Obama’s foreign-cash allegation

What happened

Facing a major loss of Democratic congressional seats, President Obama has accused Republicans of trying to steal the midterm elections with “unlimited amounts” of special-interest donations from anonymous—and possibly foreign—sources. Obama cast suspicion on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has already spent $25 million on 8,000 TV ads and plans to spend $50 million more, mostly to help Republicans running for Congress. The liberal Center for American Progress suggested last week that the Chamber had diverted dues from affiliates in 108 countries to help bankroll its campaign funding, which would be illegal. In a speech in Philadelphia, Obama said the GOP was being helped by a blitz of attack ads funded by anonymous “special interest groups” that “could even be foreign corporations.” Chamber spokesman Tom Collamore called Obama’s accusation—echoed in Democratic TV ads—“ridiculous and false.”

This is the first election since the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United decision, freed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns as a form of free speech. In response to that decision, political activists have put together organizations with names such as American Crossroads and Americans for Job Security to collect and spend campaign cash. By exploiting a loophole in federal tax law, these groups organize themselves as nonprofits with nonpolitical activities, so they do not have to disclose contributors.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

Money is “fungible,” said The New York Times, so it really is impossible to know if the Chamber is keeping foreign dues separate from its campaign war chest. It’s also impossible to know if groups like American Progress are spending at least half of their time and money on nonpolitical efforts, as the law requires. The IRS and the Federal Election Commission, “which has been rendered toothless by its Republican members,” should be investigating possible violations.

Obama was utterly irresponsible for “trying to stoke xenophobia,” said The Washington Post, especially since he offered not a shred of evidence for his accusations. Democrats will try anything to intimidate business into silence, said The Wall Street Journal. Why do liberal groups want the identities of corporate donors? So they can punish those who support conservatives. Earlier this year, Target Corp. donated $100,000 in support of a Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota. MoveOn.org organized a boycott against the retailer. Target hasn’t made any more donations.

What the columnists said

The 2010 election is turning into a “class war,” said E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post, “and the wealthy and powerful started it.” The Supreme Court was arrogant, naïve, or both when it ruled 5–4 that letting corporations “overwhelm the political system with clandestine cash” wouldn’t lead to corruption or, in the court’s words, “cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.” Corporations and their allies are now paying for thousands of attack ads on Democrats, so that they’ll be replaced by Republicans who will do their bidding. “If that’s not corruption, what exactly is it?”

Perhaps liberals have forgotten that Obama spent a record $400 million to get elected just two years ago, said former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, also in The Washington Post. When liberals spend money on campaigns, it’s smart politics. When conservatives do the same, it’s corruption. The White House’s desperation is showing, said Rich Lowry in the New York Post. Pressed by an interviewer for evidence that the Chamber was spending foreign money on campaigns, Obama advisor David Axelrod responded, “Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not?” That’s an argument worthy of the birthers, who doubt the president’s citizenship, not of a man who “once promised to elevate American politics.”

Anonymous contributions are undoubtedly slimy, said Steve Kornacki in Salon.com, but the White House is wasting its time. History shows that campaign-finance issues “are too complicated and too abstract to win over voters.” Just ask Bob Dole, who got “absolutely nowhere” in 1996 with his allegations that foreign cash supported Bill Clinton. Railing about “the shady ways that the opposition raises money is the tactic of last resort for candidates in doomed elections.”