I hate to admit it, but these are two justices of the supreme court I do not trust, and the only way to maintain their "honor" on the court is to provide on formation on their attendance and participation in this conference in the past.....total transparency.
Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.
It's not rare for a Justice to attend a seminar sponsored by a group with judicial or political interests. Members of the court, for instances, often speak at academic institutions or think tanks. Virtually all companies, meanwhile, are affected by the judicial branch. So long as Scalia and Thomas did not participate in overt partisan activities, there would be no apparent conflict of interest.
"There is nothing to prevent Supreme Court justices from hanging out with people who have political philosophies," said Steven Lubet, a professor of law at Northwestern University who teaches courses on Legal Ethics.
But the Koch event appears more political than, say, the Aspen Ideas festival. In its own invitation, it was described as a "twice a year" gathering "to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." In addition, it's not entirely clear what the two Justices did at the Koch event. A copy of the invitation that served as the basis for the Times's report was posted by the liberal blog Think Progress. It provided no additional clues. A call to the Supreme Court and an email to a Koch Industries spokesperson meanwhile were not immediately returned.
Faced with a lack of concrete information, and cognizant of Koch's fairly intense history of political involvement, legal ethicists are urging for more disclosure.
"This is certainly worth more reporting," said Stephen Gillers, a professor of law at New York University. "It is intriguing because the Koch brothers are so politically active and identify with a point of view. I know I would be curious to know exactly what forums the Justices went to. Obviously they could not go to a strategy session about how to elect more Republicans. On the other hand if it was a forum on the meaning of the First Amendment and it didn't involve strategy or fundraising a Justice could appear... It's fascinating and it merits more reporting."
What complicates the report, as Gillers notes, is that the Supreme Court, very recently, handed down a major decision on campaign finance law that Koch Industries quickly utilized. Citizens United overturned existing law by ruling that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money on federal elections. Koch has always been an active political and philanthropic giver. And its checks have been sent to Democrats as well as Republicans (though weighted more heavily to the latter). This cycle, however, the company has become one of the premier bankrollers of conservative causes, and earned the enmity of Democrats for doing so.
Suggestions that Justices Scalia and Thomas's support of Citizens United may have been affected by their time with Koch officials ignores the fact that nothing concrete is known about what meetings they attended and when. Even then, Lubet argues, it would be difficult to argue that there is "a troublesome nexus between the event and the decision." Scalia and Thomas have been opponents of restrictions on campaign finance likely well before they were guests at a Koch Industry seminar.
But their presence at the conference still raises questions of transparency and, for some, broader concerns about judicial independence.
"I think it is very important for judges to be part of the real world and to appear in public for educative purposes to help explain the arcane miseries of the court to the general public," said William G. Ross, a judicial ethics professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. "That is very healthy and I don't think that judges should isolate themselves in a marble palace... However I am very troubled by the tendency of judges to make broader comments on public issues and to appear in public or private gatherings in which there are political overtones."
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label campaign law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign law. Show all posts
21 October 2010
10 October 2010
DNC Makes Major Ad Buy Accusing Chamber Of Potentially 'Stealing' Election 10OKT10
Ratcheting up the debate over the influence of outside groups in congressional elections, the Democratic National Committee has made a major ad purchase pushing the case that the November elections could very well be "stolen" by foreign influences.
The committee is airing a spot on national cable this coming week that turns an already harsh spotlight on the roles being played by former Bush strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie in addition to the Chamber of Commerce. Pivoting off reports that the business lobby has used foreign donations for its campaign activities, the spot ends with fairly conspicuous if not ominous shot of Chinese currency being stacked up -- ostensibly for use against Democratic candidates.
"Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie: They're Bush cronies. The US Chamber of Commerce: They're shills for big business," the ad goes. "And they're stealing our democracy. Spending Millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections. It's incredible, Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush Crowd and the Chamber of Commerce - stop stealing our democracy."
The spot, timed to preempt Rove and Gillespie's appearances on the Sunday talk show circuit, echoes what has quickly and clearly become the closing argument Democrats (from the White House on down) are making as the election nears. But it comes at a time of conflicting reports over the veracity of the charges. On Saturday the New York Times published a story questioning a basis of the report uncovering the Chamber's foreign pools of cash. Specifically, the story quoted White House counsel Bob Bauer acknowledging that there was no specific evidence that the Chamber had crossed legal lines by using foreign money for its electioneering.
"The DNC ad is rubbish," said Tom Collamore, senior vice president of Communications and Strategy for the U.S. Chamber. "The U.S. Chamber will continue to discuss ways to create jobs and grow the economy no matter how often others may try to change the conversation. We've been working for growth, jobs, and opportunity for 100 years and we won't be deterred now."
The Center for American Progress, which runs the Think Progress site that published the original report, has responded to critics by noting that the fundamental question at the heart of the debate had still not been answered: "How many foreign sources of funding does the Chamber have?" A spokesman for the DNC, likewise, pointed to a lack of transparency and disclosure on the part of the Chamber as the basis for the ad.
"They all can, of course, clear all this up by releasing their donors," said DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "We just think that it is vital that the American people know that this election is on the verge of being stolen by secret donors, anonymous special interests, and possibly foreign corporations. And these folks aren't lurking in the shadows refusing to reveal themselves and their intentions and interests because they have the greater good in mind. It's because they want to get their fingers back in the till and exert the influence they had when Republicans were last in charge."
Related News On Huffington Post: The committee is airing a spot on national cable this coming week that turns an already harsh spotlight on the roles being played by former Bush strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie in addition to the Chamber of Commerce. Pivoting off reports that the business lobby has used foreign donations for its campaign activities, the spot ends with fairly conspicuous if not ominous shot of Chinese currency being stacked up -- ostensibly for use against Democratic candidates.
"Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie: They're Bush cronies. The US Chamber of Commerce: They're shills for big business," the ad goes. "And they're stealing our democracy. Spending Millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections. It's incredible, Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush Crowd and the Chamber of Commerce - stop stealing our democracy."
The spot, timed to preempt Rove and Gillespie's appearances on the Sunday talk show circuit, echoes what has quickly and clearly become the closing argument Democrats (from the White House on down) are making as the election nears. But it comes at a time of conflicting reports over the veracity of the charges. On Saturday the New York Times published a story questioning a basis of the report uncovering the Chamber's foreign pools of cash. Specifically, the story quoted White House counsel Bob Bauer acknowledging that there was no specific evidence that the Chamber had crossed legal lines by using foreign money for its electioneering.
"The DNC ad is rubbish," said Tom Collamore, senior vice president of Communications and Strategy for the U.S. Chamber. "The U.S. Chamber will continue to discuss ways to create jobs and grow the economy no matter how often others may try to change the conversation. We've been working for growth, jobs, and opportunity for 100 years and we won't be deterred now."
The Center for American Progress, which runs the Think Progress site that published the original report, has responded to critics by noting that the fundamental question at the heart of the debate had still not been answered: "How many foreign sources of funding does the Chamber have?" A spokesman for the DNC, likewise, pointed to a lack of transparency and disclosure on the part of the Chamber as the basis for the ad.
"They all can, of course, clear all this up by releasing their donors," said DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. "We just think that it is vital that the American people know that this election is on the verge of being stolen by secret donors, anonymous special interests, and possibly foreign corporations. And these folks aren't lurking in the shadows refusing to reveal themselves and their intentions and interests because they have the greater good in mind. It's because they want to get their fingers back in the till and exert the influence they had when Republicans were last in charge."
In yet another example of its willingness to throw punches inside the Democratic tent, MoveOn.org has decided to target Democratic candidates who are being aided...
Wisconsin Democratic congressional candidate Julie Lassa is calling on her opponent to denounce a new attack ad by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that displays...
Tomorrow, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce plans to hold a reception for the Bahrain Banks Association, a trade group for banks operating in the Kingdom...
Pressure has been mounting on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce since a ThinkProgress investigation published Tuesday revealed that the right-wing business group may be using...
09 October 2010
CONTRIBUTE TO COUNTER FOREIGN CORPORATE CAMPAIGN AD FUNDING from MOVEON.ORG 8OKT10
|
This week, news broke that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—one of the biggest sources of corporate cash backing Republicans this year—has been using money from foreign corporations in India, Bahrain, and elsewhere to fund its attack ads, in apparent violation of the law.1
This explosive news could shift the course of the election if the Chamber is forced to scale back and all the right-wing candidates they're helping have to answer for this.
The Chamber knows that. Their strategy is to give no quarter and hope this blows over. In the last 48 hours they've actually spent millions more on ads targeted against progressive heroes including Russ Feingold.2
So we've been up working overnight on a new emergency ad campaign aimed at those Republicans who've been benefiting from the Chamber's help and evidently from its foreign funding—and aimed at forcing the Chamber to reveal its secret contributors. We can launch these ads immediately to keep this story from dying.
This is a huge opportunity but it wasn't in our election plan—so we need to raise $250,000 right away to do it. Can you contribute $10?
The Chamber claims that it has internal systems to keep the money separate, but the new report shows that the foreign corporations donate directly to the Chamber's general fund, which is where the funding for their political attacks comes from. This would represent a shocking disregard for longstanding American campaign finance laws, all to advance a corporate, right-wing agenda of outsourcing jobs and giving huge tax breaks to multi-national corporations.3
According to the report, the Chamber is allegedly raising money from firms in "China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places." Even Russian banks and state-owned oil companies in Abu Dhabi may have contributed.
The Chamber is spending more than any other group to back right-wing Republicans and attack progressives in the election. We need to fight back, and we're ready to leap into action—but first we need to know if we have enough funds.
Can you contribute $10 immediately?
Thanks for all you do.
–Michael, Tim, Duncan, Marika, and the rest of the teamSources:
1. "Exclusive: Foreign-Funded 'U.S.' Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads," ThinkProgress, October 5, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91772&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=5
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91772&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=5
2. "US Chamber spends more than $10 million on ads," Associated Press, October 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91872&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=6
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91872&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=6
3. "U.S. Chamber comes out against Senate outsourcing bill," The Hill, September 23, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91786&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=7
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=91786&id=23969-17549061-Xt4O9vx&t=7
16 June 2010
Exclusive NRA Deal for Campaign Law? 15JUN10 & Feinstein Slams House Democrats For NRA Deal 16JUN10
THE NEO-NAZI, FASCIST, COWARDLY PIGS OF THE NRA ARE AT IT AGAIN....NOW DEMANDING THEY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE PROPOSED DISCLOSURE RULES SO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN'T FIND OUT WHAT POLITICIANS THEY ARE BUYING AND WHAT RIGHT-WING CAUSES THEY ARE FUNDING HYPOCRITES! I REALLY WISH THESE PEOPLE WOULD EXPERIENCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICS AND POLICIES UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. SOMEDAY IT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM AND THEY WILL EXPERIENCE THE PAIN AND AGONY AND SORROW THEY HAVE FORCED ON SO MANY OTHERS. AND SOMEDAY THE SPINELESS POLITICIANS WILL EXPERIENCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF KOW-TOWING TO THE NRA TOO.
The introduction of new campaign finance legislation in the House has met with mixed reviews owing primarily to the disclosure exemption added for the National Rifle Association. But despite the criticism expressed by a host of good government groups -- some of which have begrudgingly said they would support the legislation -- the effort didn't seem to be in much political peril.
Until now, perhaps. On Wednesday morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.) became the first Democratic lawmaker to publicly come out against the NRA deal, in a statement provided to the Huffington Post.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is tasked with moving parallel legislation through the chamber. And aides say he too understands that an NRA exemption is likely needed to keep that group from lobbying against the measure. But if Feinstein (a longtime gun-control advocate) is to defect -- and if she is to be joined by a handful of other Democrats -- the party could very well find itself short on votes.
There is likely some time to find agreement. A Senate aide tells the Huffington Post that the chamber would like to move the bill forward between now and the upcoming recess two weeks away. But they will wait for the House to pass its bill first. And if that doesn't occur by the end of the week, the calendar for Senate consideration is unclear.
In a demonstration of blatant political cynicism, the NRA now has no problems with campaign finance donor disclosure laws -- as long as it gets exempted.
To the NRA bosses, it's not just "the guys with the guns make the rules," but the guys with the undisclosed money sources make the rules -- particularly when everybody else's donors have to be disclosed. It's no longer just guns that they say will have to be pried from their "cold dead hands." It's their donor lists, too.
In a shameful and outrageous move, the NRA has pressured the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to exempt it -- and apparently only it -- from proposed legislation that would require corporations, unions, and advocacy and lobbying groups to reveal donations used to support political campaigns.
Under H.R. 5175, every other group or corporation would have to report the names of people who donate at least $600 to expenditures directed at or available for election activities. Every. Other. Group -- such as the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gun Owners of America, the National Right-to-Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Every group -- except the NRA.
The original bill, authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, is a response to the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year that basically allows corporations to spend as much money on political activities as they want -- any time they want.
Van Hollen's proposal sought to bring transparency to the process by requiring that corporations, and other groups doing political advocacy, report major sources of funds for expenditures late in the campaigns of federal candidates for office. But in an effort to get the support of the NRA, and the elected officials they shower money on, the latest proposal now exempts them from disclosing their larger contributors: groups with more than a million members who raised 15 percent or less funding from corporations. Meanwhile, smaller groups across the political spectrum must their reveal their contributors.
The NRA, with more than $322 million in revenue in 2007 and a claimed four million members, appears to be the only group that fits these new criteria. This makes Congress' "cure" for the Citizens United Court decision so outside the spirit of what Congress says it is trying to do that any real supporter of campaign reform should be embarrassed to vote for it.
People are already cynical about the connections between big money and Congress. Now, the big dollar guys would get to avoid the rules once again while the small groups would still have to jump through the hoops in the law.
Given the recent unwillingness of Congress to give D.C. residents a U.S. representative with a vote without also having their court-approved gun laws gutted, and now this reluctance to do campaign finance disclosures without exempting the well-heeled NRA, it seems there is a new condition that must be met before almost any federal legislation is allowed to proceed: Make sure the legislation doesn't upset the gun lobby bosses.
What this deal ultimately would do is create a two-tier system for political speech -- one for the NRA fat cats and the other for everyone else. I strongly urge House members to reflect deeply upon whom it is they are supposed to represent and protect, and oppose this tarnished legislation. I urge every American who wishes to be heard on the most important issues of our time to contact congressional leaders and urge them to stop this proposal.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
The introduction of new campaign finance legislation in the House has met with mixed reviews owing primarily to the disclosure exemption added for the National Rifle Association. But despite the criticism expressed by a host of good government groups -- some of which have begrudgingly said they would support the legislation -- the effort didn't seem to be in much political peril.
Until now, perhaps. On Wednesday morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.) became the first Democratic lawmaker to publicly come out against the NRA deal, in a statement provided to the Huffington Post.
I strongly oppose any special exemption for the National Rifle Association in the DISCLOSE Act. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that elected representatives are not beholden to special interests, yet here is special interest # 1 receiving a deal to exempt it from an otherwise very good bill.Democrats can ill-afford Senate defections on this legislation. Already, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has come out against the DISCLOSE Act, criticizing its authors for cutting a deal with the gun lobby and expressing traditionally-conservative complaints about the broader "restrictions" on free speech. It stands to reason that a large chunk of the GOP caucus will echo his complaints.
This is bad policy. The law should apply to the NRA, just like any other group. If the NRA, or any similar group, is going to spend millions on political ads, the American public has a right to know who is funding them.
The bill is the DISCLOSE Act, not the 'Everyone Except the NRA DISCLOSE Act.'
The NRA claims they need an exemption to protect their First Amendment rights, but that argument simply doesn't hold up. The Supreme Court has stated clearly that although all are free to speak and advocate their positions, when a group runs ads for and against candidates, disclosure requirements are appropriate.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is tasked with moving parallel legislation through the chamber. And aides say he too understands that an NRA exemption is likely needed to keep that group from lobbying against the measure. But if Feinstein (a longtime gun-control advocate) is to defect -- and if she is to be joined by a handful of other Democrats -- the party could very well find itself short on votes.
Story continues below
Exclusive NRA Deal for Campaign Law?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/exclusive-nra-deal-for-ca_b_613285.html?ir=Daily%20Brief
In a demonstration of blatant political cynicism, the NRA now has no problems with campaign finance donor disclosure laws -- as long as it gets exempted.
To the NRA bosses, it's not just "the guys with the guns make the rules," but the guys with the undisclosed money sources make the rules -- particularly when everybody else's donors have to be disclosed. It's no longer just guns that they say will have to be pried from their "cold dead hands." It's their donor lists, too.
In a shameful and outrageous move, the NRA has pressured the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to exempt it -- and apparently only it -- from proposed legislation that would require corporations, unions, and advocacy and lobbying groups to reveal donations used to support political campaigns.
Under H.R. 5175, every other group or corporation would have to report the names of people who donate at least $600 to expenditures directed at or available for election activities. Every. Other. Group -- such as the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gun Owners of America, the National Right-to-Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Every group -- except the NRA.
The original bill, authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, is a response to the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year that basically allows corporations to spend as much money on political activities as they want -- any time they want.
Van Hollen's proposal sought to bring transparency to the process by requiring that corporations, and other groups doing political advocacy, report major sources of funds for expenditures late in the campaigns of federal candidates for office. But in an effort to get the support of the NRA, and the elected officials they shower money on, the latest proposal now exempts them from disclosing their larger contributors: groups with more than a million members who raised 15 percent or less funding from corporations. Meanwhile, smaller groups across the political spectrum must their reveal their contributors.
The NRA, with more than $322 million in revenue in 2007 and a claimed four million members, appears to be the only group that fits these new criteria. This makes Congress' "cure" for the Citizens United Court decision so outside the spirit of what Congress says it is trying to do that any real supporter of campaign reform should be embarrassed to vote for it.
People are already cynical about the connections between big money and Congress. Now, the big dollar guys would get to avoid the rules once again while the small groups would still have to jump through the hoops in the law.
Given the recent unwillingness of Congress to give D.C. residents a U.S. representative with a vote without also having their court-approved gun laws gutted, and now this reluctance to do campaign finance disclosures without exempting the well-heeled NRA, it seems there is a new condition that must be met before almost any federal legislation is allowed to proceed: Make sure the legislation doesn't upset the gun lobby bosses.
What this deal ultimately would do is create a two-tier system for political speech -- one for the NRA fat cats and the other for everyone else. I strongly urge House members to reflect deeply upon whom it is they are supposed to represent and protect, and oppose this tarnished legislation. I urge every American who wishes to be heard on the most important issues of our time to contact congressional leaders and urge them to stop this proposal.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)