According to the chamber, Obama wants disclosure of contractors' election spending to"retaliate" against groups whose political views the administration disfavors. In truth, the only people who don't know what's going on are the voters.
One of the most striking examples of money in politics this year was the extent to which some lawmakers blatantly stated their fealty to big corporate interests, from apologizing to BP to offering to "serve the banks."
The New Start treaty is a big and important victory for the Obama administration, as is the end of the ban on openly gay soldiers in the military. But neither signals a new start to cleaning up Washington and turning this economy around.
You do not have to have read George Orwell to know that one of the most abused words in the English language is "reform." It is almost as bad as our penchant for reviving old labels with the word "neo."
Whose side is our Senate on? Hedge fund billionaires, oil executives and health insurance honchos looking to secretly buy our elections; or the American people who have a right to know who's behind the spending?
Unless we enact new disclosure laws, secret contributions to outside spending groups are bound to dramatically increase in the 2012 elections, when both presidential and congressional races will be at stake.
the closer we get to the Nov. 2 elections, the more frequent all the mudslinging political TV commercials will get. Most of them are soul-sucking, brain-draining, amp-up-the-volume, corporate-paid trash.
A Kentucky businessman is bankrolling a campaign against the man who, as Kentucky Attorney General, is prosecuting his company for a sexual abuse cover-up. Could the problem with undisclosed spending in elections be more obvious?