Top Ten Reasons Why Black Leaders Are Ignoring President Obama’s Attack on Social Security

After a decades-long drumbeat led by the Peterson Foundation, corporate media, Wall Street and their minions of both parties, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are under attack. The current raid is being led by nobody less than Barack Obama himself. Only Nixon could go to China, only Clinton could end welfare, and only a black Democrat can undermine Social Security. But where is black leadership? Why are they silent? We think we know…

Top Ten Reasons Why Black Leaders Are Ignoring President Obama’s Good Cop-Bad Cop Attack on Social Security

by BAR Managing Editor Bruce A. Dixon

In the full week following the November 10 release of draft proposals by President Obama’s Commission on fiscal Responsibility, also known as the Cat Food Commission, the silence of black leadership has been deafening. Among other things, the president’s commission would cut Social Security benefits and exacerbate unemployment by raising the retirement age, would lower taxes still further for corporations and wealthy individuals, while instituting co-payments for all veterans medical services, all in the name of austerity and stabilizing the national deficit.

The president’s political strategy, as Glen Ford pointed out last month, is clear. Obama’s commission and its draconian cuts will be the bad cop. President Obama will then play the part of “good cop” offering some “compromise,” a point between actual hell, and just a very, very hot and uncomfortable place. When Bill Clinton did this, it was called “triangulation.”

But the burning question is this: Why is there no visible opposition among black leadership to these awful economic measures, measures which penalize every working and poor person in the United States? Since an outsize number of these are African Americans, that ought to make it a black issue. Nevertheless, black advocacy organizations, the black churches, who, to hear them tell it, were the sole authors and inventors of the Freedom Movement, along with virtually all the black politicians, journalists, academics and opinion leaders, are silent. Why?

We think we know. Hence and herewith, we offer the top ten reasons black leaders are silent on Obama’s campaign to cut Medicaid, Medicare and social security.

Reason #10

Quite a few black “leaders” have no idea the Cat Food Commission even exists.

This kind of radical cluelessness says a lot about the content and style of their “leadership.” Let’s just say their eyes are elsewhere. Watching God, maybe, in some cases.  Lots of prominent black preachers, for instance, are busy campaigning against gays and vying for faith-based funding for their ministries. Both these pursuits consume copious amounts of time and energy, and the latter can be quite lucrative

Reason #9

Some black leaders with a vague idea that the Cat Food Commission exists haven’t read its recommendations or just aren’t paying attention.

Like the ones who have no idea at all, these are busy and important people. You can’t expect such folks to spare the time to read a 50 page report, or even talk to anybody that has. There are just so many more important things to do.

Reason #8

Some others are silent because they DO KNOW the Cat Food Commission exists.

Black leadership these days, such as it is, is dependent on corporate and foundation largesse. SCLC’s Atlanta headquarters was paid for by a major utility company. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation is run by corporate execs and puts on its annual CBC Week with funds from Wells fargo, Lockheed, Bank of America and Wal-Mart. Telecom, insurance and other corporate execs on the “business roundtables” of everyplace from the NAACP to the National Association of Black State Legislators fund the activities, provide the “research” and literally set the organizational priorities. Even the black church, once financed solely by contributions from the faithful, has become shamefully dependent on faith-based taxpayer dollars. The corporate sector which bankrolls them all has unalterably opposed Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare since their inception. None of these “leaders” will bite the hands that feed them.

Reason #7

Some of what are called “black leadership” actually believe the corporate okie-doke about Social Security already being insolvent, a Ponzi scheme, or immoral.

For a significant share of “black leadership” being a leader means getting your opinions from the Washington Post or CNN or the New York Times. These established “leaders” value being accepted by the folks they regard as their peers, their donors, their party leaders, their professional colleagues, golfing buddies and the people that fly them to conferences and endow their departments. Not foolish enough to bite the hands that feed them, many black leaders regard it as their job to take the cues of the business world and corporate media, rather than to respond to the multiple crises of debt, incarceration, housing and joblessness experienced by the great mass of ordinary black families. Corporate media and their peers say the deficit and “entitlements” are the problem, and plenty of “black leaders” actually buy this crap.

continue reading this over at Black Agenda Report

You can also peep the Hard Knock Radio Interview we did with Bruce Dixon by clicking the link below

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/65385

Why Do We Let Fox & Other Right Wing Outlets Snooker us? Everybody Owes Shirley Sherrod an Apology?

Shirley Sherrod

Below is the NAACP’s original Statement Regarding Shirley Sherrod head of the Department of Agriculture’s rural development office in Georgia, after being ‘snookered’ into thinking she was a racist based upon a video shown by Fox and other right-wing outlets..Proceeding it is the full video of Ms Sherrod’s remarks.. Her speech was about reconciliation and overcoming racial hatred.. Whats even sadder is up til now President Obama is sticking to their guns..All parties involved need to do right by Ms Sherrod starting with some major apologies.

Next everyone involved need to take firm steps to stop validating bloggers Conservative attack dog Andrew Breitbart, Fox News and other outlets who say they are news, but are really invested in spreading propaganda and finding ways to take down or aggressively support those who are out to take down their political enemies. In the case of Breibert, that was his full intention, to embarrass and discredit the NAACP-Mission Accomplished. Up til today the story was the NAACP smashes of the Tea Party and their racism  and how the oldest Civil Rights organization was making moves to become more relevant in the lives of today’s generation. All that was gone in an instant with this ‘snookering’ that took place. There are lots of lessons to be learned here.

First, we have got to stop depending upon media outlets that don’t have our best interest at heart to fully deliver our message. This is especially true of places like Fox News. There have been too many good people who have had their reputations soiled because of Fox and their unrelenting attacks. It ranges from Ludacris to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones and Yoshi Sergent to Acorn to now Shirley Sherrod. All the while this is happening, Negro after Negro goes onto one of these shows to do verbal battle with hosts who’ve set things up so you will never ever get the last word.

Second we have got to stop letting them dictate what we will and won’t talk about. This is not limited to Fox.. The other day I saw NAACP head Ben Jealous on TV disavowing the New Black Panther Party.. Why? Whatever they said or done could’ve been disavowed on your own terms years ago. Instead they become a hot button campaign for right wing zealots and suddenly the NAACP and every other Black pundit is on TV  apologozing, distancing themselves and acting like they need to be ashamed.  Not a good look. It reminds me of the old Farrakhan litmus test, where every Black person on TV had to state he did not like the Minister in order to appear creditable.

Shame on us for validating them with our presence. Shame on us for using them as the basis to go after someone who had not only the best of intentions but was setting a good example for all of us to follow. Sherrod’s speech was about reconciliation.

The NAACP would do good by investing time and energy into establishing a series of well heeled local media outlets that speak unapologetically to our issues and forget having to explain and apologizee on outlets that little or no interest in giving us equal footing.

-Davey D-

*** Important Update July 21 2010** According to CNN the Agriculture department is now ‘Considering’ Sherrod’s resignation.. Here’s what they said…

(CNN) — Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said early Wednesday that he will review the case of a former Agriculture Department official who resigned after a video clip surfaced of her discussing a white farmer.

“I am, of course, willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner,” Vilsack said in a statement.

Shirley Sherrod — an African-American — resigned Monday under pressure after the video clip first appeared on a conservative website and later on Fox News. In the video, she seemed to tell an audience she did not do her utmost to help a white farmer avoid foreclosure. However, Sherrod later said the clip only shows part of her comments, and that she tells the story of her experience — from nearly a quarter century ago when she was not a federal employee — to illustrate the importance of moving beyond race. continue reading here http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/21/agriculture.employee.usda/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&feature=player_embedded

NAACP’s Original Statement Condemning Sherrod

According to NAACP head Ben Jealous, he has since called, spoken with and apologized to Sherrod for the remarks below….

NAACP Head Ben Jealous credit: Jeffrey Macmill

NAACP Head Ben Jealous credit: Jeffrey Macmill

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office’s attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod’s behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture’s well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod’s statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

The NAACP will continue to advance the ideals of America and fight for freedom, justice and fairness for all Americans.

N.A.A.C.P. Retracts Bias Accusation

By SARAH WHEATON

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/us/21sherrod.html

The president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People apologized Tuesday to a black civil servant whose ouster the civil rights organization had originally cheered.

Last week, the N.A.A.C.P. garnered headlines when it accused parts of the Tea Party movement of being racist. Then, over the weekend, a video emerged of Shirley Sherrod, the head of the Department of Agriculture’s rural development office in Georgia, speaking at an N.A.A.C.P. event in Douglas, Ga., in March. In a two-and-a-half-minute clip, Ms. Sherrod seemed to explain that she discriminated against a white farmer 24 years ago.

Ms. Sherrod said she was pressed to resign after the video whipped around the Web. But she said the clip was misleading. According to Ms. Sherrod and people who have seen the full video, she went on to say in her speech that she had learned from working with the farmer that all people must overcome their prejudices.

After seeing the full video, the N.A.A.C.P. said Tuesday that it had been “snookered” into believing Ms. Sherrod had acted with bias.

“We are in a moment where there is heightened sensitivity and concern, including within the N.A.A.C.P., about discrimination against white people,” said Benjamin T. Jealous, the group’s president. He said the N.A.A.C.P. wanted “to be clear that there’s a single yardstick by which civil rights are judged.”

In the video, which received much airtime on the Fox News Channel on Monday, Ms. Sherrod recalled working for a nonprofit organization in Georgia.

“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land,” Ms. Sherrod said in the video. “So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”

The video was spotlighted by Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger known for promoting videos that emerged last year and ultimately brought down Acorn, the community organizing group. By Monday evening, Ms. Sherrod was out of her job. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack cited the agency’s “zero-tolerance” policy on discrimination in explaining her ouster.

Ms. Sherrod took to the airwaves, especially those of CNN, on Tuesday. She told the network that the N.A.A.C.P. was “the reason why this happened.”

“They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that,” she said.

Mr. Breitbart reached a similar conclusion, though from a different perspective. “They’re trying to make this about me and Shirley Sherrod. This is about the N.A.A.C.P.,” he said by phone. He said that the civil rights group had “spent an inordinate amount of airtime trying to brand the Tea Party as racist” while tolerating racism itself.

It’s About to Get Nasty:How Corporations Are Secretly Gearing up for the 2010 Elections

Share/Bookmark//

There’s so much one can say and write about last month’s Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to weigh in and spend unlimited amounts on campaign contributions. One thing is certain-it’s about to get nasty and ugly.  The bottom line is, no matter how many ways people try to justify this ruling under the umbrella of ‘free speech’, it’s only a matter of time before the realization hits that it’s not exactly Free Speech when only the rich and powerful have access and can afford to voice their opinions on traditional powerful mediums.

We often forget that radio and other media outlets are corporations and with all the criticisms we have about the bias of news outlets like Fox or if you’re on the other side of the political spectrum, the so-called ‘left leaning’ media, that in itself should be proof  that an unbridled corporate voice could be really, really bad. The fact that our airwaves are now dominated by over-the-top political pundits who have become more and more strident and divisive over the past 5-10 years should have rung a few alarms, but sadly we are at a day and time where people have been lulled into believing that

1-There’s always opportunity to lay out one’s ideas via the internet.

2-Things aren’t  so bad as long as they can see or hear their own political viewpoint.

Look for corporations like AT&T to take full advantge of the new Supreme Court Ruling by campaigning to eliminate free speech on the Internet

A couple of things to keep in mind… First and foremost, we better make note that some of these corporations who are now free to spend billions are spending billions of dollars on law makers via lobbying efforts to cripple the internet and stifle the opportunity for the little guy to reach millions. Companies like AT&T and Comcast have been working night and day to get rid of Net Neutrality, which has allowed a free and open internet up til now. As we noted in recent stories thse corporate telecoms outfits are spending millions to sponsor events put on by law makers that represent communities of color as well as traditional Civil Rights organizations.

As unbelievable as it sounds, the end result has been the majority of members in both the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses siding with AT&T and other telecoms that want to bring about a restricted and consolidated internet.  Even more disturbing is seeing organizations like LULAC and the NAACP who have held events heavily sponsored by AT&T take supportive positions.

What’s even sadder is noting that these expensive lobbying efforts were happening before the Supreme Court ruling, where these corporate telecoms still had constraints and rules that limited them. All thats about to change big time. One of the first places you are likely to see the impact of this Supreme Court decision will be in the form of aggressive campaigns launched by the telecoms supporting lawmakers who are willing to eliminate Net Neutrality and cripple ‘free speech’ for the average John Doe on the internet. How ironic that the granting of unrestricted speech to corporations will result in them using  likely their far reaching destructive power to shut down free speech for others.

2 or 3 years ago AT&T brought computers for Chicago congressman Bobby Rush who then turned around and voted to eliminated Net Neutrality via the COPE Act

Many of these corporate telecoms simply don’t want a blogger who writes from home to be on the same playing field as a big newspaper or giant media outlets.  They want faster and more efficient access to be granted to those who can pay and like I said earlier,  millions of dollars have already been put in the coffers of Black and Brown leaders in both Congress and Civil Rights organizations who have had their votes and support brought and paid for…

Now that the Supreme Court has unbridled these corporations, you will see these efforts increase as these corporations will start looking for influencial groups and individuals who desperately need money in these economically challenged times for crucial projects and events or as was the case with Congressman Bobby Rush in Chicago, new computers for a school and write them big checks in an ‘unspoken’/’Unwritten’ exchange for votes, support or silence.  Many law makers will go for the short-term relief  and not concern themselves with long-term damage.  We all need to pay close attention because we are about to see some strange and disturbing political pairings.

The other widely held viewpoint is-as long as one can see or hear their own political viewpoint via a popular media outlet, then there’s no reason to trip off the Supreme Court’s ruling.  This is shortsighted and rooted in the belief that one’s favorite medium will always be forever and in a position to effectively champion ‘the cause’. The recent closing and filing of bankruptcy by progressive leaning Air America should serve as a strong reminder this is not always the case.

 Air America was supposed to be a viable alternative to the increasing use of right-wing talk show hosts on corporate radio, many who were accused of being racist, homophobic and carriers of ‘Hate Speech’.  With Air America gone there has been no replacement and even if one makes the argument that it wasn’t as popular as its right-wing counterparts, it nevertheless served an audience and represented an  important voice and political perspective that is now is gone. Where does one go now, keeping in mind the assault to corporations to cripple free sppech and control the Internet?

Glenn Beck led a corporate backed assault against political foes in the Obama White House. The end result was two were forced to resign

How bad can things get?  Well, we’ve all seen the type of damage that can be inflicted when a corporation pours money and resources into unrelenting attacks in political arenas. Fox News host Glenn Beck‘s vicious on air assaults on White House appointees Van Jones and Yoshi Sergent are two prime examples.  Beck was relentless and there was very few opportunities and outlets for Jones and his supporters to really strike back. The end result was both Jones and Sergent resigning and an emboldened Beck promising to intensify his crusade and go after other White House appointees. If Beck’s attacks weren’t an example of  corporate free speech gone wild then I don’t know what is.. What i do know is that after last month’s ruling  such attacks will increases tenfold with very few protections for those lacking resources and access.

On the political flipside to the Beck’s attacks, within urban America we have Radio One, the largest Black owned radio outlet which has long come under fire by leadership in the African American community. many have lambasted the outlet for not taking advantage of its enormous reach and influence within the Black community to help raise political awareness and social consciousness on a variety of important  topics versus dumbing down the audience and relying on the constant ressurection of troubling stereotypes of ignorance and buffonary. Radio one has noted that they have a well respected talk show line up which includes Civil Rights leader Al Sharpton and lawyer Warren Ballentine among others..However, that  punditry is rarely shared or exposed on their day-to-day music oriented stations which attract the largest number of listeners.

Radio One owner Cathy Hughes is using her popular media corporation to try and unseat Black lawmakers who she disagrees with over a proposed bill that she says will weaken her radio stations.

Last year Congressman John Conyers introduced a bill HR 848 which would force radio stations to pay an extra tax to record labels for each song they played. It’s a policy I definitely don’t agree and it sparked a big debate within many communities. Some took the proposed bill as a referendum against lack of politicalness of Black radio and Radio One in particular and came out in full support.  This resulted in Radio One owner Cathy Hughes taking to the airwaves and running a series of in-house political ads and editorials designed to unseat Black lawmakers including Conyers and  Houston’s Sheila Jackson Lee.  Hughes took things a step further by refusing to run ads or editorials that countered her concerns. The 2010 elections will show how impactful those ads were. It was the topic of discussion during a heated panel I sat on during the most recent Congressional Black Caucus gathering where there was a lot of back and forth and haggling to squelch the assaults. Again I bring this up because all this took place  prior to the Supreme Court ruling. Imagine how much crazier it will get now that corporations are free to say and do as they wish…

White House appointee Van Jones was a victim to vicious corporate sponsored attacks

The Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations the right to weigh in and contribute to elections unrestricted is not only dangerous, but one that many including those who seem to think its ok will come to regret sooner or later.  Those who support this ruling are those who simply have not been on the receiving end of such attacks and influence. The nature of corporations in America is grow and make as much profit as possible and eliminate an and all obstacles in way of its goals. Right now its easy to dismiss this because a Yoshi Sergent, Van Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee etc, don’t impact the day to day lives of most people. But after those victims of corporate assaults are eliminated who’s next? Will it be your church? civic group?, union? or son, daughter, mother or father voicing a strong opinion to an important issue?

What happens to the voice of coal miners in West Virginia when the owners decide they wanna drown out the complaints of  workers about low pay or shoddy work conditions and put someone in office who will reinforce their policies via legislation?  What happens to voice of nurses and doctors who find themselves drowned out by powerful  HMOs or Big Pharma companies who may be cutting corners or doing something that workers find unsettling?  What happens when you live in a small town or community and have elected rep who you like because he or she speaks to your needs, but those opinions rub some corporate owner the wrong way and he decides to launch a crusade against that small town official even if he lives thousands of miles away. Folks better start taking note.. The price for freedom is to be forever vigilant. In 2010 we best note that not all attacks are made with guns and swords.  Sometimes it comes with a pen as demonstrated by the Supreme Court  and their reckless decision last month.

-Davey D-

below is an article detailing some of the moves being made as corporations gear up for the 2010 election season..

————————————————————————————————-

How Corporations Are Secretly Moving Millions to Fund Political Ads

Gaping legal holes allow corporations to spend enormous sums on politics without leaving a paper trail.
  

original Aletrnet/Raw Story link http://bit.ly/d8nQy6

 stockwallcorporate Exclusive: How corporations secretly move millions to fund political adsThe Supreme Court’s seismic January ruling that corporations are free to spend unlimited amounts of their profits to advertise for or against candidates may have been the latest shakeup of campaign finance – but gaping holes already allow corporations to spend enormous sums without leaving a paper trail, a Raw Story investigation has found.

Campaign finance experts confirmed that though disclosure rules remained intact in the new Supreme Court decision, there are effective methods to circumvent them.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an attorney and campaign finance expert at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, said corporations already effectively end-run campaign finance law by shuffling money through trade associations.

“One of their favorites right now is spending through trade associations,” Torres-Spelliscy said.

Trade associations are considered tax-exempt non-profit organizations under US law. While they must report contributions received from other corporations to the Internal Revenue Service, the document itself remains confidential and is not

“Money coming through the trade association doesn’t get disclosed,” Torres-Spelliscy explained. “You can’t tell if it came from particular corporations.”

For example, she said, “The disclaimer form is likely to just say, ‘This is brought to you by the Chamber of Commerce,’ with no extra ability to see behind that.”

The Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest trade association representing at least 300,000 businesses and organizations.

A fellow non-profit that works on campaign finance, the Center for Political Accountability, calls trade associations “the Swiss bank accounts of American politics.”

“What was the lesson from Watergate?” Torres-Spelliscy quipped. “Follow the money?”

Health insurers, pharmaceutical companies embrace loophole

Trade associations such as America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have had an enormous impact on the health insurance reform bills pending in Congress. In fact, AHIP was recently found to have solicited $10 million to $20 million from leading health insurance companies — UnitedHealth, Wellpoint, Aetna, Cigna and Humana among them — and funneled it secretly to the US Chamber of Commerce to underwrite anti-reform attack ads.

Asked about the story, the Chamber’s top lobbyist told the reporter, “No comment. We never disclose funding or what we’re going to do.” The Chamber of Commerce did not respond to a Raw Story request for comment.

Raw Story’s 2008 award-nominated investigative series The Permanent Republican Majority noted that, “Despite its seemingly bipartisan name, the Chamber of Commerce has operated as a pro-Republican powerhouse since the fervently anti-regulation Thomas J. Donahue became president in 1997.” Raw’s Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane uncovered, for instance, that the Chamber, under Donahue’s leadership, had an indirect role in the defeat and political prosecution of Governor Don Siegelman and in targeting sitting judges in contested state elections.

President of the Center for Political Accountability Bruce Freed told Raw Story that trade associations also use other trade associations in this manner as “blinds for ads” to “launder their money.”

“It’s a way for the industry to avoid responsibility for those ads,” Freed remarked.

Karl Sandstrom, the Center’s lead counsel, noted that it isn’t only the public that remains in the dark over the “Swiss bank” loophole. He said that when the Center surveyed boards of directors of companies, the majority of them just assumed their businesses’ contributions supporting political ads were being disclosed.

“It’s just almost a working assumption,” Sandstrom said.

Most of the boards of directors, he said, were “shocked to learn there is no disclosure.”

While these types of contributions prior to the new Court ruling could only be used for “issue ads” — political advertisements that do not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate — many such ads were often accused of blurring this line and having nearly the same impact as express advocacy ads.

Christian Hillard, spokesman for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), confirmed Tuesday that the FEC has “no authority over issue ads.”

Corporate funding of issue ads through trade associations has “no filing requirements with us,” he told Raw Story.

New ruling’s impact on the trade association loophole

Now that corporations, including trade associations, are free to spend funds on political ads – which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party but which expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate – the line between funding issue ads and express advocacy ads has been largely erased.

Campaign finance experts expressed grave concern in conversations with Raw Story.

Paul S. Ryan, an attorney and expert in federal election law at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C., asserted that Congress did not contemplate this new Court ruling when it wrote the laws for disclosure related to independent expenditures or electioneering communications, because at the time such corporate spending was prohibited. Ryan said that it’s imperative that the FEC addresses disclosure requirements pertaining to this decision.

“Take hypothetically a group like the Chamber of Commerce,” he explained. “The Chamber collects money from lots of other corporations. So the question becomes: What kind of disclosure are we really going to get when the FEC gets around to promulgating rules to implement this Supreme Court decision?”

“Yes, the Chamber needs to file paperwork with the FEC saying we ran an ad saying Vote for Candidate Smith,” he continued. “But does the Chamber need to tell the FEC where it got its money to pay for that ad? And when the FEC adopts its rules to implement this new Supreme Court decision, the FEC will likely say, ‘Chamber of Commerce, you only need to tell us where you got your money if that money was given to you specifically designated to run election ads.’”

Ryan and other campaign finance experts told Raw Story this is a simple dodge.

“It’s child’s play to get around that type of disclosure,” Ryan said, adding, “It’s unclear whether the Court was being naive or disingenuous” when it touted disclosure provisions during its decision.

He explained that, for example, all the Chamber of Commerce has to do is tell other corporations, “Give us money and we’ll make sure it advances your business interests.”

“So as long as the donors don’t say to the Chamber, ‘We’re giving you this money to run political ads,’ as long as they refrain from saying that, then their identity can continue to be shrouded or hidden from the public.”

The Center for Accountability’s Sandstrom agreed, saying this type of disclosure “is easily avoided” and adding, “As long as you don’t designate it, you won’t be disclosed.”

The Chamber of Commerce, in fact, argued against any disclosure in the Citizens United case.

“Their first brief filed in Citizens United is on the disclosure issue,” Sandstrom said. “They argued that they would raise substantially more money the more they could keep it anonymous.”

FEC spokesman Hillard said that the FEC was still examining the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision and would not comment on anything pertaining directly to that ruling, including disclosure provisions.

 Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner