How can any honest person or business oppose a campaign spending disclosure law like this one described by Alternet?
It’s a good rule of thumb: If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the trade association for large corporations — is whipped up about something, there’s probably good reason for the public to strongly back whatever has sent the Chamber into fits.
Well, the Chamber is apoplectic over a modest Obama administration proposed executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of their campaign-related spending.
What the Chamber fears is that the new law would would require disclosures regarding “secret contributions that corporations funnel through trade associations and front groups to influence elections,” and this would include the Chamber itself.
Erich,
Use a little empathy here and put youself in the place of USCOC staff and the CEOs of its member businesses. The members fork over tons of laundered money to funnel through front groups like the USCOC that promote a political environment where the corporations rape, plunder and pillage the rest of society with impunity.
And think of the US Chamber of Commerce. lead by a man who believes that consumer protections impede businesses from realizing maximum revenue, and that laws which impede revenues are bad and should be ignored. (Apparently he seems to think certain fraudulent activity is okay, and so is destroying evidence that is requested in discovery for litigation.
He and all the otherhard golfing memberso of his staff, they have to make a living, they have to pay their exclusive country club memberships. and thos Armani suits don't fall from the sky. On top of that those poor people have thoroughbred horses to feed and quarter.
( no matter how you phrase it, it still sounds lame).
What's wrong with this idea?
TOM BEEBE’S AMENDMENT
(Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}
No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.
{The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.