E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
At the end of the midterm season, the Obama White House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a large part of the left railed at the unlimited, anonymous donations that groups like the Karl Rove-backed Crossroads GPS was able to collect and spend on races.
Here was President Obama on the campaign trail:
And thanks to a gigantic loophole, these special interests can spend unlimited amounts without even disclosing where the money is coming from. We don't know where it’s coming from. We don't know if it’s from the oil industry. We don't know if it’s from banks. We don't know if it’s insurance companies. Could be coming overseas -- we don't know. They won’t tell you. They don’t want you to know. They won't stand behind what they do.
This isn’t just a threat to Democrats. This is a threat to our democracy.
While that argument didn't help Democrat in the midterms, it did lay the groundwork -- potentially -- for 2012 in portraying the GOP as the party of corporate interests, and attributing its 2010 success to these shadowy interest groups.
But can Democrats rail against anonymous, shadowy interests when they're beginning to build their own?
As today's New York Times reports, David Brock of Media Matters is helping to create a counterweight to Rove's American Crossroads -- called American Bridge -- and that it might also utilize a subsidiary like Crossroads GPS that can collect unlimited and anonymous donations.
Certain to set off debate ... is that Mr. Brock appears to be positioning his new organization so that fund-raising consultants can raise money for Democratic-oriented media efforts not just through American Bridge but also via one of the nonprofit organizations Mr. Brock currently runs, Media Matters Action Network, which does not disclose its donors.
The action network, which tracks conservative politicians and advocacy organizations, is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group and is set to take on an expanded role in the 2012 elections, including potentially running television ads, according to an internal draft concept paper about American Bridge’s and Media Matter Action Network’s plans obtained by The New York Times.
The Times article continues:
White House officials have signaled in recent weeks that the Obama administration would not object to Democratic-leaning outside groups getting involved in the 2012 elections, a change from the Obama campaign’s attitude toward such groups in 2008. But they have also indicated that they would prefer that the names of donors be disclosed.
*** UPDATE *** Brock sends this statement to First Read:
American Bridge, the organization headed by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, is a 100% transparent organization and will disclose all donors to the FEC as required by law.
Media Matters Action Network, which I am chairman of, is a completely separate organization operating under a different set of rules.
Many Americans, including me, were deeply troubled by the new rules of the road given to us by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court in Citizens United. Subsequently, the wave of rightwing money created a right-wing wave. There is no right-wing wave. There was a wave of Republican money that was not in any way matched in the cycle by Democrats. Only by making our elections a fair fight will the people really be heard.
We do not make the rules. We must make 2012 a more equal contest than 2010. We cannot surrender everything -- health care, the environment -- because of the Citizens United decision.
Leave a Comment:
The only thing shocking about this is that it is reported on this site.
By the way, anybody catch today's Gallup/USAToday poll? Obama's approval is 42%. His disapproval is 54%.
Looks like this truth is that you really cannot fool all of the people all of the time. . .
You can if you control the media.
Actually, the article headline is extremely stupid. At you Mark Murray. Hypocrisy is speaking against something on the one side and practicing it at the same time. Of course, the democrats were DEFEATED by the anonymous donations and superior spending spending from the Chamber and GOP side. So they adapted rather than get shellacked again. Its like if South Korea is against attacking another country and they keep getting their islands hit and one day they also start attacking the North's islands first. That is NOT hypocrisy. A more honest title would have been:
Democrats Come Round to Admit GOP Fundraising Methods They Railed Against Ahead of 2012
or
Democrats Come Round to Admitting Anonymous Donations and Methods They Railed Against Ahead of 2012
or some other title that reflects the content more accurately. And even the above two choices while more honest is still slightly tilted right. As the title reads right now, it is the same kind of misleading title you found on Fox that dont usually accurately reflect its content and has already started the minds of the reader off in a preferred direction.
Not only did they post it, they also really busted Media Matters, one of the primary "unbiased" sources the libbies here at FR use. Too funny.
BTW - Thanks for the link on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I was taunting newdaft about the DSM-IV -[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - 4th Edition(Revision)]. It is indisputable, clear, definitive and damning for Obama even on a layman's level. If newdaft was in the business, shehe knows that, might have one and would not dare post it.
See ya in the FR funnies, no joe.
Hello...?
Nashville_fan...?
It's First Read's Mark Murray.
I think this call is for you.
Too funny, the hypocrits want to join the money party.
But what these idiots just don't get is that money doesn't buy elections. Money gets you into the game, but if a candidate doesn't have an appeal that resonates with the voters, then they will lose no matter how much money they spend. See Meg Whitman, Sharron Angle, and Linda McMahon. See the link below for many others as well.
The bottom line is that Dems will still lose because the country isn't buying what they're selling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110900153.html
J. Richter
The last cycle:
Business - Dems 52% - Repubs 47%
Labor - Dems 93% - Repubs 6%
Ideological - Dems 61% - Repubs 38%
Other - Dems 73% - Repubs 27%
BTW - 6 out of the 10 biggest contributors were Unions; Service Emplotees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Muncipal Employees, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, The Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers and the Laborers Union.
little ole Chamber of Commerce? What a joke.
You are right about one thing - adaption. The Repubs adapted in an effort to at least get it close.
Pretty stupid post otherwise.
PS - About undisclosed money, the Unions top that too. Big Time!
"Obama's approval is 42%."
Thanks for pointing out that President Obama is STILL as popular as were Reagan and Clinton at this point in their terms. We know both those losers went down after their first terms, right?
Both of the above Presidents made course corrections towards the middle...Obama is hellbent on the "My way or the Highway" mantra. It will be the highway in 2012 for him.
Where's Feisty when you need her.
I remember her going on and on about the evil CoC, and whenever someone argued she said my favorite BS argument of all time..... "You have your priorities and I have mine. I'm going to keep posting about this....." Blah blah blah.....
So now I want to hear from her condemning this new tactic used by the Dems.
But I wont hold my breath.
Feisty may or may not be away for the day, but I'll answer.
It's wrong and should be outlawed. That said as long as it hasn't been outlawed it would be stupid for Democrats to turn their backs on this means of funding.
You realize your post is a prime example of cognitive dissonance.
Nonsense, it's being willing to live with reality. I don't like that basketball players alter their shooting motion to create contact with another player's hands and draw a foul. That said does it make sense to give up points by letting opponents do it and insist that my players don't? That's just giving up points which are within the rules. I don't like that players purposely throw the ball out of bounds by bouncing it off an opponent. Should my team accept the turnovers caused by refusing to do the same? Not a chance.
Accepting the electoral defeats that would come from totally bypassing a legal means of fundraising would result in NEVER passing the DISCLOSE Act and NEVER changing the rules to allow sunshine to play its role as disinfectant. It's giving in before tip off. I don't like the rules, which means my responsibility is to work for change. I have no responsibility to comply with rules the opponent won't.
Rules only mean one thing to a cheater--a way to put their opponent at a disadvantage. They'll insist that the opponent be held to a different standard.
Hey NoJo -
Did you catch these reports this morning?
First-time unemployment claims drop
Consumer sentiment rises more than expected
Personal incomes and spending increase
.....and the DOW has responded accordingly as it has for the last 24 months
Approval ratings are hardly important....what happens to WE THE PEOPLE is what we should be talking about.
The Democrats look like fools. They have no platform and no solutions, only false accusations.
I would be humiliated to be a Liberal !
Knee-jerk Conservatives are going to kill this country with truthiness, the idea that you can "know" something is right without having to apply empirical emphasis or facts. The fact of the matter is, Conservative governments across time have drained money from the populace to feed it to the rich, and modern Conservatism is no exception. Who benefits most from tax cuts? The rich. Who benefits the most from wars overseas? The rich. Who benefits from finding ways to do business other than employing people? The rich.
As opposed to Republicans who are just filled with ideas? The Republican ideas are limited to tax cuts for the top 2% of earners. Not even new tax cuts; just extending what's currently in place. That's their solution for fixing the economy: do the same thing we've done throughout the entire economic crisis and hope for a different result. Your blind and incoherent hatred for Democrats has Republicans laughing at people like you - they act against every one of your interests, redistribute money to the rich, and sit back laughing at what a rube you are. Sadly, you deserve it all.
Liberal Ideas are always to take Money from people that make more then they have and Distribute it to the people they think deserve it. the ones that wont work think they are owed and demand that someone else pay for their wants......... and History shows us that it is Democrats that control Congress that have Added the Most Debt and Created the Largest Deficts in history.
Egan,
Not to discourage your hate for the GOP and the rich. But I think that the republicans are trying to get the tax cuts for everyone. Now for your 47% of the people that don't pay taxes, it ain't just a big deal, but for the 53% of us that pay taxes, any money I can save for myself and family is better than giving it to a government that does nothing but spend. I'd rather spend my own money and keep people working than allow the government to spend it on things like Marsh Mice, Cow Farting, or federal salary increases.
Sometimes this repetitive nonsense sounds more like a personal problem than anything to do with politics. Warren Buffet explaining that he believes it is unfair that his income above 250K is not taxes and he ends up paying less than his secretary means he likes to distribute to people that dont deserve it?
The concept is not hard to those who do not have this personal blindside. There is an infrastructure in place (security, education, infrastructure, environmental, justice, capital system) that some draw on to create wealth. They get to pay a bit more (although sometimes less because of the non-progressive medicare and soc) to enable that infrastructure. In a good system in flux, some in the middle get to join them resulting in a healthy base (like we had in the late 90s). In third world countries there are extremely low taxes (for instance Nigeria that derives most of the Federal revenue from oil royalties and with almost zero enforcement of the existing taxes) and yet there is little growth, innovation, or security. Its supposed to be a balance not this consistent diatribe against some perceived distribution to people who dont deserve it even as taxes have ACTUALLY fallen to their lowest this year than anytime in the last 60 years and a huge chunk was just given to the top who failed in 2008 from the bailouts!!!.
I didnt notice Warren Buffet say he was willing to keep 250K so he can still be rich and give the rest of his money to the government.
Good response. That was well appreciated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews
I find it funny how you create a story to run on a premise that has no support. You guys are becoming ridiculous on your articles. Democratic Hypocracy based on what? But that's the yellow journalism we oh so love to see. Republithugs started this whole mess and yet you write a story on Democrats that is not even true. MSNBC is FAUX News dependent. Can you believe this, I'm starting to believe FAUX News is actually running MSNBC like a pimp runs a business. Go figure.
Hey you know what they say Louis...?
If you can't BEAT em JOIN em... ;0)
YES,...
I am a HUGE proponent of fighting FIRE with FIRE and it is about DAMN time that Liberals stop letting the GNOP control the purse strings and the message. The fact is that there are PLENTY of Liberal Wealthy who continue to attempt to play fair. The playing field hasn't been fair in decades, perhaps ever. Take the Gloves off and meet EVERY issue Head On. Nothing is too scurrilous to "Not dignify with a response!"
Respond to EVERYTHING swiftly, accurately and vehemently. Yeah, TEAM!
I look at it like the Kobayashi Maru (a Starfleet test in the Star Trek Universe) as presenting a "no-win" scenario and finding a way to beat it by an unorthodox method.
Now Louis,
Are we talking about the way Capt Kirk changed the scenario so that he could win, win at all costs. Now that is starting to sound a little GOP:)
But hey, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But how does go along with those 59 Democrats that want everyone's name or the Disclosure Act?
That's exactly what I'm referring to. Introduce a new set of rules and circumstances. Democrats can do two things, become like them or go in and change the rules. I'm thinking they will do the latter, either way, the media will cry foul and try to incite some riot.
Louis,
Well the dems better get out there and recruit the big money. Seems as though Warren Buffet is ready to give some of his away.
I once had a coach tell me, we get as close to that line as we can, but we don't cheat. Sounds like good words, but are these groups going to employee enough people to bring down the unemployment rate?
EXACTLY GF!!!
Hope you & the family have a wonderful Turkey Day! ;0)
Ooohh...
Louis, Clara, and Feisty-
What about the self-righteous among you...like Nashville_fan?
She isn't going to like this at all...not one bit.
Unless...she's a hypocrite too.
The ugly truth is that Obama is a Far Left Radical intent on stealing every Freedom we have enjoyed, and putting the government in control of every aspect of our lives. It is so obvious.
Remember his " Transformation " ?
It is failing miserably . Liberals never quit believing in their own fluff and lies.
Now remember ALL THE OUTSIDE DONATIONS for GOP from places like China, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban want the GOP to control and win all the elections in America! Why do I say that? IT IS BETTER FOR RECRUITING!
Instead of just writing "Democratic hypocrisy on anonymous donations?" at the top and then posting some news, perhaps you can describe what the hypocrisy is? Vaguely referring to Democrats is a great way of conflating different entities... but one man starting an outside organization and potentially accepting anonymous donations hardly makes the "Democrats" hypocrites. I also didn't see First Read go this far (actually editorializing) the tens of millions of dollars in outside spending supporting Republican candidates. Apparently, it's only newsworthy if its hypocritical. To First Read, the actual merit and consequences of accepting anonymous donations is irrelevant if they can't play "gotcha" with it.
The seeming hypocrisy is that the leader of one party -- President Obama -- along with many of his supporters -- including bloggers on this site -- decried the practice of unlimited, anonymous donations. And now big Democratic donors -- this isn't just one man -- are planning to do the same thing, and it appears that the White House isn't going to put up a fight about it.
By the way, First Read did cover all of the Democratic attacks against Crossroads GPS and the Chamber. And given that coverage, we wouldn't be doing our jobs as journalists if we ignored how some Democrats now appear to be creating their own Crossroads GPS.
You might respond that this is fighting fire with fire. But if one side originally opposed that fire -- calling it a threat to democracy -- then it's only fair game to point that out.
Mark, isn't it reasonable to explain that it's bowing to the reasonable by accepting the fact that Republicans will not allow Congress to ban a practice despised by the majority of Americans? Under those circumstances it hardly seems reasonable for the Democrats to continue fighting with one hand behind their backs.
Give me a break. Listen chief you can attempt to deflect your lack of sources in your stories but you cannot change the fact that you guys are simply attempting to incite some type of Republithug fear and smear, doom and gloom campaign. You guys are no different than FOX News. If you want to be different then report the news accurately.
John -- it's more than reasonable to point that out. Very fair point.
However, I'd argue that Obama and the Democrats will hardly have one hand tied behind their backs in 2012. Remember how much money Obama was able to raise in 2008, much of it in small donations?
Well, if they replicate that -- it would (potentially) be a powerful argument to the money that Crossroads, the Chamber, and others would spend. But that argument (potentially) loses its punch if Democrats have their own Crossroads and Chamber.
Mr. Murray-
I'd argue that the Democrats' complaints about fundraising practices in the last election cycle were never anything more than an attempt to divert attention away from issues like the failed policy initiatives intended to revive the economy, and the fact that the flagship of the Democratic Party legislative agenda, health care reform, was widely unpopular with pluralities, and even outright majorities, of the public.
Failure is, of course, always an orphan.
But...imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, isn't it?
We'll see how it works out Mark. Thanks for providing your perspective and thanks for providing an outstanding place to talk politics and policy.
This whole scenario is the case for getting the money out of politics. It is at the root of what ails our politics. I understand that the media companies are the primary beneficiaries of where these buckets of dollars land in the form of political advertising, but surely one could find bipartisan support for constraining the current system and the path it is now headded.
Standing 'O' for you Egan!
Well said Egan, well said.
HI Feisty,
I'm with you and Egan. First Read, thank you for providing this forum, but it is time to start reading what you write unless you are easing us into the same type of forum as at Fox, please dont go down that road.
Feisty, have you noticed we have new 'celebrity' couple in our midst? Nojo and Bob180854, aren't they the cutest expert pop psychology couple ? I didn't know that narcissi were much for teaming up! But then they do have some traits in common.
I like the flower Narcissus.
I noticed that too GM... just wait until old Candy in Bartlett finds out Bobby's cheatin on her?
Unless of course they're planning some sort of 3-way or something... lol
Hope you & yours have a wonderful Turkey Day!
Thank you Feisty,
I hope you and your family enjoy all the Blessings of this Holiday.
To all of our friends: Happy Thanksgiving.
Kind of like saying an elephant and an ant are basically the same size dudes, but knock yourselves out the people of this country are easy.
There are really only 2 choices--make the process illegal (which it should be) or participate in something that, for now at least, is legal.
In the eyes of a cheater rules only serve one purpose--to limit the opposition. Since Conservatives have legalized what used to be cheating there's no reason why the Democrats should just stand in front of the train and get run over.
It's a process that should still be illegal...and would be if Republicans hadn't blocked the DISCLOSE Act.
Yes and that disclose act was written to benefit those organizations who don't receive high dollar amounts from individuals and collect small amounts from thousands of individuals i.e. unions or organzations like the Sierra Club....but no need to reveal which individuals in those organizations gave money.
The hypocrisy was that there was no mention of the 2008 election and the Obama campaign and supporting organizations taking in millions of unidentified credit card donations. The Rove model borrowed from the Democrats in 2008, so it is not news that the Democrats will use the same strategy in 2012. I would much prefer the political leanings of big business (i.e., employers, drivers of the economy, etc.) than the backers of Democrats (Unions, liberal Hollywood, etc.) Where do the liberals who are so opposed to business think their paycheck comes from? Government produces NOTHING and it's only source of income is the taxpayer. Let the employers employ without undue burden of regulation and ever-changing tax policy and watch the tax revenue explode. Every business owner and their employees pay the salaries and benefits for EVERY govenment employee. Yet the SEIU and their political arm wants to bash business and elect anti-business liberals at every oportunity. Go figure.
Feisty and Ron, where is the standing "O" and "atta boy" for Ventura?
Standing "O" for Ventura!
Ventura - you make a valid argument. I don't know if I agree that the government produces nothing. It does not (and should not) produce any goods or services that the private sector can realistically produce itself. However it does provide value. It provides the infrastructure (roads) and security (in the form of our military and police) necessary for businesses to operate. Thus taxes must be paid to maintain that government.
I wholeheartedly agree over-regulation is a burden, however under-regulation is a danger-both to our economy and our safety (see wallstreet collapse and Gulf oil spill). I don't think liberals and the unions are anti-business, it is just they are more likely to blame business for our country's problems where conservatives blame the government. They also have a legitimate beef, the middle class hasn't gotten a pay raise (adjusted for inflation) in 30 years. And don't forget, it is the middle class that buys the goods and services that businesses make their money from. Neither side can exist without the other.
Unions and Wall Street bought the election for Obama, and then he complains when business can contribute- pssshhht
My question to old Chuckie is if this story has teeth, how far will go. Or is this just a childish "fairness" play in response to Rockefella'?
Are you telling me that both major parties take money from big business and anonymous donors? OMG, I'm just..........I'm just shocked I tell you. My fake indignation knows no bounds. I guess that will just make it harder for us third party types to compete.
If Democrats came out, admitted that they are more addicted to "fat cat" donations than the Republicans it would destroy that image of the party for the little guy. It is like when Clinton lied about Lewinski -- he knew his wife would be watching -- he was just a helpless VICTIM -- sort of like Democrats in general -- is it their fault that Warren Buffett and his pals want to stuff their coffers -- they are VICTIMS, rich helpless VICTIMS. LOL.
I don't want to think about 2012 right now.
Here in MA I saw some incredibly false ads this past midterms. And they were on tv every second it seemed of every day. Everyone was tired of them. D's and R's and I's. Everybody just sort of looked at the tv and said - oh dear, not another one? The mute button went on, constantly.
Having said that, the Democrats absolutely are going to have to fight back. With full disclosure I hope.
I don't recall who it was, but someone the other day said on tv that in 2008 Barack Obama asked everyone to put their money towards his campaign and the candidates would be able to win with him.
It was pointed out that this won't work in 2012. Is it fair for one party to raise billions of dollars while the other side gets creamed? No. Especially during a presidential election.
I prefer this law never passed in the Courts. What's the answer? I don't know.
I do know that Gov. Deval Patrick's ads went over very well here in MA. They were honest, uplifting and very well done. One year ago it didn't look like he was going to get re-elected. He kept his composure and was consistent in manner. The othe side was brutal.
It's why I don't look forward to 2012. But I will say - sometimes it pays to take the high road. Voters appreciate it.
The entire political system could not be a more abysmal failure for all but the wealthiest top 2% of Americans, you can set around and argue the Repub/Dem thing all day long, it's irrelevant which party is in power because the rich are always in control. The two party system is just a tool the powers that be use to keep the people divided, until people decide to aknowledge this fact there will be no change.
Isn't there an old saying: "If you can't beat them, join them"? Once they have free rein to pour as much corporate money as they want into elections, the Repubs are never going to allow that to be rolled back, or even require disclosure. What choice to the Dems have, but to try to match them?
My thoughts exactly, Heartlight. To do otherwise is to give up before you get a chance to succeed.
When my son was 14, a 16 year old bully jumped him. We always told our son to not fight, to share his toys and be respectful. My son said to the kid, "I don't want to fight you" and droped his hands and the kid punched him in the nose and smashed it. My son proceeded to beat the living crap out of the kid and the kid wound up with a broken collar bone among other things. My husband and I were not there or we would have been trying to stop the whole thing. My point of this storey is: If you are not in a fair fight and you have to fight, than all rules are waived. The demos need to do what it takes to win in 2012, to deal with the dirty fighters.
Mark Murray points out that many of us demos opposed the influx of money from outside undisclosed sources and I know that I did and still do just that. What I want to know Mark Murray is, why you do not ask the right why they do not meet in the middle to actually put an end to this practice or do you think that it is just fine for our country do our business this way?. We as demos cannot lie down and die even though some of you would like to see that happen and the rules of the game have changed to our great disadvantage. So, fight it is and hope for a better day.
Hypocracy?, Gov,Hollyfreaks,Music moguls, average Dumbasses that happened to be in the right place at the right time. Uh-huh, Mr.& Mrs. Jolie seem to think American Orphans are Ok. I don't see ANY rich guy saying "Hell, I've got enough for even the Great-Grand-kids, Let's give those less fortunate a hand up". Oh! Damn,, Dozed off there for a sec,,had the strangest dream.
I just hope the Dems are not being bought and paid for by the Chinese like the money allegedly coming from China to the republicans party via k rove......They already own way to much of America ! These bozos in the senate and congress have been selling off parts of America for profits for 40 years !!!
Can't disagree, NBT. The real solution is still to require disclosure.
You got that right
I'm be going to Turkey, where there are lots of turkey. Now, isn't that logical. Oblaba's pop rate is 39%. Down , down we go.
No it isn't. But then again you've never let facts enter into your trolling before. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx
During the election ovomit's bunch agreed they would stick to a limit on campaign spending but when they realized they were getting way more cash than mccain then ovomit said to heck with sticking to his word and grabbed the funds with both hands. A complete about-face. Now when he sees that the opposition is getting loads of money he starts his usual whining about fairplay which we know darn well the man doesn't believe he himself has to adhere to. The guy is a schmuck and I hope the States vote him out as Pres. As a neighbor he is sorely lacking in the honesty and likability and watch your back aspects.
Oh while we are at it.... I think it is only fair for his wife and daughters to all be degraded in full public view by being both body scanned and having the new advanced pat down done to them, crotch groping included, so that he can truly say that everyone should be pleased to do their part and let themselves be subjected to such invasive security measures.
I am sure his kids will thank him for it after he explains why they've been told they should never let strangers touch them in certain places but it is okay to let a strange man or woman do so in full view of others in an airport and not be stopped.
So, you're OK with campaigns being financed by anonymous, deep-pockets donors? It doesn't matter to you that you don't know who your representatives owe a favor? Just want to be clear on that.