Transparency in campaign contributors is political ‘terrorism’ to FAUX News

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

have you heard about this? "Luffa Boy" Bill O'Rielly accused President Obama of being a political "terrorist." O'Reilly Accuses Obama Camp Of 'Terrorism' – Fox Nation – Fox News:

"Personal Story" segment tonight, a company named Melaleuca, that sells wellness products out of Idaho is under siege because the CEO donated a million dollars to a super PAC that supports Mitt Romney. And that CEO, Frank Vandersloot, is being personally attacked, as well.

Yeah, Frank Vandersloot is Mitt Romney's campaign finance co-chair, not just some businessman from Idaho, and he has a long history of using his fortune to effect the outcome of elections in Idaho. So what does "Luffa Boy" consider political "terrorism"?

The Obama campain has a web site that discloses the names of known contributors to Super PACs in the wake of Citizens United v. FEC. Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors:

Frank Vandersloot: Frank Vandersloot is the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and, through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future. He is also a “litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement” who “spent big” on ads in an “ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children.”

Oh the horrors! Transparency about who is actually behind those Super PACs like Romney's Restore Our Future. Billionaire bullies ought to be able to smear candidates from the safety of their undisclosed bunkers. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!"

Might FAUX News Fraudcasting's sudden interest in the political 'terrorism" of disclosing the names of the plutocrats who contribute to Super PACs have something to do with Karl Rove and this? Groups that finance election ads can't hide donors' IDs, court says:

An appeals court has ruled, for the time being, against groups that finance electioneering ads and want to keep the identity of their donors secret.

In a 2-1 decision late Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the groups provided no evidence their contributors would face threats if their names were disclosed. The merits of the case will be argued before the appeals court in September.

The disclosure issue involves broadcast ads that don't expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for office.

A federal judge ruled in March that the Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund the ads to keep their financiers anonymous. The funding groups had sought to have that ruling put on hold.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., filed the original lawsuit to overturn the FEC regulation. One of his attorneys, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, said the case is part of a concerted effort to end secrecy in the campaign-finance arena.

* * *

In addition, Democracy 21 and another organization, the Campaign Legal Center, are challenging the tax-exempt status of several funding groups classified as social welfare organizations, a designation that allows the groups to keep their donors' contributions secret.

One of the social welfare organizations, American Crossroads GPS, is an arm of American Crossroads, a super PAC with ties to former President George W. Bush's longtime political director, Karl Rove. Another social welfare organization, Priorities USA, is backing President Obama.

The court's decision was a significant victory for advocates of campaign finance reform who have been fighting the deluge of secret money that has flooded the political landscape in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010.

Until the appeal of the current case is decided sometime this fall, any group that runs a type of election-related ad known as "electioneering communications" will have to disclose all of its donors since the beginning of 2011.

The stakes are high for trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an array of well-financed conservative nonprofit groups such as Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity that planned to pump millions of dollars more into television commercials attacking the policies of Obama and congressional Democrats.

Election-law lawyers expect most groups will now try to find alternative methods of communicating rather than reveal the sources of their funding. But just the possibility that the curtain will be pulled back to reveal who has been driving campaign-related ads has buoyed reform advocates.

"It's the first major breakthrough in overcoming the massive amounts of secret contributions that are flowing into federal elections," Wertheimer said. "It certainly gives us momentum."

* * *

The FEC required advocacy groups only to disclose the names of donors that gave explicitly to finance a particular ad.

In his suit, Van Hollen argued that undermined the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, a sweeping campaign finance reform law that required groups running election-related ads to reveal their funding sources, among other measures.

A federal judge agreed, ruling March 30 that the FEC had overstepped its authority.

"Congress intended to shine light on whoever was behind the communications bombarding voters immediately prior to elections," Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in her decision.

Her ruling threw out the 2007 rule and reinstated a 2003 regulation that mandates that independent organizations paying for electioneering ads report all donations of $1,000 or more dating to the first day of the preceding year.

The FEC decided not to appeal the decision, but a reversal is being sought by two advocacy groups that say the ruling infringes on their First Amendment right and will force them to alter their plans for the 2012 election.

On Monday, a divided appeals court panel denied their request for a stay of the rule pending their appeal. In a statement, the two judges in the majority noted that the Supreme Court endorsed public disclosure in its Citizens United decision, which allowed direct political spending by corporations.

"The public interest is best served by access to more, not less, information," they wrote.

That's right, FAUX News Fraudcasting believes that transparency in disclosing the contributors to super PACs, especially those run by FAUX News contributor Karl Rove, constitutes political "terrorism." "Power to the Plutocracy!"