It looks like the Democrats and Obama are trying to ape part of the campaign playbook perfected by Republicans: the fake scandal a la Swift Boat Veterans, the New Black Panther Party, and ACORNgate.
Find a hot-button issue, create an angle to raise dark suspicions about your opponent, and run with it—evidence be damned. Sure you may go to hell for it, but you’ll raise your opponent’s negatives!
This business from the administration about the Chamber of Commerce and foreign funding probably focus-groups well: “Danged furreners are stealin’ our jobs and secretly buyin’ our elections (spit).”
But it’s awfully thin gruel—almost certainly a bogus story trumped up because Obama & Co. has a bum hand with this economy thing—one exacerbated by his lowball economic predictions when he came into office. Expectations game, dude! That’s politics 101.
Anyway, let’s look at the report from the Think Progress blog that set this off. It reports that:
According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.
Alas, ThinkProgress doesn’t name any of these legal experts.
And there’s lots of innuendo here:
Here’s how it works. Regular dues from American firms to the Chamber can range from $500 to $300,000 or more, depending on their size and industry, and can be used for any purpose deemed necessary by the Chamber leadership. For example, the health insurance giant Aetna has reported that it paid $100,000 in annual dues to the Chamber in the past. But for specific advocacy or advertising campaigns, corporations can hide behind the label of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and give additional money. Last year, alongside their regular dues, health insurance companies like Aetna secretly funneled up to $20 million to the Chamber for attack ads aimed at killing health reform (publicly, health insurance executives claimed they supported reform). Last week, Politico reported that News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News, gave an extra $1 million to the Chamber for its election season attack campaign.
That’s bad! But ThinkProgress doesn’t have any evidence that the Chamber is taking money on the sly from foreign companies and laundering it to run anti-Dem ads. In case you didn’t catch that insinuation, here’s the lead-in to the above paragraph (emphasis mine):
Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats.
Now that’s a weasel-word combo! “Could” and “potentially.”
The Obama administration doesn’t have any evidence either, for that matter, which led to this embarrassing exchange for chief Obama consigliere David Axelrod with CBS’s Bob Schieffer:
“This part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts,” said CBS chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. “Mr. Axelrod, do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?”
“Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” the White House adviser replied. “The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from.”
Ah, the ol’ prove-the-negative thing. “Please prove to me that you don’t beat your wife.”
Schieffer’s pushback is part of a pretty good performance by the old-school press on this story, though there have been some weak he-said/she-said stories, like this one from the Washington Post.
The New York Times’s Eric Lichtblau pointed out how thin the ThinkProgress/Obama storyline is:
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.
Unions have international branches, too, as the Times points out, and the Democrats get the lion’s share of labor’s campaign spending.
The Associated Press also was good to flatly say there was “no evidence” to support the charges.

Hahahahaha. I love it. The real story here isn't the smear, Ryan. It's that the Obama team makes a claim about the Chamber of Commerce -- and the Press leaps to defend the Chamber. No evidence! Weasel words! The poor put-upon noble heroic Chamber of Commerce! They aren't buying the elections with foreign money -- US corporations have more than enough! No doubt Obama was smearing the Chamber.
Now let's imagine that Obama had instead made a major speech on global warming. How many of the mainstream media organs that leapt to defend and poohpooh Dem allegations about foreign bucks in the Chamber's coffers would use the same language to point out how completely anti-science, uninformed, evidence-free the Republican position is on human-driven global warming?
That would be -- zero.
In fact -- wait for it -- what is the Chamber's position on Global Warming? Oh yeah -- as ignorant as if they believed in witches. But you don't see the media jumping on the Chamber for that like they did on the Obama administration for assaulting the Chamber.
Nope, the real story here, Ryan, is how the press reflexively leaps to defend the center-right corporate establishment, and the double standard it uses in assessing claims.
Michael Turton
#1 Posted by Michael Turton, CJR on Tue 12 Oct 2010 at 08:45 AM
Ryan,
The CJR has really lapsed into lazy, stupid commentary. Labor unions have to open up their books to the Labor Department and disclose all their international donors -- the Chamber of Commerce does not disclose anything to anyone. Did you bother to do any research?
The big scoop ThinkProgress made -- ignored by Ryan, the Times' Lichtblau, and the WaPo editorial today -- was that ThinkProgress obtained fundraising documents directing soliciting foreign corporate donations to the Chamber's 501(c)(6), the same entity running attack ads against Democrats.
So ThinkProgress has conclusively listed dozens of foreign, dues-paying members of the Chamber from India and Bahrain alone. How is the US Chamber even American if its composed of so many foreign businesses? The traditional press didn't bother to do any real reporting, but got jealous that a blog had one of the biggest stories of the year. Running defense for the Chamber is pathetic, but hey, that's what the press is all about in America -- protecting the status quo.
#2 Posted by Ryan is full of bs, CJR on Tue 12 Oct 2010 at 10:58 AM
I don't know if I buy into the "Democrats are becoming fearmongering scumbags, like the republicans were on ACORN, the Black Panthers, Reverend Jones, Bill Ayers, etc.."
The Chamber of Commerce does accept foreign contributions, does involve itself in elections, and no one has to disclose information nor limit contributions in the face of the Citizens United decision. Federal law is supposed to prevent foreign agencies from interfering with American elections, but we now know they can do this now through a PR proxy.
Maybe the administration should have focused their attack on the possibilities created by the CU decision, but the facts are:
a) the Chamber is very rich right now and no one knows where the funding is coming from.
b) the Chamber is very anti-democrat and not bound by honesty on their attacks.
c) the guy leading it is a shill and a scumbag
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.verini.html
In this case, the government is not charging anyone with a crime, they are merely stating a possibility, a possibility with serious implications.
When people write the story "Obama assumes right to order executions of American citizens" I don't shout back "Oh, come on.. Who has he killed? Weak weak weak." I get upset that he's allowed that horrific possibility and I lose a little trust in the guy. The same goes for the Chamber of Commerce. The fact that the possibility exists that they can take foreign money and spend it on elections is indicative of system fault.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 12 Oct 2010 at 03:45 PM
You and the mainstream press are getting bamboozled here, @Ryan. I think you are missing what is going to be a big story. It's interesting too that you and the NYT are echoing Karl Rove and Sean Hannity on this issue. i.e., there is "no evidence."
1) It's a bit early in this game to declare there is "no evidence" don't you think? Where have you looked for evidence? There is no evidence because the Chamber refuses to provide you with evidence. That doesn't mean there is "no evidence," it just means you haven't developed any evidence, and it's a bit early in the game to issue a sweeping declaration that there is "no evidence." Don't you think the weasel words used by the Chamber of Commerce are interesting?
2) It is particularly troubling to see you mainstream journos, to a man, completely lose your skepticism on the subject of big, anonymous campaign money. When you prematurely declare there is "no evidence" it means that you are not likely to look beyond the rather interesting "denials" being offered to you by the likes of Karl Rove and Tom Donohue.
Rove: "Nope, nothing here. Move along now."
Chittum: "Oh. Okay then. Sorry."
3) Your false equivalence with unions is appalling. The kind of anonymous donating of very, very big money, by completely anonymous donors funneled through organizations like the Chamber and Karl Rove is *nothing whatever* like unions, whose donors are utterly transparent. That's bad journalism, @Ryan.
4) And I wish you had spent a line or two giving some context to the national Chamber of Commerce, who is NOT your local Chamber of Commerce. The president and CEO of the national Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, is a rightwing operative funneling money since 1997 to rightwing causes and the GOP. A number of reputable businesses have pulled out of this slimy organization because of their shady political activities.
Would it have troubled you too much to do that? Neglecting that context you come off as doing their PR work for them, instead of being a journalist. And you are much better than that, Ryan. Please stay on the story and see it through.
Cheers.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 07:14 AM
This is Obama at his most clueless. An election coming up with no jobs in sight and what does our wise and thoughtful president do? "Let's demonize the Chamber of Commerce!"
I doubt that James, et. al. were much troubled about Obama accepting foreign money during his 2008 campaign.
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 08:52 AM
Obama's line of attack says a lot about American thought processes. Americans have been screwing each other over (and gunning each other down in droves) since before their republic was founded. But so intense is the nationalist brainwashing in US schools that the only way they can be persuaded that an American group means them ill is to say it's under foreign influence.
Poor Americans' brains (even liberals) seem unable to grasp the possibility that the Chamber of Commerce represents an AMERICAN evil.
Instead of talking about all the deeply shtty things the CofC has done, the Obama Admin is reduced to harping on the small fraction of its funding that comes from abroad.
Right, because everyone knows AMERICAN companies don't want to dodge taxes, roll back workers' rights or trash the environment. Oh no, not the wonderful Americans.
The funny thing is, the same Americans who can only imagine evil in terms of foreigners have no problem with the fact that their country locks up more of its citizens than any other country on Earth.
What, all those people in US prisons are AMERICANS? How could they have done wrong, then? Those mean foreigners must have paid them to do it.
#6 Posted by Bud0, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 01:19 PM
James, Thimbles, et al,
I think Bud0 gets at why this is a fake scandal better than I do.
And James, I and most journalists I know are highly skeptical of big, anonymous campaign money. I think that disclosure ought to be a legal requirement.
But this is still a BS story. As I noted in the piece, there's a real one obscured by it.
#7 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 02:10 PM
Ryan,
Maybe BS story is a little too strong. It may be a story that is yet to prove itself to be a serious charge against the CofC, but, as BudO points out, the CofC deserves every smear that can be thrown against it. If the charge slides off it's more likely because they are such a slippery with the truth group. The game's called whack a mole. When it pops up, if it looks like a mole whack it. You catch more moles that way and, at worst, you bruise a weasel when it's not a mole. They're all in the same rat-like family.
#8 Posted by Jack, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 06:06 PM
I think that @Bud0 is slightly off-base here. The reason to look at foreign money in political campaigns is because it is frankly, outright illegal, not because of xenophobia or American exceptionalism. I'm completely on your page about American companies and the CofC.
@Ryan, I certainly agree that journos should be trying to look into who is contributing the big bucks to Rove and Chamber of Commerce, whether foreign or domestic. Sure, let's see some real investigative journalism there. But evidently it's legal to do that. A big story on which huge companies are surreptitiously handing over millions of dollars to Karl Rove will, in some cases, hurt them right where it hurts, in the PR. But if it's the banks or investment companies, it will have no effect whatsoever. And if it's the Koch brothers, no effect. Legal. Okay?
I am baffled by the way you keep insisting that there is "no story" there with the foreign contributions. You don't know that. There are two completely different meaning to the statement that "there is no evidence":
1) "there is no evidence" because no one has looked for evidence and
2) "there is no evidence" because due diligence has been done, the research has been developed and evaluated, and the evidence doesn't support the conclusion.
I'd say you are in stage 1. So please don't throw up your hands and say "there is no evidence." It's very disheartening when you mainstream journos do that prematurely. TPM and Think Progress have to do all your work for you? (cf the mass Attorney General firing.)
#9 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 06:29 PM
Ryan, you know I've got your back on a lot of things, but this one I can't do.
I agree with you, the real scandal is anonymous donations to political action groups to influence the public and elections. If someone is going to put a message out into the public and exercise their speech, then they should own their words and not their puppets.
But since the citizens united debacle, political speech is limited only by the amount of money you can allocate towards it. This is obviously an unhealthy state of affairs but it's difficult to convince the public that Mr. Koch, american citizen, doesn't have the right to spend his money to influence the public as he sees fit and if though he may want to spend it in private fashion, he shouldn't be allowed to do so.
And so we allow the public to be influenced by unregulated, anonymous, domestic, propaganda even though there are many valid reasons why we shouldn't. Property and privacy are difficult things to tangle with unless you're a bank with a few foreclosures to get through.
So let's take a different discussion which is also complex: capital punishment. Capital punishment is expensive and it involves giving the government the ultimate power of administering death. People who object to it claim it's barbaric and that it serves no purpose other than societal vengeance. Yet it's hard to convince the public that criminals require compassion when they have committed violent crimes which merit punishment up to death. So what is an objector to say?
They have to question the basic assumption that they know for sure that the criminal is guilty. Some criminals, some with signed confessions, have been cleared of the charges that put them on death row as a result of DNA testing. The objector can then claim "Listen, you may think that those who are convicted of murder should die, but not all those who are convicted are guilty. If we allow ourselves to become the executioners of the convicted, there is a very real possibility we will be killing innocent people."
The convicted innocent do not need to be the majority of the people executed in order to make this a valid argument based on them. They are an illustrative case demonstrating that death is too great a power to entrust to faulty institutions, regardless of the crime or the appearance of guilt.
Murder in the hands of the state is the issue. Murder of the innocent is a way to communicate it.
Now back to the previous discussion. Right now, speech is unregulated, unlimited, and private. This is because we assume that the message, and the money behind it, are protected by the rights granted to citizens. In order to combat the acceptance of this state of affairs, we have to challenge the basic assumption "What is they are not citizens or institutions of America. Do foreign entities get to promote their interests to the American people without oversight? Are we going to allow the unregulated influence of American society by who knows what for who knows what? Does the public not, at least, deserve to know who is speaking what they hear?"
Public voice / private identity is the issue, the foreign money dimension is a way to communicate it.
Now to you this is a "fake scandal", a false issue, "an angle to raise dark suspicions". On what basis do you say that? Because foreign money makes up a small percentage of the funds we know about?
The execution of the convicted innocent don't necessarily make up a large percentage of the executed. Does that make the action a fake scandal, an illegitimate argument?
That's the same argument Diana Olick used to defend the foreclosure fraud process.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes_hamster_wheel_chil.php
And Ritholtz's response there is as justified here in regards to anonymous political speech.
"It should never ha
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 01:49 AM
The obligatory Maddow link that's making the rounds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39642627
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 01:58 AM
the New Black Panthers are a joke, Let them bring thier violence to the countryside and meet the bubba's..........who are better armed and are not going to take crap from the NBP or the GOVT...........come on out to the country & meet your demise NBP & other commie supporters
#12 Posted by Dale in TX, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 09:24 AM
James writes: "It's a bit early in this game to declare there is "no evidence" don't you think? Where have you looked for evidence? There is no evidence because the Chamber refuses to provide you with evidence."
Sure, James -- and maybe your hometown newspaper should do a story about the way you "could potentially" have beaten your wife, kids and dog ... or the way you "could potentially" have committed income tax fraud ... or the way you "could potentially" be harboring members of Mexican drug gangs in your garage.
Seriously, where does this kind of accusation-by-imagination end? You want to smear an entire organization based on nothing more than a theory.
Come off it, James -- either prove what you think "could possibly" be happening, or stop making accusations you can't back up. And if U.S. law doesn't allow you to stick your nose in the Chamber's books, then welcome to America. It's the same reason Republicans still don't know the names and home countries of everyone who funneled money into the Obama campaign in 2008.
Really, your kind of accusation is no more sophisticated than the last line in the hilariously awful movie "Plan Nine from Outer Space" -- "Can you prove that it didn't happen?"
#13 Posted by Upon Further Review, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 10:22 AM
Ryan, good work in noting that elements of the press are starting to hold Democrats to the same standard of campaign behavior to which Republicans are held. I don't see critics of the piece actually denying any of the points you made arguing that this is a ginned-up nonstory. These sorts of accusations always ending up coming back to haunt their employers, don't they?
#14 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 12:20 PM
Companies from India to Canada have given documented contributions to the Chamber.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/
So let's be careful what we are talking about when we say "there's no evidence". There's evidence that contributions were given, there's no evidence as to what they were given for. We don't know whether it was used for political advertising, we don't know whether it wasn't. The Chamber has not shared any information, and it's not going to any time soon:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/14/chamber-josten-disclosure/
therefore we have no evidence, other than circumstantial, of what any of these donors were funding. We have evidence that they funded something. We have evidence that this group is more funded than it ever has been before *see next post for the link*. We have no evidence as to the identity behind all this flush funding or what the documented foreign funds were spent on.
And that's not because the evidence doesn't exist. There's a difference between someone hiding their cards and someone who hasn't been dealt a hand. The Chamber is hiding and the press is pretending they're not playing a game.
They are, it's a dirty game, and they're likely cheating at it to boot.
And man, to hear the old ACORN witch hunters give the Chamber of
WhoresCommerce the benefit of the doubt... that's pretty darn rich.These were the guys demanding transparency from climatologists not long ago. They RAGED at the degradation of scientific integrity as they formed stories resembling cut out ransom notes out of the snippets of stolen email conversations. They demanded to know where the money was coming from and who was corrupting the process.
Now a days, the corruption of the election process funded by people who hate the environment, equal pay for women, tax cuts for the poor, social security, and a plethora of other controversial messaging, no one seems to care about the gardens the green all comes from.
Corruption: somedays it's responsible for the "worst fraud in the history of mankind", other days you can't even suspect it without getting accused of hyping false scandals and non-stories.
I sure wish people were more consistent these days.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 01:02 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/02/the-corporations-already-outspend-the-parties/35113/
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 01:06 PM
The daily show take:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/-c--spot-run-
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 01:42 PM
Good article except one point: Black Panthers, Acorn and Swift boat were real issues, not ginned up issues. It's important to understand the distinctions.
Black Panthers: Video evidence of voter intimidation, then after WINNING the case, DOJ drops the charges. Civil rights activist who worked for Robert Kennedy witnessed this voter intimidation and said it was the worst he'd seen since the early 60's.
Acorn: Video evidence and millions of dollars funneled illegally, teach people how to subvert the law and falsely qualify for loans. So egregious are these act, they're de-funded.
Swift Boats: Of 200 Swift Boaters only 11 supported Kerry, 189 said he was a liar.
These are very different then what Obama is doing, accusing people of a crime with NO evidence and then when asked if there was any evidence, the response is "Do you have evidence they didn't?". This is shameful and Obama should resign....this is very totalitarian approach to governance.
#18 Posted by Realist, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 05:23 PM
I've learned to dismiss anyone who thinks the Swift Vets were a made-up scandal. Such people are simply talking-point-o-matics who haven't bothered to actually look at the Swift Vets' ads. At least two of them consist entirely of words uttered on the record by John Kerry himself. There isn't any controversy to it: he said it, there it is on tape or on film. People who dismiss such evidence do not deal in fact, only wishes.
#19 Posted by Bob Hahn, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 05:28 PM
Yeeaahh. Riiiggghtt.
The New Black Panthers:http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/et_tu_wapo.php
ACORN:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/acorn-sting-tape-edited-r_n_528556.html
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 06:10 PM
If all of their money, both foreign and domestic, goes into the same account, how do they separate it - if indeed they do? They really haven't answered that question, have they? How can you say there's no evidence? Was there evidence pointing at Nixon at the beginning of the Watergate scandal? Isn't that what investigations are for?
#21 Posted by J.Ricci, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 06:31 PM
You are a disgrace to the country. Your credentials should be revoked and you should be decredited immediately. Columbia is an information arm of socialism. You train propagandists, not journalists. I will do everything in my power to put an end to your pretense as an educational program.
suibne
#22 Posted by suibne, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 10:48 PM
You are a disgrace to the country. Your credentials should be revoked and you should be decredited immediately. Columbia is an information arm of socialism. You train propagandists, not journalists. I will do everything in my power to put an end to your pretense as an educational program.
suibne
#23 Posted by suibne, CJR on Thu 14 Oct 2010 at 10:50 PM
The laughable flailing of liberal/"progressive/Democrats like "thimbles" is truly entertaining, please keep it up.
The least transparent, thuggish, and arrogant administration in U.S. history is FAILING BADLY and this straight up joke of a diversionary tactic by Obama & Co. isn't working. No traction, none. Americans aren't as dumb as Obama thinks they are.
Obama took money from Hamas (look it up) and he's whining about the Chamber taking legit money from foreign companies to lobby for their business interests here in the the U.S.? Many foreign corporations have U.S. operations, come on already. Does Hamas has U.S. interests here in the U.S. and is his name is Obama?
That's Obama's core problem, he seems foreign, he acts foreign, he tours the world blaming the U.S. for ills great and small - and he has a (faux) problem with the C. of C.? By the way C.J.R. there is ample evidence of NBP wrong doing - it is being looked into AGAIN by the (inept and political smelly) DOJ, the Swift Boat attacks were VALID, and ACORN is largely disbanded and defunded and banned entirely from operating in Ohio - and those are ginned up stories? Yaaaaaaa reich.
#24 Posted by Jamesb, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 12:15 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39679326
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 04:31 PM