in direct contributions to the Chamber's 501(c)(6) account.
There is no oversight of the Chamber's money flow - something the Chamber fought successfully to prevent. Money, as you explained, is fungible. It is impossible for an outsider to know whether the group is following its rules. The Chamber claims that it has a "system" in place to prevent foreign funds from being used for its political attack ads, but it refuses to disclose what exactly that system is or how it works. There is absolutely no doubt that this is a back-door way to get around what are long-standing and legitimate restrictions.
excon
You can't provide a shred of evidence that foreign money is used in their political contributions .All you can do is link the Soros funded Center for American Progress. But I'm sure you think the Soros Empire ,which has been funding progressive campaigns for a decade or more ,is exempt.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It's true. I have no evidence. All I have is a suspicion. Maybe they're using foreign money, and maybe they're not. All I'm doing is asking a question. What do they have to hide? They could PROVE they don't use foreign money like they SAY they don't, by DISCLOSING their donors... I wonder WHY they don't. I'm just saying...
excon
Well begin the investigations .then perhaps when the Republicans become the majority there will be public investigations into what the Obots are hiding with the Fannie and Freddie political contributions.
But then again ;it's not that hard to guess .Their top 3 between 1989-2008 were Chris Dodd ,Barack Obama and John Kerry.
Hello again, tom:
They couldn't have been hiding much if you KNOW who received their donations... I'm just asking the same from the US Chamber... What are they hiding?? You don't want to know?? What if it's donations from Iran?? You wouldn't want to know that? Dude!
excon
And you mock conspiracy theories while advancing one yourself
That the chamber is using Iranian money is something that couldn't happen . Even IF the Chamber was using it's Foreign membership dues for the ads ,the Chambers membership is not a secret... they publish their membership.
ICC - The world business organization
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 PM. |