Dems take in twice as much “foreign” money as Republicans

[bugscoe]

Dems take in twice as much “foreign” money as Republicans
POSTED AT 8:48 AM ON OCTOBER 18, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

Over the weekend, some Democrats began questioning the White House strategy of demonizing third-party groups for potentially using foreign-raised money in political messaging. Now we know why. Apparently, the shrieking over foreign influence was yet another case of projection:

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate criticizing GOP groups for allegedly funneling foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.

House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.

This isn’t illegal. The money comes from American employees of the foreign corporations. But the companies control the PACs, and their contributions to political parties and campaigns “is about as close as you can get” to foreign-based money flowing into campaigns, as the Center for Responsive Politics notes.

Those who got held out as examples by Democrats of potential agents of foreign influence aren’t shy about pointing out the obvious, either:

“Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court and his adversaries over the bogus charge of foreign money tainting elections – while leaders in his own party had taken more than a million dollars from the foreign cookie jar,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, the political group at the center of the controversy.

“The hypocrisy here is just stunning,” he said.

That’s not exactly news, either.

For those legitimately concerned over foreign influence on elections, the problem exists in this structure that allows companies outside the US to create and control PACs that can contribute to American political campaigns. The fact that they raise the money from Americans does not negate the fact that the companies control the PACs and use the leverage for their own campaigning efforts. In fact, this is worse than the hypothetical (which the White House and Democrats turned into an explicit allegation without any proof whatsoever) of American PACs controlled by American citizens raising funds overseas and using them in political campaigns.

Perhaps the White House didn’t want to focus on the real problem and decided to use a fake problem for misdirection.

 

[bigdavediode]

You know what's funny to me? How the Republican grassroots is increasingly on the opposite side of the Republican party, but is kept in the dark about their actual positions. For example, from the Financial Times:

"Campaign funding debate blocked -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts on Tuesday to impose rules on campaign financing, voting to prevent a Senate debate on a bill that would make corporate political advertisers reveal who was funding their activities"

And I agree with you, if this is actually happening from foreign donors then it should be stopped. However, the Republican party actually supports this as freedom of speech.

 

[bullmarket79]

Chamber of Commerce along with republican party trying to squelch 3rd party candidates and tea partiers,,NO ONE will surrender power voluntarily. It will have to be taken from them, should be quite a show.

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

You know what's funny to me? How the Republican grassroots is increasingly on the opposite side of the Republican party, but is kept in the dark about their actual positions. For example, from the Financial Times:

"Campaign funding debate blocked -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts on Tuesday to impose rules on campaign financing, voting to prevent a Senate debate on a bill that would make corporate political advertisers reveal who was funding their activities"

And I agree with you, if this is actually happening from foreign donors then it should be stopped. However, the Republican party actually supports this as freedom of speech.

Its not funny to us... both parties are corrupted by money, run by idiots so beholden to others that they wind up voting for the good of the american people probably one out of 10 times.

They are always voting the money. Dems and Republicans.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

Its not funny to us... both parties are corrupted by money, run by idiots so beholden to others that they wind up voting for the good of the american people probably one out of 10 times.

They are always voting the money. Dems and Republicans.

So why would the Democrats introduce such a bill to restrict their own income and Republicans oppose it?

 

[John_Wensink]

Is there anymore to the story?

What politicians like to do is put fourth a popular bill and then attach something like abortion funding or check card to it and then when the other party kills it they have a talking point.

I am not implying this was the case here but it is a question to be asked.

Quote from bigdavediode:

You know what's funny to me? How the Republican grassroots is increasingly on the opposite side of the Republican party, but is kept in the dark about their actual positions. For example, from the Financial Times:

"Campaign funding debate blocked -- Republicans blocked Democratic efforts on Tuesday to impose rules on campaign financing, voting to prevent a Senate debate on a bill that would make corporate political advertisers reveal who was funding their activities"

And I agree with you, if this is actually happening from foreign donors then it should be stopped. However, the Republican party actually supports this as freedom of speech.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from John_Wensink:

Is there anymore to the story?

What politicians like to do is put fourth a popular bill and then attach something like abortion funding or check card to it and then when the other party kills it they have a talking point.

I am not implying this was the case here but it is a question to be asked.

No, because the Republicans themselves have publicly stated that they oppose restrictions on foreign funding because it is a limitation of freedom of speech. Additionally Republicans in the Senate UNANIMOUSLY opposed the DISCLOSE Act. (Two didn't vote at all.)

 

[jem]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So why would the Democrats introduce such a bill to restrict their own income and Republicans oppose it?

I have not paid attention to this lately so you may have a new bill I did not get up to speed on... but the dem bills always restrict the way the Republicans get bought off by do nothing to limit the way Democrats get bought.

For instance the dems wish to limit the contributions of corps but not unions...

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

I have not paid attention to this lately so you may have a new bill I did not get up to speed on... but the dem bills always restrict the way the Republicans get bought off by do nothing to limit the way Democrats get bought.

For instance the dems wish to limit the contributions of corps but not unions...

The DISCLOSE act didn't limit any contributions, only required disclosure in ads of who the ad was paid by.

The Republicans opposed even that.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Ahhh, the sordid topic of coin. The left bitching about this is the ultimate hypocrisy. Refresh my memeory and tell me, how much money did the Clintons get from China?
They're all bought and paid for, every last one of them.