Liberal groups say foreign funds aid Republicans...

"They accuse the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to help fund GOP candidates, which would be a violation of U.S. election law. The charge, which the chamber denies, is gaining traction.

Reporting from Washington — Democrats and their allies, moving to counter millions of dollars flowing to Republican campaigns from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have accused the international business organization of using foreign money to influence American elections.

The effort to paint conservative political groups as fronts for multinational corporations and foreign billionaires gathered steam this week after an affiliate of the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress charged that the chamber was using funds from foreign corporations to finance its political operations in Washington.

Foreign spending in U.S. elections is against the law. Tita Freeman, vice president of communications at the chamber, called the Center for American Progress report "unfounded and completely erroneous." The foreign companies cited in the report "pay nominal dues" that "do not support U.S. chamber political activities," Freeman said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-foreign-money-20101007,0,2458302.story

UPDATE:

10.12.10

"Ron Johnson, the Tea Party-backed Republican candidate for Senate in Wisconsin, has enjoyed the support of several outside groups during his election campaign: he benefited from $1.3 million in television advertising from various political action committees and other groups, including ads from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that attack his opponent, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), for his support of health care reform.

Such groups are not required to reveal who is funding the political attacks. As ThinkProgress detailed last week, the Chamber of Commerce may be using foreign funds to support its attack ads in the United States, which would be a violation of federal election laws. Last night during a debate in Wausau, WI, Feingold pressed Johnson to call on these groups to disclose their funding sources. Johnson agreed and called for disclosure:

JOHNSON: You want to be able to select who can have free speech and who doesn’t want to have free speech.

FEINGOLD: I want everybody to have free speech, but I want them to be able to — as you just said, they ought to disclose. You haven’t even called on these people to disclose. You just said you’re for disclosure. You won’t even call on them to disclose.

JOHNSON: I’d be happy to have them disclose.

FEINGOLD: Well then why don’t you ask them to do it?

JOHNSON: Disclose.

So far, the Chamber has refused to provide evidence they are not using foreign money to fund political attacks, saying “We are not obligated to discuss our internal accounting procedures.” Perhaps if more candidates like Ron Johnson that benefit from Chamber attacks call for disclosure, the Chamber will feel compelled to reveal the well-heeled special interests behind their unprecedented political ad campaign."

Film at eleven.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/12/ron-johnson-disclosure/

UPDATE

10.13.10

Bascially the C of C still says no to disclosure today. Why don't they just disclose the donors.

"TAPPER: But do you not understand why some people might say, “Let's just have full disclosure of everything”?

JOSTEN: Well so far Jake, what I've heard you offer me is Gibbs and Axelrod in a fantasy land, stretching and stretching and gasping and gasping for the next straw to grab onto here. Ok. Look, reality, I repeat, the single biggest outside funder, almost monolithically in the 2008 elections, was organized labor, under their boasting of $420 million.

We, the US Chamber, spent $33 million in issue ads. The Citizens United case, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with issue advocacy advertising at all. Period. What Axelrod is talking about is how to deal with independent expenditures and corporations being able because the case was predicated upon the fact that media corporations, up until Citizens United uniquely had that right.

And Citizens United said, wait, the SC ruled, you can't select certain speakers. So they granted the same legal rights to unions and corporations. I would suggest however, that you will not see corporations do what Axelrod or you paraphrased, because they have employees that are Republicans, Democrats, and independents, they have shareholders that are Democrats, independents and Republicans, vendors and suppliers that are Democrats, independents and Republicans.

Corporations don't do that. We the US Chamber aren't doing independent expenditures with the magic express advocacy words of 'Vote for, Vote against.' Again, we draw a distinction on a member of congress' vote on a specific issue and discuss the issue. So there's a lot of confusion of a deliberate nature it sounds to me, listening to your paraphrasing of Axelrod since I didn't hear him, that has nothing to do with the Citizens United Case whatsoever."

This guy is spinning like a top...and is probably a top for Karl Rove.

http://speakoklahoma.freeforums.org/chamber-of-commerce-white-house-wants-donor-lists-t4.html