Lefty Group Calling for Disclosure of Conservative Donors has Felon as Advisor

Recently the Washington Post had a story about a coalition of left-wing advocacy groups calling for their counterparts on the conservative side to reveal all their donors even though the law does not require it. The Post feels the crusade is a bit odd since most of the lefty groups doing the complaining also don’t disclose all their donors. Even odder, the post itself doesn’t disclose that one of the representatives of the left-wing groups they quote is a convicted felon!

The story by Don Eggen talks about the “secret money” problem of the 2012 elections, laments the lack of transparency and disclosure of donors for many of these 501c3 and PAC organizations, and notes that the “liberal-leaning groups” that have allied to call for transparency on the right also don’t disclose their donors.

One lefty group in particular, though, fails this transparency test more than the rest. Sadly, even the WaPost doesn’t point out the fact that the representative from Americans United for Change that the paper quotes in the story is not only the husband of a vicious left-wing member of Congress, but is also a convicted felon.

In the ninth paragraph of the piece, the Post quotes “adviser” to Americans United for Change, Robert Creamer. This is the same Creamer, it should be noted (not that the Post does), who is the husband of vitriolic, left-wing Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Chicago. Creamer is also a convicted felon.

Back in 2006, Creamer was convicted over a check kiting scheme perpetrated to fund a left-wing advocacy group he was heading at the time. He was given a five-month sentence.

Isn’t it interesting that these lefty groups that want to paint conservative groups as shady because they won’t release donor lists is using a convicted felon as a spokesman?

Creamer’s quote in the Post story is also interesting. He says AUC only wants the conservative groups to be forced to disclose corporate donors because their argument is that “corporations should not be investing shareholder money in trying to influence elections.”

Note that AUC is a recipient of millions from Big Labor. Note that AUC gets millions from MoveOn.org which is funded by George Soros. Note that AUC wouldn’t want all that “disclosed.” As far as the AUC is concerned, only evil corporations should be forced to observe this “transparency.” Why it’s logical that corporations are the only entities in America that should be held to this so-called transparency is anybody’s guess.

Also note that AUC would rather not have its convicted felon husband of a well-known vitriolic Democrat “disclosed,” either — and the Post obliges them on that count.

There is another point about the AUC’s focus on corporations, too. Why is it the AUC’s place to tell corporate shareholders what their corporations should do with its profits? If shareholders don’t like what their corporation is doing it is their duty to hold the corporation to account and it’s no business of Americans United for Change.

So, let’s disclose that Americans United for Change is an activist arm of Big Labor, funded by the Teamsters, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and George Soros-funded MoveOn.org among others. And let’s disclose that AUC is run by a former executive director of the Democrat National Committee, Tom McMahon, and a former aide to Speaker Pelosi, Caren Benjamin. Also, let’s note that Brad Woodbouse was the group’s executive director until he left to become the DNC’s communications director.

That’s a nice and cozy relationship with the Democrat Party, isn’t it?

Finally, we do understand why these leftist groups only want donations from corporations made public, don’t we? It’s because they want to know who to attack for indulging their right to free political speech by supporting conservative groups.

But don’t ask them to tell us exactly which unions gave them millions. That would be un-American, ya know?

Shortlink:

Posted by on March 29, 2012.
Filed under Big government, Conservatives, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Douchebag Of The Day, Dumbasses, Elections.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    Why is it the AUC’s place to tell corporate shareholders what their corporations should do with its profits?

    Because Schakowsky is a complete communist.  She is a rabid anti-capitalist and is on the record stating the the ultimate purpose of obamacare is the permanent elimination of insurance companies and total government control of every aspect of healthcare.

    Schakowsky and her friends don’t believe that people should have the right to keep the money they earn that the government should decide who gets paid how much for what job they do.

  • GarandFan

    “Isn’t it interesting that these lefty groups that want to paint
    conservative groups as shady because they won’t release donor lists is
    using a convicted felon as a spokesman?”

    The hypocrisy doesn’t even faze them.

    • Hank_M

       The hypocrisy doesn’t faze them because they usually aren’t called on it.

      Any groups targeted by these left wing advocacy groups should simple use
      their words when replying:

      “We disclose everything we’re required to by law.”

      and say no more.

    • jim_m

      Hypocrisy doesn’t bother them.  Hypocrisy is their strategy.

      • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

        True, but hypocrisy is also the most heinous crime imaginable, when it’s committed by a conservative.

      • UOG

        “Hypocrisy doesn’t bother them.  Hypocrisy is their strategy.” … the the standard by which they must be measured.

  • Gmacr1

    It’s all about power and trying to smear your opposition as corrupt all the while hiding that you are doing the same or worse.

  • cirby

    “Isn’t it interesting that these lefty groups that want to paint conservative groups as shady because they won’t release donor lists is using a convicted felon as a spokesman?”
    Well, be fair: all of their other spokespersons were probably worse.

  • Hugh_G

    “There are a number of different kinds of organizations that have been involved in campaigns for transparency,” Creamer said. “The point of the current campaign has to do entirely with corporate funds, and our argument that corporations should not be investing shareholder money in trying to influence elections.” 
    Of course the reactionaries amongst you who didn’t read (most likely all of you) the WAPO article missed this little gem which is the whole point.

    It has nothing to do with going after conservative “groups” but corporations that are for profit.

    I have to hand it to Mr. Huston. That’s 2 in a row he’s gotten dead wrong.

    • jim_m

       Corporation are evil but unions are OK (despite decades involvement with organized crime and a long history of violence and intimidation of workers).  This is about leftist propaganda pure and simple.

      When the left actually looks at the influence of money and not just the influence of money from people supporting the opposition, I will take them seriously. That hasn’t happened in the past, isn’t happening now, and is unlikely to happen any time in the near future.

      • Hugh_G

        Take a deep breath Jim.

        Corporations are not evil and unions are not evil. Sometimes members of both do bad things, just like people everywhere.

        But as per usual you like to change the subject when a post is shown to be wrong or inaccurate or even false. 

        • jim_m

           I’m pointing out that the left complains about the influence of corporate money but they get millions from the unions.  In fact the largest donors are primarily giving to the left.  The left has a problem with selective enforcement of who should be allowed to give campaign donations.

          If you want to exclude money then exclude it all.  The left doesn’t want that, they want to exclude just the money they see as going to their opponents.  I’m not interested in yet another scheme to stop only some of the money in what is almost certainly an unconstitutional effort.

          • jim_m

             In fact 9 of the top 15 political donors are unions and of the top 15 only 1 gives more money to the GOP and that only slightly.

            http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

            When the left gets serious about cutting off campaign money they will include their own piggy bank.  As it stands it is only a pose and the only ones fooled by it are the uninformed and willfully ignorant.

          • Hugh_G

            I’m for public financing of elections.

            Corporations and unions are still barred from making contributions in federal elections by Citizens United. However, Pacs affiliated with them can.

            So don’t give me the usual claptrap that the evil left gets loads of money from unions and the poor old republicans fight for table scraps.Example #1 the Koch brothers.The whole damn process on all sides is corrupt. The system lends itself to corruption. 

            There’s only one good solution as far as I am concerned. Public financing. But I won’t hold my breath on that one.
             

          • jim_m

             Look at the link imbecile.  You can live in your fact free make believe world where dems only get their money from poor little old ladies scrounging money from between the cushions of their sofas but reality is that they get most of the big money out there.

            You only look stupid denying it with nothing to support your claim.

          • jim_m

             The Koch brothers gave ~$3 M to the GOP from 1990 to 2010.  http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000186

            9 of the top 15 organizational donors gave predominantly  (up to 98%) to the dems and gave over $30 million over the same time frame.

            Your hypocrisy and ignorance is showing.  You complain about someone who gave a tenth of the money that the big donors gave to the dems.  Your complaint is not hat they are giving money it is that ANYONE would give money to conservative causes.

            What you really want is to silence conservative voices.  Period.  and it’s pretty damn obvious that you don’t even know how much money is being spent to delude you into thinking that the Koch Brothers are spending a lot of money.  I don’t know whether to pity you or just be disgusted by the hypocrisy and stupidity.

          • Hugh_G

            See above about a deep breath..

            Trying to have a discussion with you is like spitting into the wind. Pointless.

            Last comment: the entire system is corrupt on both sides. If you can’t see that then I feel sad for you.

          • jim_m

             I’ll agree with you Hugh.  Your trying to argue with any conservative is like spitting into the wind.  You end up looking stupid and making a mess of yourself.

          • UOG

            Gee Hugh, what a great idea. Then, in addition to paying lifetime salaries and/or benefits to “professional politicians” I would also get to pay lifetime salaries to “professional wannabe politicians.” They’d probably demand benefits, too.

          • http://twitter.com/juandtres juandos

            I’m for public financing of elections“…

            Every commie clown is for that sort of silliness…

      • UOG

        Jim, what you describe needs a name. Maybe something like Tactical Outrage.

        • jim_m

           I was thinking more along the lines of  “selective ethics”.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      I see, so the “liberal-leaning groups” going after corporations to reveal their donations, but who are not fully transparent themselves, are doing this out of the goodness of their heart, not because they believe it will harm conservative-leaning groups.  And that’s the point of the article that Mr. Huston missed?  That’s what you’re trying to peddle?  Really? 
      Read the first two sentences of the article:
      “In a bid to limit the impact of “secret money” in the 2012 elections,
      a coalition of liberal-leaning groups announced a campaign this week
      aimed at pressuring corporations to reveal donations to political
      groups. There is one complication, however: Many of the groups behind the effort also don’t disclose their donors to the public.”Note the hypocrisy?  Or did that zoom right over your head?
      Mr. Huston added to one of the leftist-group’s [unwanted] transparency by noting that one of its representatives was a convicted felon who kited checks in a “…scheme perpetrated to fund a left-wing advocacy group he was heading at the time.”  All in all, an informative post.
      Your comment, on the other hand,… well, there’s a reason your “little gem” is “little.”

  • Hugh_G

    “There are a number of different kinds of organizations that have been involved in campaigns for transparency,” Creamer said. “The point of the current campaign has to do entirely with corporate funds, and our argument that corporations should not be investing shareholder money in trying to influence elections.” 
    Of course the reactionaries amongst you who didn’t read (most likely all of you) the WAPO article missed this little gem which is the whole point.

    It has nothing to do with going after conservative “groups” but corporations that are for profit.

    I have to hand it to Mr. Huston. That’s 2 in a row he’s gotten dead wrong.

  • ackwired

    I support any organization trying to bring transparency to the process.  Transparency to any part of it.  It is time to attack Crony Capitalism before it destroys our capitalist economy and our republic.

    • Walter_Cronanty

       As long as it’s complete transparency, applicable to all equally, I’ll agree.

  • 914

    I’m sure the good little hypocrite leftist is not a tax cheat though. 

  • LiberalNightmare

    Its not really a fair standard – most liberals are felons.

  • Brucepall

    My idea for knock-their-socks-off campaign finance reform is a law consisting of just 29 words:

    “If you are not eligible to vote for whomever is running for a specific public office, you are ineligible to donate money to any candidate campaigning for said office”   

    Think of the power shift this would cause at all levels of government… and how many useless influence peddlers, emotional prostitutes, and strap hangers would be kicked to the curb and out of a job.

    Semper Fidelis-

    • Oysteria

      Bingo!  Why would someone from California donate large sums of money to a congressional campaign in, say, Massachusetts unless their goal was to tip the balance of Congress as a whole without regard to those who live in that district?

    • herddog505

      What a great idea!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    Exactly how does one advisor for this group being a felon, mean making disclosure of corporate donors a bad idea?

    Leaving aside that this article’s slant accusing the “Lefty” group of going after **conservative** donors as opposed to corporate owners.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

       (crickets)