You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LA Times: Behind the attack ads [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 08:46 PM
Original message
LA Times: Behind the attack ads
Advertisements [?]

Behind the attack ads

The DISCLOSE Act would be a remedy in the face of a slew of anonymously funded campaign ads.

Whatever the outcome of the November congressional elections, the voters are already the losers. They are being inundated by attack ads paid for by organizations with benign-sounding names that refuse to identify their donors. Democracy 21, a campaign-spending watchdog group, estimates that as much as $300 million will be spent anonymously in this election cycle; voters will never know where the money came from.

Consider this (misleading) attack on Sen. Barbara Boxer:

"California seniors are worried. Barbara Boxer voted to cut spending on Medicare benefits by $500 billion, cuts so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. Boxer's cuts would sharply reduce benefits for some and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, and millions of Americans won't be able to keep the plan or doctor they already have. Check the facts and take action. Call Boxer. Stop the Medicare cuts."

The ad is sponsored by Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group advised by master Republican strategist Karl Rove. Established as a "nonprofit social action organization," Crossroads GPS has not disclosed its donors. Campaign reform advocates are asking the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the group to determine whether it's in violation of a requirement that it not be "primarily engaged" in supporting or opposing candidates.

<...>

There is no cogent argument against maximum disclosure. (The notion that disclosure would lead to the harassment of donors is laughable.) Nor is there any 1st Amendment argument for secrecy. Even as it ruled this year that corporations had the right to engage in political spending, the Supreme Court upheld disclosure requirements, noting a previous holding that "disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in 'provid(ing) the electorate with information' about the sources of election-related spending."

more






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC