"Maybe instead of attacking others on taxes. Romney should come clean on his." (VIDEO)

The continuing saga of Mitt Romney's (lack of) Tax Returns (VIDEO)

Why should we be entitled to less information about Mitt Romney than Mitt Romney requires of Paul Ryan?

Probably because we don't count for very much in his eyes.

Funny you should mention "Blind Trusts" Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (VIDEO)

So Paul Ryan (he of the Paul Ryan budget which destroys Medicare) goes on Face The Nation, and says this:

“People are not worried about the details as to when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital to save the Olympics or the details about his assets, which are managed by a blind trust for Pete’s sake,” Ryan said on “Face the Nation.” “They’re worried about their jobs and their family’s future.

Funny thing that:

Uhhh, Romney submitted a disclosure form to the Government last month, and may have lied on it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Uhhh, Professor Carmel...you want proof? David Corn of Mother Jones may have found you some proof:

Like all presidential candidates, Romney has to submit a financial disclosure statement to the Office of Government Ethics. He filed his most recent one last month, and the disclosure contains a very clearly stated footnote:

Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake [Olympics] Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

There's no ambiguity there: not involved in Bain operations in any way. But that's not true. 

As I reported, in November 1999, Romney signed a SEC filing that noted he was the "sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President" of several Bain entities that had acquired 22 percent of medical-waste firm Stericycle. The form also stated that Romney shared "voting and dispositive power with respect to" 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle "in his capacity as sole shareholder" of the Bain entities that were part of this $75 million investment. 

To repeat: Romney signed a Bain document pursuant to a $75 million deal. That would appear to qualify as involvement in Bain activity. And according to a Bain spokeswoman, Romney signed such documents more than once. She told me that after February 1999 Romney was a "signatory on certain documents" until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002.

Still more information from Think Progress on just who's trying to buy our elections (VIDEO)

Lee Fang has some more stuff up about the unlimited flood of Corporate Money flooding into this Election:

The numbers below reflect a bare minimum, and in many cases these corporations have paid ten times the amount of their regular dues to the Chamber in the past two years:

Microsoft’s corporate disclosures state that the company paid the Chamber up to $999,999 in 2009 and up to $999,999 in 2010 in its minimum dues.

Proctor and Gamble paid the Chamber $3.2 million in 2009.

Outsourcing giant CSC, which specializes in IT outsourcing, paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.

Intel paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in yearly dues ($100,000 in 2010, and what appears to be $100,000 in 2009).

Drug company Merck paid the Chamber $234,000 in 2008, and still counts itself as a dues-paying member of the Chamber.

Utility company Dominion Resources gave the Chamber $100,000 in 2009.

On the Chamber’s Egypt Business Council website, Apache Corporation, British American Tobacco, The Blackstone Group, The Boeing Company, Cargill USA, CitiGroup, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft Corporation, PepsiCo, Intel Corporation, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc, Philip Morris International combined committed an additional $375,000 to the Chamber for 2009-2010.

There is way more at Think Progress.

By the way, didn't Jon Stewart just talk about Coke vs. Pepsi in his Larry King Interview, and here they are donating large sums to the Chamber.

Second, about Citibank:

Earlier this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue admitted to ThinkProgress that CitiGroup, a bailed out financial conglomerate that still has not paid back taxpayer TARP funds, is a dues-paying member of the Chamber. Many bailed out banks are in fact dues-paying members of the Chamber.

And now the New York Times is looking at who is buying this election (VIDEO)

From yesterday's New York Times:

Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.

Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.

And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.

They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help.

And these contributions, some of which can be pieced together through tax filings of corporate foundations and other public records, also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 2 (Secret Koch Party, Edition) (VIDEO)

One of the many, many Think Progress reports is right here.

Also here is short snippet Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), smacking the Chamber in their own house...to their face.



The Think Progress story on Waxman's speech is here.

Keith's Latest Busy Night...Part 1 (Selling America out, Edition) (VIDEO)

Keith had a great show last night, and thus had a very busy night.



From Greg Sargent (long and short...it's working, but slowly...maybe too slowly):

As promised, MSNBC's First Read gang releases its NBC/WSJ polling showing that voters do care about the secret cash funding attack ads, despite all the assertions you keep hearing to the contrary:

So how has the White House/Democratic campaign against the GOP-leaning outside groups that have been spending so much on TV ads this midterm cycle fared? Per our poll, 74% say it's a concern that outside groups have their own agenda and care only about electing or defeating candidates based on their own issues; 72% say it's a concern that these groups don't have to disclose who's contributing to them; 71% say it's a concern that the candidates who are helped by these groups could be beholden to their interests; and 68% say they're concerned these groups are funded by unions or large corporations.

First Read's Mark Murray adds this caveat: "Despite these concerns, our pollsters say that the White House/Dem campaign against these outside groups hasn't changed the overall dynamics of this election."

I think Admiral/Represenative Sestak would beg to differ.

Where I almost say something nice about a Republican Candiate for Congress.

I know that it's the stated position of this blog that we hate on Republicans, but in truth, we only hate on the crazier, more right-wing, more racist variety. Granted, they seem to be taking over the Grand Ol' Party, but they're still the loyal opposition, and every once in a while, one of steps to the plate, and actually conducts himself like it.

Today's almost proud example is Bob Gibbs, not to be confused with the Press Secretary, but a Republican Candidate in the Ohio 18th:

Last week, a ThinkProgress investigation revealed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been using foreign money to fund its partisan attack ads this election. The very same day, the Chamber endorsed Bob Gibbs (R) in his campaign against Rep. Zack Space (D) in Ohio’s 18th congressional district. Gibbs said it was “an honor” to have the group’s support. In the nine days since, the Chamber has already pumped nearly $30,000 into the race.

Last night, the topic of anonymous donors to outside groups came up in a debate between Gibbs and Space. ThinkProgress caught up with Gibbs afterward to get his thoughts. He noted that organizations are required by law to segregate their foreign and domestic money and said the Chamber “absolutely” has a firewall in place. We pressed him on whether he just trusts them to enforce their own secret system. Gibbs conceded that he “wouldn’t have a problem with the Federal Election Commission having the ability…to go in and audit them and make sure that they had the firewall.”

That's a respectable position...to a point.  Why?

However, he stopped short of calling for groups like the Chamber to disclose their donors to the public.

Thanks for nothing, Bob. I hope Zack Space (not one of my favorite Dems) cleans your clock.

The reviews are in! Rove's lying, and not just about where the money comes from.

And really, are we that surprised??

Greg Sargent has put up a nice little list of the media and press reaction to most Karl Rove's and the Chamber of Commerce's anti-Democrat, Foreign Funded attack bull@#$%:

• A Chamber ad was yanked from two Pennsylvania TV stations after they determined its claim about Pennsylvania Senate Dem candidate Joe Sestak and Nancy Pelosi was false.
• A Crossroads GPS ad slamming Sestak over health care reform and Medicare was skewered by FactCheck.org for its "wild exaggeration" and dismissed as "badly misleading."
• A Crossroads GPS ad attacking California Senator Barbara Boxer for voting to cut Medicare spending by $500 billion was rated by Politifact as "barely true" and "seriously misleading."
• Two Chamber ads attacking Boxer for favoring freshwater fish over jobs were dismissed by Factcheck.org, though with some caveats, as follows: "Strictly speaking, both ads are untrue."
• Also in the above link, FactCheck.org slammed Crossroads GPS for making similiarly misleading claims about health reform in an ad targeting Kentucky Dem Senate candidate Jack Conway. FactCheck.org's conclusion: "Don't let Crossroads GPS steer you down the wrong road."
• An American Crossroads ad blasting Harry Reid with various claims about unemployment and the stimulus was dismissed by the Las Vegas Sun for "egregious" stretching of the facts and "gross distortions."
• That same ad was also ripped by FactCheck.org for distorting the truth and by Politifact as "false."
• An American Crossroads ad hammering Ohio Dem Senate candidate Lee Fisher over job creation and tax hikes was skewered by the Cleveland Plain Dealer as "incomplete" and "mucked up with distortions."
• An ABC affiliate in Colorado found that a Crossroads GPS ad attacking Senator Michael Bennet made a misleading claim about Bennet on government spending and conflated opinion for fact on the stimulus.

Apparently, those were just the Greg races. Greg is talking like he may put up a seperate list of the House ads that have been yanked.

Think Progress: You want proof of Foreign Money in this election cycle...here's a list! (VIDEO)

The Daily Show (again caught in the act of committing journalism):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
(C) Spot Run!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Steve?  Here's your proof:

Yesterday, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist Bruce Josten, who has been spoon-feeding much of the media distortions about our report, went on Fox News (whose parent company donated $1 million to the Chamber recently for its ad campaign) to again try to dilute the issue by dissembling about the Chamber’s fundraising and membership. “We have probably 60 or so foreign multi-national companies in our membership that we have had for decades, many of which have been in the United States for half a century or a century,” said Josten.

The Chamber is being deceptive. In addition to multinational members of the Chamber headquartered abroad (like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens), a new ThinkProgress investigation has identified at least 83 other foreign companies that actively donate to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). Below is a chart detailing the annual dues foreign corporations have indicated that they give directly to the Chamber (using information that is publicly available from the Business Council applications and the Chamber’s own websites):

Think Progress has the complete list here:

"[Foreign Money in elections] is a serious issue and we're going to continue to raise it."

First I got this from Greg Sargent:

The full-scale assault from the White House and Dems on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups shows no signs of abating. But is it already a political flop?

Some commentators are rushing to proclaim this offensive a political failure. Mark Halperin, for instance, wondered allowed today: "I'm not sure how this appeals to voters." Halperin then stated this as outright fact: "It's just not relevant to voters."

Greg then stated the obvious, that water is wet, the sky is blue, and Halperin has his head up his a!@#, because :

It's not easy to gauge whether this attack is working. But polls clearly show strong public discontent with corporate influence over our elections. A recent Washington Post poll found an overwhelming majority, 80 percent, opposes the Citizens United decision allowing unfettered corporate spending in elections, including strong majorities of both parties. And 72 percent support Congressional limits on corporate (and union) spending.

What's more, the Dem firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner recently tested some Dem messages on this very topic. It found that one focused on corporate interests -- and corporate spending in elections -- was a very potent one that could close the Congressional generic matchup gap by nine points.

Then I got this from Andrew Sullivan:

Nyhan goes after the Democrats for baseless attacks against the US Chamber of Commerce. It is very depressing to see them descend to this kind of stuff. What they need are not tactics and resentment, which is what we're seeing. What we need is a narrative of recovery and reform from Obama. He has the record, and he has made a couple of great speeches. But this distracts.

My view, and I'll say it again. Campaign on ending the long-term debt. Campaign on being the man who can bring America together to solve its long-term fiscal crisis. Call the GOP out on its fiscal record and its current refusal to specify what they'll cut. Remind people of the debt commission. Remind people we need to cut spending and raise taxes. Be the adult in the room. With a megaphone.

Afterwards, I sent Mr. Sullivan an Email thanking God he wasn't a Political Adviser to the President, because some of us are actually pissed off about this.

And finally, this from the Axe:

The White House will keep up its assault on outside spending by conservative groups and will continue to press the case about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's foreign money, despite hints of retreat on the latter issue, senior adviser David Axelrod told me in an interview this afternoon.

Axelrod also took a shot at the fact-checkers at multiple news orgs who have concluded there is no evidence for the White House's broadside at the Chamber, suggesting fact-checkers should be "directing their ire" at the Chamber, rather than "in the wrong direction."

"The fact that these front groups are spending hundreds of millions of dollars from undisclosed sources on attack ads to influence these elections is a serious issue and we're going to continue to raise it," Axelrod told me.

Just who are the Pro-Corporate Groups trying to steal the election?

If you want to meet the people who are trying to steal the election, the People for the American Way has put together a list.

This is how much Think Progress is standing by its story on the Chamber of Commerce

Faiz Shakir has put up a new story following up on the revelation that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using foreign money for its attack ads against Democrats. The funny thing is, in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's vehement denunciations of Think Progress hasn't exactly translated into anything like a denial of the basic facts of the story. So, now we can assume the following as fact:

1) The Chamber acknowledges that it receives foreign sources of funding.


2) The foreign funds go directly into the Chamber’s general 501(c)(6) entity.


3) At least $300,000 has been channeled from foreign companies in India and Bahrain to the account.


4) The foreign sources include foreign state-owned companies, including the State Bank of India and the Bahrain Petroleum Company.


5) The Chamber’s 501(c)(6) entity is used to launch an unprecedented $75 million partisan attack ad campaign against Democrats.

Nothing the Chamber has said in response to our story refutes those basic set of facts. The right-wing business group claims that it has a “system” in place to ensure that money is not being used for illegal purposes, namely to influence U.S. elections. But the Chamber refuses to explain how that “system” works, and is instead demanding that the public simply trust-but-not-verify.

House Democrats are going to fight back on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's foreign money TV Ads (VIDEO)

About damn time.

First off, read the Think Progress report, or at least watch this bit of Countdown with Keith Olbermann:



My gut feeling is that Chamber is indeed doing taking foreign money. They are at the very least creating a climate of doubt over whether they are following the law or not (and according to Keith it is a law). Their argument is going to be "we're following the law" and "we're taking legal measures to protect ourselves". Problem is those measures are what's creating the doubt about their compliance with the law in the first place. So, transparency is necessary. Maybe Congress should look into doing something about it.

Oh, right. The House did. The Senate didn't.

Typical.

Anyway, today. Greg Sargent has some good news on that front:

House Democrats in tough races are being advised by Dem leaders to seize on new revelations about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's foreign fundraising to defend themselves against the Chamber's ad onslaught -- another sign of just how urgent it is for Dems to counter the massive ad spending disparity they're up against.

A senior Democratic strategist tells me that embattled incumbents and candidates are being instructed to seize on yesterday's Think Progress report, which raised questions as to whether the money the Chamber raises from foreign companies is being used to help bankroll its multimillion-dollar campaign against Democrats.

House Dems and candidates who are being bludgeoned by Chamber ads will start raising the specter of foreign money rigging our elections as a way to fight back against the ads.

"Every single House Democrat being attacked by the Chamber of Commerce should use this extraordinary revelation to their benefit," one strategist involved in charting House race strategy tells me.

"It makes a huge difference to people on Main Street if they know the Chamber ads are bought and paid for by Foreign owned companies that want to export American jobs," the strategist continues. "Our guys need to go for the jugular on this and this news offers them a pretty sharp knife."

The Fireside chat for September 18, 2010 (VIDEO)

From Steve Benen:

During an appearance in Connecticut this week, President Obama focused on an issue we don't hear much about lately -- the way in which the Citizens United ruling is shaping the midterm elections.

With far-right interest groups collecting millions for attack ads, all in support of Republican candidates, and financed through shadowy groups awash in undisclosed donations, the president raised the specter of "a corporate takeover of our democracy."

Today, in his weekly address, Obama focused attention on the issue again, explaining that voters are seeing deceptive ads from secretive organizations collecting undisclosed contributions. He emphasized that he supported a new proposal -- requiring groups to "say who you are and who's paying for your ad" -- but Republicans refused to let the Senate even vote on the measure. It's all part of "a power grab, pure and simple."

The president conceded that it's too late to protect the integrity of this year's elections, but offered some sound advice to voters: "[A]ny time you see an attack ad by one of these shadowy groups, you should ask yourself, who is paying for this ad? Is it the health insurance lobby? The oil industry? The credit card companies?

"But more than that, you can make sure that the tens of millions of dollars spent on misleading ads do not drown out your voice. Because no matter how many ads they run - no matter how many elections they try to buy - the power to determine the fate of this country doesn't lie in their hands. It lies in yours. It's up to all of us to defend that most basic American principle of a government of, by, and for the people. What's at stake is not just an election. It's our democracy itself."

I don't know how much of a difference this will make -- the vast majority of the public has no idea how or why the rules have changed, or why Republicans would fight against disclosure and transparency -- but it's nevertheless good to see the White House shine a light on the issue.

The Fireside chat for August 21, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President calls out Republicans for blocking campaign finance reforms that would address the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates of corporate money into elections.

Remember, this...

Whenever a Republican talks about more transparency in Government, remember how they voted on the DISCLOSE act.

My side of the aisle isn't innocent either.  The AFL-CIO was also against it, and for the first time, I find myself truly pissed at Richard Trumka.

The Fireside chat for June 20, 2009

The Blagojevich Report...one more thing.

One, the report confirms that everyone's talked to the U.S. Attorney, and that was the reason for the delay in the report:

These accounts were communicated to the Office of the United States Attorney in interviews that were conducted last week. At the request of the Office, we delayed the release of this report until such time as the interviews could be completed. The interviews took place over a period of three days: Thursday, December 18, 2008 (the President-Elect); December 19, 2008 (Valerie Jarrett); and December 20, 2008 (Rahm Emanuel).

Two, will this satisfy Politico? (My bet is no, but...what else is there to reveal?)