2 groups that bought anti-DeLay TV ads able to shield donors

[Judi Lynn]

Jan. 25, 2006, 10:11PM
2 groups that bought anti-DeLay TV ads able to shield donors
The method of payment lets them avoid disclosure


By SAMANTHA LEVINE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The two liberal groups behind the TV ads that criticized some of Rep. Tom DeLay's political funding connections paid for the commercials in a way that avoids mandatory disclosure of their donors.

The groups, whose ads ran on Houston-area stations that reach DeLay's suburban district, also refused to voluntarily disclose the names to the Houston Chronicle.

The Public Campaign Action Fund and the Campaign for America's Future said they used the nonprofit arms of their organizations to buy about $80,000 worth of broadcast time. Such organizations, unlike national political action committees and other campaign groups, do not have to list their contributors for the federal government.

Nick Nyhart, executive director of the Public Campaign Action Fund and a nonprofit affiliate called Public Campaign, said it is reasonable that lawmakers, but not his groups, must fully disclose their donors.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3613205.html
(Free registration required)

[Strong Atheist]

1. Should we be in favor of this? nt.

[Bridget Burke]

3. DeLay's people are not in favor of it!

Campaign Money Watch, the 527 associated with Public Campaign Action Fund, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals who generously support Democratic candidates.

The 527 related to the Campaign for America's Future, called the Campaign for Americas Future-CC Fund, received almost all of its contributions from organizations such as labor unions. Billionaire financier George Soros gave the group $300,000 in January 2004.

But according to the organizations, those funds were not used to pay for the Houston ads.

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said that the law might allow the groups to shield the names of those who funded the ads,"but they can't hide their liberal ties to George Soros and the AFL-CIO, and their agenda of electing Nancy Pelosi Democrats to Congress."

(from the linked article)

One of the groups in action: http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/

[Strong Atheist]

11. I don't care what delay thinks about jack. I am wondering if

we should support in principle the idea that groups can make political ad attacks without revealing their financing? Remember, this can be used by rethug groups as well ....

[Catchawave]

2. Isn't this money laundering?

And do the donors know how their donations were used?

[Bridget Burke]

4. Read the article & get back to us.

I think "money laundering" is quite a stretch....

[Catchawave]

5. I read the article. nt

[Bridget Burke]

6. Then, how does this fit the definition of money laundering?

Do you think that donations from unions & liberals are tainted?

[kybob]

7. i have a problem with it all

just me, but unnamed mews sources, hidden funding.

if individuals do not want to be identified, what else do the hide. seems to me if someone cared enough, or thought something was importatnt enough to leak. why don't they stand up and say i did it, this is why, and so forth.

why do folks have to hide under annonimity(sp)seems to me that having balls to say something, also means having the balls to stand in the sunshine with a smile, tahan hide under a rock.

[jarab]

8. Agree with you, kybob ....

No hidden political funding ever, from either side.


...O...

[Lochloosa]

13. I second that.

Hiding the contributers means you have something to hide. Sounds like the current administration.

[Roy]

9. These are paid for ads not paid for news....

You got these guys mixed up with repubs.

Republicans are the folks who purchase favorable news.

[kybob]

10. no i don't

its a general statement of all such things. it all smacks of the smokey back room politics.

i just feel that if any one makes a "bold" statement then be bold and up front and out of the shadows and into the sunshine. irregardless of party.

[Catchawave]

12. Thank you kybob :)

I totally agree :hi: