Liberal Biased Obama Protectionist MSM’s: Media Ignores Democrat, Union Donors When Decrying Money in Politics



Alinskyites utilizing Taqiyya:

Outwitting.:The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.


David Axelrod sends out marching orders and MSM’s comply.


Liberal Biased Media Given Marching Orders from David Axelrod. Is Liberal Media Afraid of Obama? Or Just the Useful Idiots Obama Wants them to Be?


Media Ignores Democrat, Union Donors When Decrying Money in Politics

by        Scott Katz

July 27, 2012

It’s hunting season, and the mainstream media is firing at big conservative donors.

The Koch Brothers are a common target, with Chris Matthews not so much playing “Hardball” as bean ball, devoting a segment called “Dirty, Angry Money,” where he throws an apoplectic fit at any conservative donor with an outsized checkbook.

Rolling Stone’s Julian Brookes picks up the theme in his adoring review of activist filmmaker Robert Greenwald’s “Koch Brothers Exposed,” documenting the diabolical activities of the nefarious brothers. Of course, he fails mention George Soros–neither the 15+ million dollars he donated to over 520 liberal organizations dedicated to defeating former President Bush, saying he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat Bush “if someone guaranteed it,” nor any mention of his ties to LightSquared and a host of other questionable activities.

Also missing is the fact that Koch Enterprises employs 67,000 people (none of whom seem to be dealing drugs or robbing banks) or that the Koch Brothers have donated over 100 million dollars to MIT for the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, 30 million to the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 25 million to MD Anderson Cancer Center, 25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and 15 million to the Weill Cornell Medical Center (along with a pledge of 100 million dollars to the New York State Theater and the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts).

While bashing donors to conservative candidates, the mainstream media fails to mention the 450 million that will be spent by Big Labor in the 2012 elections.

According to AP, one union alone (AFSCME) spent 93 million on the 2010 elections.

“We’re the big dog,” said Larry Scanlon, head of AFSCME’s political operations, “but we don’t like to brag.”

Since AFSCME can pay for political ads using member dues (no matter if the members agree or not), and which amount to roughly $390 per member, it’s easy to come in under the banner of the little guy.

Also absent from mainstream reporting is the fact that public sector union spending on elections, (AFSCME, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, and the list goes on and on) is that this money is essentially funded with taxpayer cash, since members’ salaries and dues come from state budgets.

According to, the 2010 elections saw PACs giving $238,450,722 to Democrats and $181,565,844 to Republicans, with public sector unions spending vastly more than any other outside group.

AFSCME and the SEIU plan to spend at least $185 million electing Obama this year.

The class warfare commandos aren’t going away, and big money in politics isn’t earth-shattering news.

What’s notable, however, is the class warfare reporting in the mainstream media, that it’s the big guys, the 1%ers, against the little guy.

But these aren’t the little guys.

This isn’t some loose collection of camp counselors and molecular biologists, sandwich makers, and golf starters who magically coalesced through some grassroots Internet campaign.

“We’re the big dog,” Larry Scanlon said.  He said it, not me.

Oh, and way to not brag.


*Emphasis added**




Harry Reid Won’t Bring the House-Passed 30+ Jobs Bills to Senate Floor, but Will Go Full Boogie to Get Bill to Protect Unions on Floor without Discussion


The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, first introduced in March, had two major provisions: requiring politically active super PACs, unions, and corporations to disclose the identity of donors who contribute $10,000 or more; and requiring electioneering ads to disclose who is funding them.

But the latter so-called “stand by your ad” provision is absent from the version of the bill on which the Senate will vote. A spokesman for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who introduced the bill, said the provision was nixed in response to GOP complaints.

“The ‘stand by your ad’ provision was dropped in response to objections we’ve heard from folks on the other side of the aisle,” the spokesman said. “It’s now targeted specifically at requiring disclosure.”

However, a senior Republican aide told the Free Beacon the provision was dropped due to union pressure.

The “stand by your ad” provision would have required the CEO or equivalent position of an organization buying electioneering ads—AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, for example—to endorse them, similar to the endorsements required at the end of ads purchased by political campaigns.

“The Trumkas of the world aren’t exactly the warm, fuzzy personalities you want appearing at the end of your ad,” the aide said.

Lisa Rosenberg, a government accountability consultant for the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation, said the bill treated organizations equally, since member dues in groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association would also fall under the threshold.

The remaining provisions leave unions and other labor groups largely unaffected, because union member dues do not trigger the disclosure threshold. Additionally, local union chapters can funnel donations under $10,000 to their parent groups. That is another way to avoid disclosure.

When the DISCLOSE Act was first introduced in 2010, the reporting threshold was only $600, but it was raised to reduce the bureaucratic burden on organizations.

Democratic Senators introduced the new version of the bill on the same day the Wall Street Journal reported unions and labor groups spent $4.4 billion in political activity between 2005 and 2011.

The Republican aide said the heart of the Democrats’ decision was protecting unions from disclosure while forcing their political adversaries, such as the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, to reveal their donors.



White House Official at Super PAC “Super-O-Rama”? White House Denies. What Politico Doesn’t tell YOU about the Democracy Alliance,(Connections to the Akonadi Foundation) and American Bridge 21st Century……


Obama and White House Colluding with Media Matters? Propaganda “Truth Squad” enters stage Left.


Shoe on the Other Foot: 15 Questions The (Liberal Biased) Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A REPUBLICAN





The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. […] Liberal Biased Obama Protectionist MSM’s: Media Ignores Democrat, Union Donors When Decrying Money… […]

  2. […] Liberal Biased Obama Protectionist MSM’s: Media Ignores Democrat, Union Donors When Decrying Money… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: