A quick look at the week that was in the world of political dark money...
-- Total raised by super-PACs (so far): $218 million
-- Ratio of spending by conservative super-PACs to liberal super-PACs: 7.7 to 1
[...]
This Week in Dark Money
by Gavin Aronsen, motherjones.com -- Jun. 1, 2012
If Money is Speech, shouldn't we have a right to know -- exactly WHO is speaking to us?
One would assume so ... and one would be wrong.
New disclosure rulings recently attempted to apply fresh sunlight to this Dark Money game.
But the Corporate Persons, being the soulless automatons that they are, immediately found a way around the new disclosure requirements. They really DO prefer to work in the shadows, you know ...
First the new disclosure rulings regarding this anonymous Corporate Money, that is earmarked to become politcal "Free Speech" (ie Dark Money).
Democrats make headway in push for transparency on ‘issue ads’
by T.W. Farnam, washingtonpost.com -- Apr 4, 2012
Democrats finally caught a break on their effort to increase regulation of money in politics last week when a federal judge in Washington threw out a loophole in disclosure requirements.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Federal Election Commission had overstepped its authority in 2007 when it issued rules allowing groups that produce so-called “issue ads” to withhold the names of those funding the ads. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) had challenged the regulations.
[...]
“This is going to be a long fight, but I think we will prevail in the end,” Van Hollen said in an interview. “I think voters overwhelmingly support the idea of greater transparency because they understand the connection between greater transparency and greater accountability.”
[...]
Not so fast Chris -- those Corporate 'Powers that Be' are really much more effective when no one can see them "pulling the strings."
What's behind curtain Number 2, Vanna? Is a Free Car or the Goat?
Chamber says it will evade disclosure ruling by tweaking ads
by Dan Eggen, washingtonpost.com -- May 30, 2012
Watchdog groups cheered a federal court ruling earlier this year aimed at revealing the secret donors behind many political interest groups, calling it a bold step in favor of disclosure.
But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to spend more than $50 million during the 2012 election cycle, said this week that it has a simple strategy for getting around the ruling: By changing the focus of its ads to specifically support or oppose candidates, it will not have to disclose any of its donors.
[...]
The focus of the dispute is political advertising run by nonprofit organizations that are not required to reveal their funding sources publicly. Most of the advertising aired in connection with the 2012 general election campaign has come from such non-disclosing groups, suggesting that much of the political spending over the next six months will come from sources invisible to the public.
[...]
Oh, Too Bad! The American People are going to get the Goat! Again.
A media storm of anonymous Goats (also known as Political Ads) again this voting season. What a Deal!
50 Million dollars worth from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone -- of course you'll never know it's them
-- that's how Corporate Persons like it. No Accountability. No Audit trails.
Karen Finney explained it this way on the MHP Show, roughly put:
-------
These Super-PAC funders fight disclosure, because putting their names on Ads could impact their business in a negative way.
But, if Money IS Speech -- then don't I have a right to use my Speech -- my Money -- to buy products from those companies holding views and positions that I agree with?
By NOT disclosing, aren't they blocking My Free Speech? (... blocking my informed purchases?)
-------
In this social-media-age of ALEC boycotts and instant Rush Outrage, it does seem that Ms Finney has a very discussion-worthy point. Don't you think?
Is Dark Money blocking your Free Speech to be an Informed Consumer -- by NOT disclosing who is behind their (not-necessarily-truthful) Political Ads?
Do regular People have a right to know -- which Corporate Persons are trotting out all those annoying Goats, this upcoming political ad season?
If it was the Super Bowl -- we would know. A hundred-fold over.
Hmmm? ... curious contradiction there ... Don't you think?