Last week, ThinkProgress made news by reporting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, committed to spending tens of millions of dollars blanketing television markets with partisan, anti-Democratic ads this year, "funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding." In other words, donations gathered from around the world from foreign corporations are perhaps being used by the lobbying behemoth to influence elections in America and specifically, to defeat as many Democrats as possible.
That's big news. Period.
But note how Time's Mark Halperin, speaking on behalf of "elites," moved this week to quickly dismiss the Chamber story:
Not only is this issue convoluted and far-fetched, but it also distracts from the issues voters care about, frustrating political insiders and alienating struggling citizens (not that many are following such an offbeat story line).
Read that again. The Time scribe downplayed allegations that the Chamber of Commerce is using foreign funds as part of its 2010 blitzkrieg to take down the Democratic Party in November. I'm still a bit shocked that a journalist would dismiss any news story based on the premise that it's "convoluted and far-fetched."
I'm pretty sure Iran-Contra at first seemed "convoluted and far-fetched." And so did Watergate and so did the Valerie Plame story and so did dozens of other big, juicy news Beltway stories over the years. (And even modestly juicy ones, which the Chamber story might qualify as.) Instead Halperin, playing news editor, waves journalists off the Chamber story because it's "convoluted and far-fetched." Oh, and because voters aren't following the "offbeat" story.
And could that be because journalists like Halperin are not covering it?
Note that Halperin spent more time in his Time piece mocking the story than actually explaining the details of the unsettling allegations. Note that the fact the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will spend tens of millions of dollars this election year airingtens of thousands of attack ads that are often riddled with inaccuracies is of little concern or interest to a media player like Halperin.
His only take on the story was to belittle Obama for talking about it. The Chamber is spending more money than God trying to defeat Democrats, and some of that money might be coming from foreign sources (it's impossible to tell for certain since the Chamber won't disclose its donor list), but for Halperin, the only take-away is that Obama looks small for defending Democrats against the Chamber's tidal wave of attacks.
Oh brother.
And here's the kicker: Halperin is part of the same Beltway press corps that during the Clinton years chased every conceivable harebrained conspiracy theory dreamt up by the Clintons' right-wing haters. During the '90s, the press preferred it when the Clinton gotcha stories were "convoluted and far-fetched." That only added to the intrigue and drama.
Read the full Media Matters column, here.
Follow Eric Boehlert on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EricBoehlert
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100453
However, it's clearly more important to investigate that than to look into allegations made by former CoC employees that the Chamber is openly soliciting, and shamelessly laundering, money from foreign corporations, including corps owned by foreign governments. See, finacial crimes are ok in the topsy-turvy world of conservative ideology.
However, in 2008 the RNC filed complaints with the FEC alleging that Obama had taken in significant foreign funds through online donations (he hadn't): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/10/rnc-to-file-fec-complaint-on-o.html
Just the Repubs trying to have it both ways and trying to dodge another double-edged sword.
why cant we all just accept that
Maybe the Dems have finally found something to give them traction, but probably too late, anyway.
Halperin saying it's no big deal probably means it's a big deal.
> is strongly disapproved of by the voters.
Not to mention being illegal.
Bob Schieffer 10/10/10
One would think an American patriot would want to keep all monies that influence elections to only be from Americans and not other countries.
Don't forget- when writing the health care bill, anti-abortion advocates demanded specificity in regards to federal monies going to abortions.