Monday, October 11, 2010

Obama's hypocritical propaganda on money in campaigns

In the Democrats' deepening desperation over the election, they've taken to smearing independent groups that are funding the Republicans this year. Their latest smears are against the Chamber of Commerce implying that international money is flowing into the Chamber's coffers and thus into our elections. But this is a totally bogus argument as the WSJ exposes today.
The outrage over the Chamber is especially amusing considering the role of foreigners in U.S. labor unions. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, close to half of the unions that are members of the AFL-CIO are international. One man's corporate commingling is another's union dues.

Unions and liberal groups are hardly cash poor this year in any case. The Campaign Media Analysis Group looked at the combined spending of candidates, their parties and outside groups and found that Democrats outspent Republicans $47.3 million to $40.8 million in a recent 60-day period.

Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.
Glenn Reynolds reminds us of the uninvestigated stories of how the Obama 2008 campaign deliberately set up a system where they wouldn't be able to stop donations from foreigners.

If they can't use that sort of intimidation to stop corporate giving to help Republicans, they'll try to use government regulators to shut down that opposition. And they hope that everyone will just ignore their own use of the same methods of funding their races. As John Hinderaker points out, one of the liberal outlets raising the alarm over supposed nefarious donations is the Center for American Progress, an independent group funded by unknown donors. When they do it, it's perfectly fine and above suspicion. But any group spending money to elect Republicans is clearly nefarious and worth federal investigations. It's quite a slippery approach to freedom of speech.

Timothy Carney has more on Obama's rank hypocrisy.
Obama likes to pretend he's running against greedy financial-industry millionaires, but look down the list of top donors in September, and you'll see partners and managers of hedge funds and private equity firms like Grosvenor Capital Management, Saturn Asset Management, and Chicago's Delaware Street Capital all giving the DNC the maximum. Other hedge-fund donors who give the max come from Bain Capital and the Tudor Investment Corporation....

Another deflection attempt by Democrats is to point to outside-group spending. This line of rhetoric deserves a response, too.

First, Barack Obama knows about outside spending by special interests: In 2008, the Service Employees International Union spent $27 million in independent expenditures to help Obama, while the United Auto Workers shelled out $4.9 million.

And this election, outside groups are spending big to save the Democratic majority, too. Jon Ward at the Daily Caller reported that three big labor unions will spend about $145 million to help Democrats this year, while EMILY's List and MoveOn.org plan to spend about $75 million.

Those expenditures bring pro-Democratic outside spending within striking distance of pro-Republican outside spending. Throw in the edge the official Democratic committees enjoy over the GOP committees, and you've got parity.

Turns out both parties are raising or benefiting from many millions of dollars from special interests and the wealthy. Democrats' poverty, it turns out, is mostly in poll numbers.

2 comments:

pumping-irony said...

Obama is a disgusting person. I do not say that lightly. I know people who are ignorant, foolish and self-destructive, even narcissistic. I rarely say I find any of them disgusting. Obama is disgusting. And, unfortunately, that can be said about quite a few in the political theatre today (Alan Grayson, anyone?) Disgusting.

equitus said...

Now that I'm in a position to make donations again, I confess I'm one of those who have been intimidated by the Dem's vilification tactics.

I live in a very left-leaning metro area and work in a relatively lefty industry. I was "out" as a conservative in the 2001-4 period, and even gained some respect from some for holding to my principles. Yet I couldn't ignore some signs that others held this against me and may have undermined me professionally. I can't prove it, yet I can't escape the impression.

So, these days when I make a donation (to candidates, not parties), I do so in my wife's name. I supposed I should be more courageous, but I don't want to risk sacrificing my professional viability. What have I come to?

What has this nation come to?