The Chamber of Comm— ... er, Political Campaigning
End of the Charade
NYT editorial
The airwaves are already filled with blaring political attacks masquerading as “issue ads,” such as the one in Missouri in the United States Senate race that ends with: “Call Claire McCaskill. Tell her Missouri doesn’t need government-run health care.” This ad, and dozens like it, is sponsored by the United States Chamber of Commerce, which likes to claim that it is merely educating voters about the issues rather than telling them how to vote.
A few weeks ago, though, a federal judge issued a decision that upended this system, requiring that the donors for these kinds of ads be publicly disclosed, as Congress intended in its 2002 campaign finance law, before the Federal Election Commission incorrectly changed the rules.
So will the Chamber of Commerce, which sponsors more political advertising than any other group, follow the clear language of the court order and begin revealing the names of its donors? Of course not.
Secrecy is at the core of its political strategy and its business model. The chamber is worried that the public might learn which companies pay for the biennial barrage of negative ads, allowing voters to decide whether to take their business elsewhere.
(More here.)
NYT editorial
The airwaves are already filled with blaring political attacks masquerading as “issue ads,” such as the one in Missouri in the United States Senate race that ends with: “Call Claire McCaskill. Tell her Missouri doesn’t need government-run health care.” This ad, and dozens like it, is sponsored by the United States Chamber of Commerce, which likes to claim that it is merely educating voters about the issues rather than telling them how to vote.
A few weeks ago, though, a federal judge issued a decision that upended this system, requiring that the donors for these kinds of ads be publicly disclosed, as Congress intended in its 2002 campaign finance law, before the Federal Election Commission incorrectly changed the rules.
So will the Chamber of Commerce, which sponsors more political advertising than any other group, follow the clear language of the court order and begin revealing the names of its donors? Of course not.
Secrecy is at the core of its political strategy and its business model. The chamber is worried that the public might learn which companies pay for the biennial barrage of negative ads, allowing voters to decide whether to take their business elsewhere.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
“Secrecy is at the core of its political strategy and its business model.” Sort of reminds me of the statement made by Ms. Pelosi “They have to vote for it in order to find out what is in it.” Too bad one is an organization which should have the right of privacy and the other is an elected official.
Post a Comment
<< Home