Political Hotsheet
October 11, 2010 3:14 PM

Democrats Keep Hitting GOP on Secret Foreign Donations

Updated 4:12 p.m. Eastern Time

Democrats and their supporters appear convinced that tying Republican outside groups to shadowy foreign donors is a successful strategy for rallying their base in the midterm elections. The repeated attacks come despite the fact that Democrats do not have solid proof to back up the allegations.

At a Philadelphia fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee yesterday, President Obama said Republicans in Congress "are being helped along this year by special-interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts ... without ever disclosing who's behind all these attack ads. You don't know. It could be the oil industry. It could be the insurance industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations."

The same point appears in a new attack ad on Republican Mark Kirk, who is seeking President Obama's old Senate seat in Illinois. In the spot, which is above and comes from the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action, an announcer says the right-leaning business group the Chamber of Commerce is spending $75 million to help Republicans like Kirk get elected. (The Chamber has also backed a handful of Democrats.)

Says an announcer: "And where has the Chamber been getting some of their money lately? From foreign corporations in countries like China, Russia and India, the same companies that threaten American jobs. It's time to connect the dots."

In an ad over the weekend, the DNC made the same argument. Here's the script:

"Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie -- they're Bush cronies. The US Chamber of Commerce -- they're shills for big business. And they're stealing our democracy. Spending Millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they're even taking secret foreign money to influence our elections. It's incredible, Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush Crowd and the Chamber of Commerce - stop stealing our democracy."

The claims all stem from a post at liberal blog Think Progress saying its investigation had revealed that the Chamber takes foreign money to finance political ads. The Chamber vehemently denied the claims, and the New York Times wrote that "there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual."

Democrats have responded that the only way for the Chamber to clear up the matter is to make its donors public - something the group refuses to do. Corporations and individuals use groups like the Chamber in order to influence political races without the outside world knowing about their involvement.

While there are outside groups on both the right and left involved in such activity, right-leaning groups have reportedly spent eight times as much as their left-leaning counterparts.

The Democrats' rhetoric is aimed at generating voter enthusiasm for the midterm elections. The goal is to motivate a small percentage of people whose vote could be the difference in a close election.

"This strategy shows that the Democrats are focused on a very small part of the map and they're just trying to drive Democrats out with a very specific message so they can win enough races to keep control of Congress, not to win all the races," said CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. "To get Democrats to turn out, the president's bringing out one more boogeyman. He brought out John Boehner now he's bringing out Karl Rove and the Bush White House."

On CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, Bob Schieffer pressed White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod on whether he has proof for his claims about the influence of foreign money, which Axelrod called "a threat to our democracy."

Said Schieffer: "This part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts. Mr. Axelrod, do you have any evidence that it's anything other than peanuts?"

Replied Axelrod: "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that, but they won't release any information about where their campaign money is coming from."

The president has previously complained that the Supreme Court decision easing restrictions on campaign spending, known as Citizens United, "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities."

Some on the left don't think Democrats will get much traction with their attacks on the Chamber and anonymous outside group spending.

"Real talk: Demanding financial disclosures from the Chamber of Commerce will not help Dems win the election," Tweeted liberal commentator Ezra Klein.


Brian Montopoli is a political reporter for CBSNews.com. You can read more of his posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter.
Tags:
Campaign ,
Foreign ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
Democrats ,
Spending ,
Outside Groups ,
Money
Topics:
Campaign 2010

Add a Comment See all 204 Comments
by r9119111 October 12, 2010 9:16 AM EDT
Money laundering used to be illegal.
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji October 12, 2010 9:12 AM EDT
Lest we forget, the Republicans want tax cuts to off-shore American jobs. In addition, they want to get rid of the minimum wage law and unemployment insurance. Put it all together, and employers will scramble to get cheaper wages. Even if you think your job is "safe", your boss will find some one who will work longer hours for less money. So vote GOP, and a pink slip is guaranteed. (Or be willing to accept a 20 to 40 % salary cut without health insurance.) A GOP victory will be a party for Wall Street, but working people will get the shaft.
Reply to this comment
by msimamaji October 12, 2010 9:08 AM EDT
Let's look at the price of oil. It's rising. My question: How money are Arab oil companies giving Republicans through money-laundering. The US Chamber of Commerce refuses to come clean and reveal their funding sources, so do Republican politicians. A Congress controlled by Democrats can at least do some investigating about the price of oil - not so with Republicans who get their funding from oil companies, both here and abroad. So turn this country over to the GOP and watch the price of gasoline soar.
Reply to this comment
by chevyhotrod October 12, 2010 9:05 AM EDT
by abbe91 October 12, 2010 7:47 AM EDT The GOP should try to come with their own solutions to the mess they created instead of proposing the same old thing (remember 1994) and trying to win elections playing with the discontent of people and making sure to pour enough money in them, wherever this money comes from______________Yes, I remember 1994 and the following years we had a balanced budget and surpluses. Remember, all federal spending is controlled by the House of Reps, not the President.
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 October 12, 2010 9:11 AM EDT
In 1994 the GOP promissed to bring transparency in the house. They never did. Nothing new.
by propitiation October 12, 2010 9:01 AM EDT
Yes, I know...I know...another Chart? Just some for FACTS VS. ACCUSATIONS. No - U.S. Government Spending As Percent of G.D.P. 2005 - 34.79% 2006 - 35.06% 2007 - 34.98% 2008 - 36.94% 2009 - 42.32% 2010 - 43.85% To give one a comparison in 1996 during the Clinton Administration it was 34.69% Since the present Democrats have come into power the sharp increase is one of the worst in the history of the United States. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Reply to this comment
by thechooch1 October 12, 2010 9:15 AM EDT
propitiation isn't it shame we have to spend all that money to get us out of the deep recession brought on by republican governance.
by the-one-king October 12, 2010 8:56 AM EDT
Lets stick to the facts .............
Reply to this comment
by the-one-king October 12, 2010 8:55 AM EDT
The economy began its nose dive when Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. For the first four quarters of the newly Democratic Congress -- the four quarters of 2007 -- the annualized GDP growth rates were, in order, 1.2 percent, 3.2 percent, 3.6 percent and 2.1 percent. Each quarter showed positive growth, and the average for those four quarterly figures was 2.5 percent -- not much lower than the average growth during the previous 54 months....Officially, the recession started in December 2007. In the first quarter of 2008, GDP fell by seven-tenths of 1 percent. It rebounded briefly to 1.5 percent growth in the second quarter of 2008, then got really rocky in the third quarter of 2008. During that quarter and the following two, GDP fell by 2.7 percent, 5.4 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. If you date the "nose dive" to the first quarter of 2008 -- the earliest quarter with negative growth -- that was a full year after the Democratic takeover.
Reply to this comment
by the-one-king October 12, 2010 8:49 AM EDT
If Congress the Obama regime allows Bush-era tax cuts to expire, New Year's Day will usher in the nation's biggest tax increase since the end of World War II, tax watchdogs say, and that may be only the beginning. It's time to end the rule of the Obama regime.
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 October 12, 2010 9:09 AM EDT
For one thing, I'm not sure it's worth replying to an post so out of context, but when you let a tax cut expire, you basically get back to the situation as it was before the tax cut, and that's not the end of WWII. For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963.For the 1964 tax year, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was lowered to 77%, and then to 70% for tax years 1965 through 1981. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986. For tax year 1987, the highest marginal tax rate was 38.5% for individuals. It was lowered to 33% for tax years 1988 through 1990. For the 1991 and 1992 tax years, the top marginal rate was lowered to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress. In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted an increase in the top marginal rate to 39.6% for the 1993 tax year, where it remained through tax year 2000. In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted an eventual lowering of the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this was done in stages: with a highest marginal rate of 39.1% for 2001, then 38.6% for 2002 and finally 35% for years 2003 through 2010.
by irreverent1-2009 October 12, 2010 8:49 AM EDT
Republican politicians might as well be wearing the People's Republic of China flag pins on their jackets instead of the American flag.
Reply to this comment
by propitiation October 12, 2010 8:48 AM EDT
Democrats can't prove any of this? Here's something that one can prove. The raising of the National Debt to $13.6 Trillion: http://www.federalbudget.com/ OR LOOK AT THE FACT REGARDING THE FEDERAL DEFICIT JUST SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OFFICE: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/ Look at facts people! Forget about accusations this election season that cannot be proven!
Reply to this comment
See all 204 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com. Follow us on Facebook.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
West Virginia's Final Campaign Push

Our daily Web show, Washington Unplugged, gives an insider's view of politics & those that make it happen.

More Washington Unplugged
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER
CBS News on Facebook