"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
wapo is wingnut, everyone knows that
why EZRA KLEIN was the founder of JOURNOLIST, and we all know those professional leftists in need of drug testing take their marching orders straight from SARAH PALIN herself!
woodward and beck---they're pretty much UNDISTINGUISHABLE
Questionable contributions to political campaigns happen all the time. You hope that the candidate is honest, uses the proper security checks and return any and all questionable contributions promptly. And by all accounts, Obama's campaign committee returned the funds once the error was "reported". Of course, we can reasonably assume that had the error not been reported, his campaign would have retained the funds. But honestly, what campaign wouldn't? The issue in this case, however, was that under campaign rules contributions from private citizens have a maximum limit, and apparently Obama's campaign committe allowed a donor to go over the limit. Not good!Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.
The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.
Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest.
Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards's presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors' names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.
Election lawyer Brett Kappel said the FEC has never grappled with the question of cash cards. "The whole system is set up for them to accept the payment, then determine whether it is legal or not. And if it's not, send it back. That's what the statute requires," he said.
In the case where the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCoC) is concerned, you don't know if the corporation that makes contributions are foreign or domestic. This is what the Tillman Act (upheld by the Supreme Court under both Austion v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v FED). This article from the New York Book Review entitled, "The Decision that Threatens Democracy," by Ronald Dworkin dated May 13, 2010, details how the five Conservative SC Justices undermined the Tillman Act and the pitfalls for allowing corporations to make campaign contributions that pay for TV ads for either a specific political candidate or a political party.
I'll leave it you readers to determine the constitutionality of this "freedom of speech" encroachment.
Let me get this straight. Obama didn't have any actual evidence that the chamber of commerce took illegal donations? He figured that he would say it and since he's The Messiah it would automatically be accepted as the gospel?
How embarrassing is it to be a Liberal nowadays?
Bob Shieffer: "is this really all you got?"
Again, as no one has offered proof, it is hardly factual. In fact, I'm not sure you've made a factual statement since you began posting here.A pack of corporations anonymously ganging up on American democracy
Like there isn't ant empirical evidence to support the Democratic accusations in the first place?I don't have any idea whether the overall White House and Dem attack is working or not. But it seems questionable for folks to conclude already that it's a failure, especially since there isn't any empirical evidence to support that claim.
Last edited by Troubadour; 10-12-10 at 10:32 PM.
Schieffer’s response pretty much sums it all up: “Is that the best you can do?”
It appears that it is, as the attacks will continue until Election Day. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has promised that the President will not back away from the charge and will repeat the lines about needing to see donors and open up their books to prove they’re who they say they are (a position, as Jake Tapper brilliantly put to Axelrod, that sounds a lot like Birtherism). And the Democratic National Committee, as mentioned, has put out a national ad accusing the Chamber of using foreign money to buy elections, an ad that Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik calls the new low in midterm mud and likens to McCarthyism.Like the man says... 'Is that the best you've got?'These attacks may satisfy some urges among the liberal base, but they are not playing well with the rest of the nation. There are no answers on unemployment, the economy, Iran, uncertainty on health care and taxation – just that the Chamber might be using foreign money to buy commercials. Even if the charge somehow stuck and ended up discrediting the Chamber in some way, how in the world would that change the electoral reality for Democrats and Republicans?
It’s a move of desperation that should quell any talks of a Democratic surge, a bounce that has been largely invisible in the polls. The attacks demonstrate that, instead of pointing to their record of accomplishments, this administration seems to perpetually need a dramatic villain of some kind in order to put forward themselves as a positive alternative. It underlines that those accomplishments are indeed thin, and we ought to be wary of those who would use a branch of government as a political cudgel against those that disagree with them.