CNN's Velshi Bashes Ethics of U.S. Chamber of Commerce with Left-Wing Talking Points
Someone should tell CNN anchor Ali Velshi that attacking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its political activities is so last week.
During the “XYZ” segment of the hour he anchors of “CNN Newsroom” on Oct. 25, Velshi did his best impersonation of an MSNBC anchor and railed against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its political activities. Velshi lamented the barrage of negative advertising in this campaign cycle and all but tied the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to it.
Video Below Fold
“It is time now for the ‘XYZ of it,’” Velshi said. “The midterm elections are just over a week away, which means we are headed into the dirtiest most negative advertising cycle of the campaign. According to the group Campaign Media Analysis, almost half of all TV and other media campaign ads out there this election season are negative. One group out there is front and center – the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt advocate for American businesses that's come out strongly against President Obama's economic reform push and by the way many other things that this administration is trying to do.”
According to Velshi, the Chamber is allowing 4 percent of its membership to dictate its campaign message, despite not contemplating the possibility that its activities are in the interest of that other 96 percent.
“The Chamber touts itself as the world's largest business federation fighting for free enterprise in Congress,” Velshi continued. “While the Chamber can boast that more than 96 percent of its members are small businesses from across the country it stands accused of channeling huge sums of corporate money from the other 4 percent of its members into negative ad campaigns somewhat anonymously. That's because it's very hard to know just who is funding these ad blitzes. The donors are never publicly disclosed and the Chamber goes out of its way to keep them secret.”
And imagine this – Velshi argued there was some sort of negative connotation attached to big businesses acting in their best interest – whether it was against the so-called financial regulation reform that made its way through Congress earlier this year or a push to get Congress to legislatively limit lawsuits.
“Some donations can be pieced together through tax filings and other public records,” he said. “For example, The New York Times says Prudential Financial donated $2 million to the Chamber's ad campaigns to try to weaken financial reform. Eight million dollars came from a group consisting of Goldman Sachs, Chevron Oil and Dutch multinational insurer AEGON to wage a national campaign to put limits on suing big businesses. And no doubt similar money is going into individual races by way of expensive issue ads this election season.”
Then to top it off, Velshi cited the meme that the Chamber is getting secret money from foreign donors – one that has its roots from the left-wing blogosphere and pushed by the Obama White House. According to Velshi, while the Chamber’s activities are legal, they may not be ethical.
“President Obama has accused the Chamber of using foreign money to funds ad campaigns and individual races,” Velshi continued. “The Chamber denies that but some say it's besides the point. Because of the earlier Citizens United Supreme Court decision, big corporations have almost no real limits on how much they can spend to influence political issues. U.S. Chamber of Commerce knows this and is soliciting big business in a big way to fund its views. What it's doing is legal. Just another reminder that what's legal and what's ethical aren't always one and the same.”
But even The New York Times has questioned the wisdom of this tired argument Velshi is replaying. The Times admitted on Oct. 8 there wasn’t anything to substantiate the lefties’ accusation: “[T]here is little evidence that what the Chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.”
“Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States,” the Times continued.
If that’s indeed the case, will Velshi go after these organizations that are supporting Democratic candidates as aggressively as he has attacked the Chamber?
- Jeff Poor's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Ali who? Good Lord, an
Submitted by Van Halen on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 4:33pm.
Ali who? Good Lord, an unknown JournOList on a barely-watched newschannel. And still stuck on yesterday.
Sad.
Spending!!!
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:35pm.
The Democrats won the last two elections. Money was spent. Did money "buy" the last two elections?
We may not know the donors, but we know where the money was spent. So, no matter where the money came from, we can see plainly how the money is used. What is it about that spending that is "buying" elections or subverting freedom?
Again, I argue that political spending, for the vast majority of cases, means ads. And I deny, once again, that ads make much of a dent. EJ Dionne, as disingenuous a pundit as we have these days (he rivals Krugman), offers the same argument yet again:
Let's all play Spot the Assumption.
I argue that they spend that much money for the same reason baseball teams fire the manager. They have nothing else to do. The only influence they have is minimal, but it's all they have.
The people who profit from their contributions tell them that they have to do something. And if they don't, the other guy will get ahead of them!!!
It's ... a ... scam ...
You and Ed can deny that ads matter if you want, but...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 4:37am.
I guarantee if your opponent spends millions on ads while you spend zero, you're probably going to lose. That's why someone like Karl Rove spends so much time and energy on fundraising for advertising. Ads don't guarantee a win, but no ads while your opponent runs them pretty much guarantees a loss.
Adds do make a difference
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 5:23am.
If nothing else, name recognition.
Some people go to the booth and recognize the names and pull the lever. That's why incumbents have an advantage. (usually)
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Let's examine that
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 11:49am.
If incumbents already have the advantage of name recognition, then there's no need to spend any money, is there? But incumbents spend the most of all.
Consider this: Which do you think matters more, name recognition or party affiliation? When you go into a voting booth and you don't know anything about either candidate, do you vote for one because you've heard their name before, or do you look to see what party they belong to?
And is it realistic to believe that voters go into the booth, completely and utterly unaware of the candidates until they see the names on the ballot, so that their only thought while voting is "I've heard of him." ? How many Forrest Gumps do you think are out there?
And even if we grant that some do ... do you really believe that this is true for a substantial number of voters?
Now ... assuming we agree that the number of "blank slate" voters who entirely base their vote on a momentary name recognition is relatively few (debate possible) ... are you willing to say that the billions of dollars of spent in politics to capture these dunces is really "corrupting our freedom?"
I mean, if they spend a billion dollars to hoodwink a couple hundred voters ... do you feel that betrays the other millions of people who voted based on a careful examination of the issues?
Doesn't add up.
On what do you base that guarantee?
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 11:30am.
Do they sway you?
Never mind the assumption that they must sway people. Do they sway you?
Or is that they don't sway you, but the world is filled with stupid people who bend to whatever wind is blowing?
What about the unions?
Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:40pm.
Why did not he go after the unions? The WSJ showed they are spending much more than the chamber and combined probably more than the combined conservative effort. Why did not Mr. Velshi say something about that?
Good lord, haven't the
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:47pm.
Good lord, haven't the democrats (and their media mouthpieces) made enough enemies in this country yet? My doctor is still seething at obama for accusing doctors of poor treatment of diebtes so they could make money chopping off hands and feet.
Obama has that third world dictator mindset. He has to cut the US down in size so that his abilities and the coutry's capacity are more closely comparable.
What about the free media propaganda, Ali?
Submitted by samhermanmd on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:51pm.
The main stream media has pounded the DNC line with so much time that it must range into the billions of in-kind donations for a political cause. Since journalists have no ethics, he would have no answer to that.
So is this the official
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:55pm.
So is this the official debunking of the story that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from countries whose sole interest is outsourcing US jobs, and in fact using that money in campaign ads attacking Democrats?
The chamber is made up of
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 6:06pm.
The chamber is made up of business people. Their sole interest is to make money. If the US Congress enacts regulations and taxes that make it cheaper to move jobs out of the country then that's what any sane businessman will do. If you want jobs to stay in the country you study what the business conditions are where those jobs are moving to and adjust your business climate to compete.
Not necessarily THE official debunking---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 7:41pm.
#6, but there is no law which says you can't try and come up with a more liberal-pleasing fantasy.
I mean story.
MD
Some Freudian theorist loves
Submitted by samhermanmd on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 8:10pm.
Some Freudian theorist loves the DNC. They keep coming up with such fantasies that only a Freudian would love. I wonder how soon "electoral envy" will enter their vocabulary.
Debunk this
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 4:42am.
Does Obama still molest children?
Come on Ded Ted
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 5:30am.
That is just a trolly statement.
Do you really think the Chamber is trying to outsource US jobs? And that's why they attack Dems?
Or could it be that Dems try to make the business atmosphere harder to do business in the US, so the CoC is trying to stop them from being elected? The Chamber of commerce doesn't take money from "countries whose sole interest is outsourcing US jobs" They take money from businesses that happen to do business in foreign countries.
Here you go An official debunking
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
More outsourcing please.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 7:35am.
Obama and the Politics of Outsourcing
For every job outsourced to Bangalore, nearly two jobs are created in Buffalo or other American cities.He found that when U.S. firms hired lower-cost labor at foreign subsidiaries overseas, their parent companies hired even more people in the U.S. to support expanded operations. Between 1991 and 2001, employment at foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals rose by 2.8 million jobs; during that same period, employment at their parent firms in the U.S. rose by 5.5 million jobs. For every job "outsourced" to India and other foreign countries, nearly two new jobs were generated here in the U.S.
More More outsourcing please.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 7:40am.
Outsourcing versus Insourcing. Countries around the world are outsourcing their jobs to the United States in huge numbers, according to the Organization for International Investment:
The Benefits of Outsourcing. Contrary to popular belief, abundant evidence shows that American consumers, workers and businesses are benefiting from outsourcing.
Increase in Product Availability. An Institute for International Economics study by Catherine Mann notes that globalization of computer hardware manufacturing led to a 10 to 30 percent decline in prices, making such equipment more affordable and leading to a far greater increase in jobs in the long run.
Stronger U.S. Job Demand. Mann believes globalization of Information Technology (IT) services "will yield even stronger job demand in the United States for workers with IT proficiency and skills." Indeed, she notes that overall employment in job classifications most affected by IT service outsourcing is rising, not falling.
Competitive Gains for Small Businesses. Researchers have also found that small firms and new startups gain more from outsourcing than large corporations. The latter have managerial structures that hinder their ability to take full advantage of outsourcing's benefits. Smaller and younger companies can easily organize themselves to utilize outsourcing, thereby gaining sales and competing better in today's global marketplace.
Rising Standards of Living. Indians now doing jobs outsourced from America are seeing a rapid rise in their wages and standard of living. In the process, they are becoming more like Americans, which is translating into demand for American goods and lifestyles. Thus, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every $1 outsourced, the economic gain to the United States as a whole is $1.12 to $1.14; whereas the country to which a job is outsourced gains just 33 cents.
Go Go Go Outsourcing ! Rah Rah Rah! More! More!
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 10/26/2010 - 11:08am.
Outsourcing is good for America
Outsourcing is good for America (different article)
Offshore outsourcing is good for AmericaIT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA AND IT ATTACKS DEMOCRATS!!!!!
YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY GOODNESS!!! Free the Squeakies!
Of Course
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 5:59pm.
Not, like I mentioned in another post you know the left is just as guilty when they start throwing accusation around but will they ever police themselves like they like to police us or others who may be in the wrong or not playing by the "rules" Just remember when they accuse someone of wrong doing you should first look behind the curtain of the accuser before you proceed to look at the accused.
This fool is pathetically stupid
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 10:58pm.
He is standing on a mountain of foreign money. He is on a mountain of our enemies money and with no evidence throws this lame misdirection.
This technique is over used and no longer works Curly. Get with the program.