What Is The US Chamber Hiding That The American People Shouldn't See

[Psychoblues]

Axelrod to US Chamber: What Are You Hiding That You Don’t Want the American People to See?

October 11, 2010 6:13 PM

We caught up with White House senior adviser David Axelrod today to chat about the current controversy about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and whether any of its ads are being funded with foreign money.

TAPPER: So the chamber says no foreign money is paying for any of their political activities.

AXELROD: And I guess my answer to the Chamber is just disclose where your money is coming from and that will end all the questions. The fact is they are spending $75 million in this campaign and they will not disclose where one dime is coming from. And that's the problem with all of these organizations. We have tens of millions of special interest money coming into these campaigns and no record of where its coming from and that should be a concern to every voter in this country.

TAPPER: Their answer would be why should they disclose. No one's disclosing.

AXELROD: Right and they have a point there. We tried to pass a law in the Congress -- every Democrat in the Senate voted for it, every Republican in the Senate voted against it -- that said everyone has to disclose. That all these organizations would have to disclose where their money is coming from whether they are supporting Democratic candidates or Republican candidates. The Republicans blocked that bill and the question to them and their allies is: what are they hiding that they don’t want the American people to see?

TAPPER: But you're asking the Chamber to prove a negative. “Prove that you’re not doing such and such accusation.”

AXELROD: It’s not proving a negative, Jake, because all you have to do to clear up the questions is reveal who your donors are from. The question back to them is why don’t they want to reveal where their money is coming from? I think the answer is, I think if the American people knew where their money was coming from they’d be a lot less apt to listen to the advertising, to read the mail, to respond to the kind of negative campaigns that the Chamber and some of these other organizations are underwriting.

TAPPER: But there's a difference between the Chamber and some of these other organizations, right? The Chamber we know what it stands for , we know basically the money is coming from big business and corporations. These other groups I understand, they have names like “Americans For Prosperity” we don’t know what they stand for or who’s behind it. But the Chamber is different, isn’t it?............................

Much More: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/axelrod-to-us-chamber-what-are-you-hiding-that-you-dont-want-the-american-people-to-see.html

Just why is it that the US Chamber of Commerce refuses to open their books or even discuss all these millions they have unprecedentedly spent in the last few months toward right wing campaigns and issues that appear to be contrary to the interests of the people of the United States Of America.

Love :laugh2:

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

Flashback:



Obama Accepting Untraceable Donation
<TABLE style="FLOAT: right; CLEAR: both" id=content_column_table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=238><TBODY><TR><TD width=10></TD><TD width=228><!-- use this image if logged in http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/networked-news/images/person.jpg -->







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></B>
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Sen. Barak Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.


.......
The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.


more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

[Psychoblues]

Flashback:


[B]

Uh,,,,,,,,,OK, mkp.

How does that help us with this international possibly billions of dollars in foreign influence in our Democracy? If President Barack Hussein Obama or his aides or his administration is guilty of any crimes I support their subsequent and satifactory punishment. My concern is about the very serious problem with the US Chamber of Commerce and their ties to foreign and even terrorist organizations and how their donations effect our Democracy. Do you find that concern somehow difficult to comprehend or are you just playing dumb?

Love :laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Flashback:


[B]

and this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html


...Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

And yet still no media.

But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.

One of the Gazan brothers, Monir Edwan (identified here), claimed he bought "Obama for President" T-shirts off Obama's website and then sold the T-shirts in Gaza for a profit. All purchases on the Barack Obama website are considered contributions...

...The jihad donations were hardly the only bloody red flags. The first in my series of posts ran July 19th. The documents were so unwieldy, readers like John, Doc, and Cathy (who discovered Rafah) were working furiously to cross check our findings at the FEC site and then mine the data.

Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,

Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".

Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,

How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23...

Lots of investigating to go around.

[Gaffer]

One of superman's nemesis's. Mr. Hbkjb, jkbkj. Annoying little twerp that could only be gotten rid of by saying his name backwards.

[Kathianne]

One of superman's nemesis's. Mr. Hbkjb, jkbkj. Annoying little twerp that could only be gotten rid of by saying his name backwards.

Indeed. While Obama has mostly reminded us of Carter, seems there may be shades of Nixon lurking:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536370151720874.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion#printMode


* OCTOBER 10, 2010

Shutting Up Business
Democrats unleash the IRS and Justice on donors to their political opponents.



If at first you don't succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That's the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.
[1intimidate] Associated Press

Max Baucus

Since the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they're now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads...

...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.
***

Then there's the curious reference to the tax status of Koch Industries by White House chief economist Austan Goolsbee. In a late August conference call with reporters, Mr. Goolsbee cited the closely-held Koch as an example of "really giant firms" that pay no corporate income tax because they file under other tax rules. But how in the world would Mr. Goolsbee know Koch's tax status? Could his knowledge be related to the White House-liberal campaign against Koch for contributing to Americans for Prosperity, a group that is supporting free-market candidates for Congress this year?

In an August 9 speech, Mr. Obama personally trashed Americans for Prosperity, hinting that it was funded by "a big oil company." He had to mean Koch, which makes no secret of its support for Americans for Prosperity.

The White House didn't respond to queries about Mr. Goolsbee's remark for weeks until GOP Senators requested an investigation. The Treasury's inspector general for tax matters has since announced such a probe, and last week White House spokesman Robert Gibbs finally got around to explaining that Mr. Goolsbee's statement "was not in any way based on any review of tax filings" and that he won't use the example again.

[fj1200]

Axelrod to US Chamber: What Are You Hiding That You Don’t Want the American People to See?

How does it feel to be played?


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.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=3&ref=politics

[fj1200]

... seems there may be shades of Nixon lurking:

Nice, I pondered that yesterday myself. Nothing more useful than an enemies list, eh?

[Kathianne]

I do believe that the administration, the DNC, and liberals in general just don't know what the hell has hit them. They thought they could throw out this 'foreign money thing' and change the conversation. They are in shock that the NYT, WaPo, and people in general are coming not only to the defense of C o C, but attacking the administration!

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/550008/201010111808/The-Return-Of-Know-Nothingism.htm


The Return Of Know-Nothingism

Posted 10/11/2010 06:08 PM ET

Politics: An authentic grass-fire political movement threatens Democrats on all fronts. So as November's reckoning approaches, what does their president do? Why, whip up fear of foreigners in a throwback to the 1850s.

Having rammed costly and unpopular measures through Congress by questionable means, Democrats are in big trouble come November. As their president's popularity tanks, the vast national Tea Party movement is mobilizing the public to vote them out, and America's private sector is at long last standing up for free markets.

For Democrats, it's like the sun — a reality they cannot stare in the face. So instead we see the recrudescence of one of the oldest and worst traditions in American politics: the demonization of foreigners. Not since the days of the nativist Know-Nothing movement in the 1840s and 1850s has it been so egregious.

The most recent example is President Obama's stepped-up attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, insinuating that its $10 million ad campaign couldn't possibly be a real expression of the political climate, but only the work of foreigners...

[Noir]

Regardless of why the Obama Admin want to focus on this (likey to detract from other stories) I think the point they make is a valid one. There is nothing wrong with transparency, so why the block?

Reminds me of the Obama birth certificate thing, if no one is doing anything wrong then just make it all public, to do otherwise makes it's look like you do have something to hide, even if you don't.

[Kathianne]

Regardless of why the Obama Admin want to focus on this (likey to detract from other stories) I think the point they make is a valid one. There is nothing wrong with transparency, so why the block?

Reminds me of the Obama birth certificate thing, if no one is doing anything wrong then just make it all public, to do otherwise makes it's look like you do have something to hide, even if you don't.

That's fine, investigate. Chamber, Obama's election, whether or not the administration is using DOJ and IRS as partisan tools.

[MtnBiker]

Wow, even the New York Times doesn't support this line of crap. One has to be a real tool to go along with this.

[fj1200]

... possibly billions of dollars in foreign influence ... the very serious problem with the US Chamber of Commerce and their ties to foreign and even terrorist organizations ...

Got any back up for those?

[SassyLady]

Uh,,,,,,,,,OK, mkp.

How does that help us with this international possibly billions of dollars in foreign influence in our Democracy? If President Barack Hussein Obama or his aides or his administration is guilty of any crimes I support their subsequent and satifactory punishment. My concern is about the very serious problem with the US Chamber of Commerce and their ties to foreign and even terrorist organizations and how their donations effect our Democracy. Do you find that concern somehow difficult to comprehend or are you just playing dumb?

Love :laugh2:

Psychoblues

Well, you are right Psycho .... let's find out how much foreign money is/has influencing our Democracy,...let's find out how much was donated to the Obama election campaign first. When that investigation is completed, then we can move on to the Chamber, OK?

[MtnBiker]

Got any back up for those?

Well expect a response similiar to Axelrod's; "Do you have proof there isn't".

[Indy]

Flashback:


[B]

Democrats are incredible hypocrites aren't they? Millions came in untraceable donations from the Pals. That's a fact that was freely admitted by the Pals themselves. Democrats receiving donations from public employee unions is hardly bi-partisan, and should be illegal given it's tax dollars being used. These people actually work for the tax payers. A fact that escapes them.

[Noir]

...let's find out how much was donated to the Obama election campaign first. When that investigation is completed, then we can move on to the Chamber, OK?

Well I don't care which is done first, that just gives both sides the 'We'll be transparent when you are' the mature thing to do is to declare your own hand first, and then demand transparency from the other side.

[SassyLady]

Well I don't care which is done first, that just gives both sides the 'We'll be transparent when you are' the mature thing to do is to declare your own hand first, and then demand transparency from the other side.

Yeah, you would think that those living in glass houses would be wary about throwing the first stone.

[Noir]

Yeah, you would think that those living in glass houses would be wary about throwing the first stone.

I don't really like the glass house analogy, as it implies that nothing should ever be done if you are in the wrong aswell. When my answer involves smashing up your own glass house first and then start throwing stones at others.

[SassyLady]

I don't really like the glass house analogy, as it implies that nothing should ever be done if you are in the wrong aswell. When my answer involves smashing up your own glass house first and then start throwing stones at others.

I agree with you .... perhaps I should have said ... clean up your own backyard before you demand I clean mine.

[fj1200]

I don't really like the glass house analogy...

How about just not attempting to create a false political issue based on nothing more than trying to deflect getting your ass handed to you come election time.

[Kathianne]

Well if the Congress is now going to investigate any and all charges leveled by one party against the other, we are saved! Obviously the seriousness of the charges do not matter. Each will have to prove the negative. There will be no time to make any laws!

[Noir]

I agree with you .... perhaps I should have said ... clean up your own backyard before you demand I clean mine.

Again that implies that the other side should make the first move. And so no moves are ever made. Something more like 'let's clean our own backyard before demanding anyone else clean theirs' would be more my train of thought.

[SassyLady]

Again that implies that the other side should make the first move. And so no moves are ever made. Something more like 'let's clean our own backyard before demanding anyone else clean theirs' would be more my train of thought.

My point, and I think we are both saying the same thing, is that one needs to keep their own backyard clean before demanding that others do something you yourself are unwilling to do.

Bottom line is that Obama and his people are upset because the Chamber won't publish their donor list .... if Obama is demanding this then he should make the first move and publish his donor list so it can be verified that he is not accepting foreign monies.

[BoogyMan]

This is akin to running up to a stranger on a crowded street and loudly asking "do you still beat your wife?" You have no idea whether the guy was EVER involved in such activity but since the intent is not to get to the truth, but rather to create a cloud of suspicion and doubt the activity is successful.

Totally trashy and sordid...............and typical of our Eddie Haskel president.

[Kathianne]

This is akin to running up to a stranger on a crowded street and loudly asking "do you still beat your wife?" You have no idea whether the guy was EVER involved in such activity but since the intent is not to get to the truth, but rather to create a cloud of suspicion and doubt the activity is successful.

Totally trashy and sordid...............and typical of our Eddie Haskel president.

Exactly, which is why I made the most optimistic post on this thread, above. ;)