The mainstream corporate media spend a lot of time telling you about crap that doesn’t matter. Then there’s the stuff that does matter which you hardly hear about at all.
This is one of those stories. Hugely important, yet, almost inexplicably, barely reported on.
Happily HuffPo’s Dan Froomkin — who Tweeted it out this week by noting: “Hey! Did you just feel the campaign finance firmament move? I think Karl Rove did.” — has at least been staying on top of it…
In April, a district court judge struck down a Federal Election Commission regulation that allowed donors to certain nonprofit groups — including those created by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers — to evade normal disclosure requirements.
And on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit turned down a request to stay that ruling on a 2 to 1 vote.
“This case represents the first major breakthrough in the effort to restore for the public the disclosure of contributors who are secretly providing massive amounts to influence federal elections,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, one of the lawyers who filed the original lawsuit that led to the April decision, in a statement.
The office of House Administration Committee ranking Democrat Robert A. Brady issued a statement Tuesday saying, “As of today, any entity creating electioneering communications will have to disclose the identity of their top donors.”
See the rest of Froomkin’s piece for more very instructive info on this.
Now the Rovians have a remarkable ability to slither through newly found loopholes to ensure they are able to continue not doing the right thing when it comes to gaming our embarrassingly obscene campaign finance system. Moreover, election law professor Rick Hasen expects the “stay request to now end up before the Supreme Court, where the outcome may be different.”
Nonetheless, this is a very positive development for those who believe in transparency, particularly in the dark infamy of our post-Citizens United world, and I’m amazed, on one hand, that this story isn’t being discussed more by the media. On the other hand, given that the corporate media are actually the top beneficiaries of the Citizens United ruling, perhaps I shouldn’t be so amazed.
as usual…follow the money
Thanks brad – this has certainly been “overlooked” (being generous here?) and is an important story.
Perhaps the certain media gatekeepers do not want the public to understand the basis of this ruling so that when it is appealed to Supreme Court, it will be easier to bamboozle the public.
Given the current court, most of us can guess where the SCOTUS will fall on this issue. If the media reported details about this decision, future reports on the any action by a clearly activist Supreme Court will be harder to sell.
You know – its the “fair and balanced” thing, countering the truth with lies of omission or commission.
it’s just the Kochroches sue to have the kitchen lights turned off…
And speaking of kochroaches…
Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s lying liar Deceiver-in-Chief, is at it again.
Even though he spends most of his time not working for the citizens he was elected to represent, instead choosing to play national rock-star for faux news and other wing-nut network pundits, he is now proclaiming that being Wisconsin’s governor is his most favorite job in the world! Happy Happy Joy Joy!
Expect the fascist unaccountable US Supreme court to reinstate anything that ensures the transition to taxpayer-subsidized corporate fascism in the US. What is in store for the USA? The United States of Monsanto & Koch Bros.?
Adam8 (slandered by RawStory staff as a result of erroneous software they use. Due to expressing offense at the slander against him, was unjustly banned from commenting by RawStory’s dear leader, Roxanne Cooper)
Big Story denial is a fundamental practice of the main stream. That is why God invented blogs. 😉
I applaud the court decision and the coverage.
Can somebody please explain why Obama is fighting like hell to end ALL political disclosure rules?
I’m referring specifically to the boycott he’s trying to set up related to corporate donations:
http://news.firedoglake.com/201...xecutive-order
Google these words for more:
obama donor boycott
The inevitable result as businesses lose money because of their first-amendment-protected activity will be to get a right to donation privacy in the courts.
I’m not saying I want that – but its absolutely inevitable that this will happen. WTF is Obama thinking here? Is it short-term stupidity or long-term evil?
DAMMIT, I used the wrong link above. My bad.
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.c...ott-movie.html
Point is, Obama’s political office has been trying to arrange a boycott of donors to candidates and issues Obama opposes, based on campaign finance reports.
This marks a fundamental shift in tactics: it’s normal to try and nail a politician for taking in evil money (big tobacco, Goldman-Sachs, etc.) but it’s something new to go after the donors.
Oh, Jim. You’re usually much better than that. There is nothing in the story you linked to (or the NYT story it links to) that supports your assertion that Obama is organizing boycotts against anybody. If I missed it, please let me know where it is.
That said, as a conservative (a real one, as opposed to most of the phonies who call themselves “conservative”), I’d think you’d be in favor of the voice of the free market and the First Amendment, which is what a boycott is, no matter who is (or isnt, in this case) calling for one.
But surely you’re smarter than to fall for wingut propaganda, as this nonsense about Obama “intimidating” opponent funders actually is (until you can offer actual evidence to the contrary, in any case).
That “man” is smirking (not smiling)because he knows the Stoopreams will back the criminal junta up. It’s damn near seamless, what they’re pulled off. I recommend making sure your passport is up to date before they start refusing to process them…
After the Citizens United case it was Justice Kennedy who said he thought it was obvious all contributions should be made public. If he still holds to that view then a trip to SCOTUS won’t help the cockroaches stay hidden.
Maybe Mitt or the PACs are getting money from terrorist organizations or China or Russia or some other places the American people would not appreciate. They should be able to find out who is influencing their decision about who to elect.
OK. Hold on here.
*Somewhere* I read that Obama’s political folks (meaning campaign side versus gov’t office) were trying to get boycotts going against people who donated to right-wing campaigns and/or causes. I may have grabbed the wrong link *again* – I was in a hurry :(.
And…dammit…my google-fu is just failing miserably today. (And yesterday.)
Sigh. Never mind, I guess :(. Crap. I hope to God(ess?) I’ve either mis-understood or mis-remembered, because if that IS going on, the elements that are prepared to go to court to get a right to private donations will have a field day. (And no, I’m *not* personally in favor of that.)
As to me being a conservative: for the record, I’m the Treasurer of the Pima County (AZ) Libertarian Party, and as of the first of the year got elected to the board of directors of the Southern Arizona chapter of the ACLU :).
Jim March @ 12:
No, you hold on there, amigo! 🙂
“Somewhere” like Fox “News”? Drudge Report? Any number of wingnut sites? That’s why I said you’re usually better than that. “Read somewhere” is far beneath you.
Yes, a lot of the nutters are making that claim of late. And, of course, it’s bullshit. The only surprise here is that you seem to have fallen for it.
Seeing as Karl knows how to stonewall any accountability, i.e., court served subpoenas, my guess is they’ll just appeal, appeal, appeal until after the election(or until they get the desired ruling). Why do Republicans hate America??