During the GOP Gusher in the Gulf, Republicans repeatedly sided with BP against the American people. They blocked legislation to lift the liability cap. They even apologized to BP for the audacity of the evil Obama administration to insist that they pay for the damage they did to our environment and to people’s health and livelihood. That raised this question. Why would one of two de facto political parties in America side with a foreign corporation? The only answer that makes sense to me is that BP has lots of money and is willing to spend it on behalf of anyone willing to screw Americans for their benefit. When money counts as speech, those with lots of it can speak loudly enough to drown out your voice.
The White House intensified its attacks Sunday on the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its alleged ties to foreign donors, part of an escalating Democratic effort to link Republican allies with corporate and overseas interests ahead of the November midterm elections.
The chamber adamantly denies that foreign funds are used in its U.S. election efforts, accusing Democrats of orchestrating a speculative smear campaign during a desperate political year.
President Obama, speaking at a rally in Philadelphia, said "the American people deserve to know who is trying to sway their elections" and raised the possibility that foreigners could be funding his opponents.
"You don’t know," Obama said at the rally for Senate candidate Joe Sestak and other Democrats. "It could be the oil industry. It could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose."
The remarks are part of a volley of recent attacks by Obama and other Democrats on alleged foreign influence within the Republican caucus, whether through support for outsourcing jobs by major U.S. corporations or through overseas money making its way into the coffers of GOP-leaning interest groups.
The comments also come as Democrats attempt to cope with an onslaught of independent political advertising aimed at bolstering Republicans, much of it fueled by donations that do not have to be revealed to the public. The spending has added to a political environment in which Democrats are in danger of losing control of both the House and Senate.
David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, said on CBS’s "Face the Nation" that secret political donations to the chamber and other groups pose "a threat to our democracy."
Axelrod also took the unusual step of calling on the chamber to release internal documents backing up its contention that foreign money is not being used to pay for U.S. political activities. Democrats have seized on a report by a liberal blog alleging that dues from chamber-affiliated business councils could be used in that way.
"If the chamber opens up its books and says, ‘Here’s where our political money’s coming from,’ then we’ll know," Axelrod said. "But until they do that, all we have is their assertion."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Isn’t it ironic that on the very day Republicans unveiled their pledge of lies, in which they promised more openness and transparency, the filibustered the DISCLOSE Act? That legislation would have required these Republican money fronts to list their sources of revenue for these ads.
And, if the Chamber is not using foreign money illegally, why are they advertising to foreign governments and corporations for donations to help influence American elections? Can we trust the word of the same Chamber that financed Death Panel ads?
To answer my own original question, BP does not have more free speech than you do. But thanks to the rabid reactionary Republican ideologues at SCOTUS, their free speech is an ear shattering scream, while yours is a muted whisper.
VOTE!
7 Responses to “Does BP Have More Free Speech Than You?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You want a solution to this bullshit of who paid for what. Turn off the damn television and radio and listen to some Bach or other recorded music. Do your own damn research through the public records and statements of whomever you have to vote for and then no matter what amount of money the Brits, Arabs and Chinese give to buy America’s legislative branch, that could be spent doing some damn good for the world, becomes mute.
Every Ballot in America is online and people have the capacity to independently research but we have become to lazy to even fucking think for ourselves anymore. It is SOOOOOOOO much easier to have the Chamber of Commerce hire Madison Avenue to tell me what to think.
Actually, Mark, I do do my own research and more. Many people don’t have the time to devote to it that I do, so I share what I learn. Sadly, your last sentence describes far to many voters. I don’t want to be saddled with what they deserve: Republican rule.
I trust the Chamber of Commerce for not receiving any foreign money about as much as I can throw them. Open your books and show use that you’re not just blowing smoke up the American people’s asses. 🙄
I predict that will not happen unless we forse them to do so by law.
Sadly, I think you’re right TC.
“Republicans repeatedly sided with BP against the American people.”
One cannot ignore the hostile activities of the Democratic Party in their defense of BP against the American people – especially those Republican-leaning voters of the Gulf for whom life will never be the same. Just what has Obama done to ease their burdens? Nothing!
I speak as a liberal independent when I say that Obama missed a huge opportunity to sway the voters of the Gulf. Had he done anything which benefited the oil-saturated Gulf voters, he would have reaped the benefit in fewer seat losses in the South. but he chose to confirm that he is a committed corporatist and sell-out the American people one more time.
Personal to Barry: The person you want to yell at for not showing enthusiasm is YOU!
Realist, while Obama could have done more than he did, he also had to make sure BP survived to pay. Negotiating a $20 billion starting fund is a damn sight better than the Republicans wanting to limit their total liability at $75,000.