The "Shadowy Outside Group" Myth and the Faulty "Disclose Act."

The Senate Democrats are currently debating legislation called "the Disclose Act," a purely political ploy to attempt to paint republicans this election season as Harry Reid said "Angry white men trying to buy elections." We'll ignore Angry White Man Reid's odd Race-baiting to address the bigger point. Democrats would like all donors to be out and public so that they can publish their names in enemies lists and call them out on the Senate floor like Senator Lautenberg did just today. There is one glaring problem in this Disclose Act, and it's something that should disgust every single constituent of these senate democrats. This version of the "Disclose act" has carved out specific exemptions to allow unions to continue spending incredible amounts of money to defeat those like Scott Walker, who attempt to give power to middle class workers instead of greedy union bosses. Warner Todd Huston described the legislation in much more specific detail than I will delve in to now, but read his piece at the Liberty News Network for more details.

Senator Scott Brown voiced this in a statement
“The DISCLOSE Act is a cynical political ploy masquerading as reform and I continue to oppose it,” Brown said in a statement. “Rather than treat all sides equally as a true reform bill would, it contains special carve outs for union bosses and other favored interest groups. In Massachusetts, I took direct action to limit the influence of outside spending and Super PACs, and I am glad my People’s Pledge has kept third parties out of our state. I didn’t wait for Washington D.C. to come up with a solution to the problem of outside money, and I would encourage other candidates running across the country to do the same.”


 Just how much are Unions spending on elections? The Wall Street Journal released data disclosing that "on the record" (with the Federal Elections Commission) unions spent $1.1 Billion from 2005-2011.  However, additional political spending reported to the labor department revealed an additional $3.3 billion spent on political activity during the same period of time. Perhaps the most notable revelation in the Wall Street Journal's article is that corporate PACs give money from employees to candidates, ("unlike super PACs, which cannot directly support campaigns, corporate PACs give money from employees to candidates")  and in 2008 55% of the $2 billion from corporate PACs and 92% of the $75 million from Unions WENT TO DEMOCRATS.

So the next time you hear President Obama complain about "shadow groups" and the "faceless organizations buying influence in Washington" (as John Kerry said in a speech on the Senate floor just moments ago) remember that Labor unions spent $316 million in 2011. Kerry went on to say that this spending is going to "cripple the legislative process." The names of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson are dropped like expletives as some sort of corruptocrats attempting to buy elections. Remember that from '05-'11 UNIONS spent 4.4 BILLION on political activity. Governor Romney's Super Pac has raised $61.4 million for the 2012 election cycle. Compare that to the AFL-CIO's $316 million in 2011 and the many tens or even hundreds of millions unions will yet contribute to their protector-in-chief President Obama. The Democrats will hypocritically attack "shadow groups" while simultaneously accepting a greater amount of corporate and union donations than Republicans could possible hope for from their own PACs.

Boehner's Bronze Nugget and What he Should have Said

John Boehner gave the democrats a bronze nugget with his "voters might not fall in love with Mitt Romney" quote. The following is from Roll Call:

Aside from Romney’s “friends, relatives and fellow Mormons,” Boehner said, most people will be motivated to vote for him in opposition to Obama.

The Ohio Republican made the remarks when an unidentified woman asked during a question-and-answer session: “Can you make me love Mitt Romney?”

“No,” Boehner said. “Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God. The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.  

“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.

The reason this is a bronze nugget instead of gold or even silver should be quite simple to everyone who has had a pulse during the last four years. Republicans understand that we don't need to fall in love with a singing, dancing teen idol type to trust him or believe in him to be our President. We don't need a leader that girls worship with posters on their wall, or a leader that rappers write songs about. If the last four years have taught us anything, it's that those qualities have absolutely no correlation to one's ability to lead a nation. As a matter of fact, I would submit that the President's celebrity obligations may have actually deterred from his ability to effectively lead us out of our economic woes. But we are electing the leader of our nation, not the bachelor and not your new best friend. Though to be fair, I think Romney would do just fine on the bachelor. As someone who has met Romney multiple times, I look forward to the day when those accuse him of being "robotic" get to know him better and see how down-to-earth and friendly he actually is. We shouldn't be looking for a best friend in the White House, we should be looking for someone to fix the mistakes of the current "best-friend" in the White House.

Now here's what Boehner should have actually said in response to the "love Romney" question. "Can you make me love Mitt Romney?" He would smile, give a short chuckle and say "No.. but I can give you reasons why you should. He's a great family man, saved the olympics and legitimately wants to help our country. I like him as a Presidential candidate because he knows how the economy works from first-hand experience. He knows how jobs are created and his private sector experience proves that he knows how to fix things, and that's exactly what we need right now. If those reasons aren't enough to make you love him, then the alternative should be reason enough for you to support him. 4 more years of Barack Obama may take our nation to a place from which we cannot return. I urge you to support Romney and support your senate and congressional candidates, because having Republicans in congress is more important now than ever."

That is what Boehner should have said. I can guarantee it wouldn't have made it in to the media but it may have reassured one more West Virginia voter.