The left is at war with free speech. During the Bush years, freedom of speech was a big issue to the left. George Soros spent $26 million to defeat Bush, for example. He said he would spend his entire fortune to defeat Bush if guaranteed that outcome. After all the free speech money can buy (and from a convicted felon), they want to make sure no one else has the same opportunity for expression, per 4/4 Callahan NYT article.
4/6/11, "Free speech for me, but not for thee," Big Government, Chris Berg
"In the year that has passed since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal elites have waged a war against the First Amendment. Liberal politicians including President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid, liberal media corporations like the New York Times, and labor unions have joined together to
- support restrictions on speech and liberty.
- that do not support their liberal world view.
In the April 4, 2011 edition of the New York Times, David Callahan launched an ideological attack on the boogeymen de jour, Charles and David Koch. Callahan sets the tone of his article by attacking the Koch brothers for “conceal[ing] the recipients of their largess.” In order to prevent this from occurring, Callahan would “require all nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy
- to reveal their donors.”
While Mr. Callahan alleges the current system can be utilized by the left and the right, he seems particularly offended by David Koch’s support of “ideologically driven organizations like the Cato Institute.” Callahan argues that such groups
- should be treated differently
from other not-for-profit organizations.
His proposal, couched in terms of “fairness” is nothing more than an attempt to limit speech.
“In response, the Internal Revenue Service should create a new category for nonprofits engaged in policy advocacy. Such groups would have to disclose all their donors, while traditional 501(c)3’s — museums and universities, for example — could continue to receive anonymous gifts.
“The I.R.S. should also set a ceiling on the deductibility of such gifts to limit the extent to which all taxpayers subsidize de facto political giving by the wealthy. The treatment of small gifts would remain unchanged to encourage ordinary Americans to engage in civic life.
Mr. Callahan founded Demos, A Network for Ideas and Action. Demos reports to the I.R.S. that it is a “non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization in pursuit of a more equitable economy, a vibrant & inclusive democracy, an empowered public sector & a responsible U.S. engagement in the world.” Demos engages in this “research and advocacy” while enjoying the benefits of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
When we look at the actual work carried out by Demos we find a hodgepodge of policy advocacy in such “non-partisan” issue areas as distribution of wealth and income, economic challenges of young people, felon disenfranchisement, inequality, poverty, and a program devoted to
- “race & debt.”
Were a conservative organization to address these issues, Mr. Callahan would be offended. As he has proposed he would require them to disclose their donors and create disincentives to fund such an organization. But like many liberals, Mr. Callahan’s true purpose seems to be “free speech for me, but not for thee.” From Senator Chuck Schumer’s misleadingly named DISCLOSE Act, to aggressive anti-speech advocacy by so-called “non-partisan” groups as Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center, and Common Cause, the mission of these “reformers” is clear –
- they only want to protect speech that they agree with.
Callahan’s proposal is a thinly veiled attempt to chill the Freedom of Speech and silence conservative viewpoints. If he were proceeding in good faith, he would call on Demos to voluntarily disclose its donors. After all, Callahan and Demos are engaged in policy advocacy, which in his view
- deserves less protection than museums and the arts."
Hillary Clinton, 2003: "I am sick and tired of people who say if you debate and if you disagree with this administration that somehow you're not patriotic.
- "And we should stand up and say we're Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
- Hillary Clinton in 2003
1/30/2005, "Soros Says Kerry's Failings Undermined Campaign Against Bush," Bloomberg, Michael McKee "Billionaire investor George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to the failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush in November's election, said Democratic challenger John Kerry was a flawed candidate.
Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26 million in last year's campaign that he said was undermined by the candidate he supported....
Still, Soros said the money he spent was worthwhile, and that he will remain active in U.S. politics.
``I don't feel it's an investment that's gone bad, because when you stand up for principles you have to do it whether you win or lose,'' Soros said. ``I'm distressed that Bush was re-elected, but I don't feel that I wasted my money.''
Soros donated millions to the Media Fund a group that ran television, print and radio advertisements against Bush, and America Coming Together, a group that mobilized voters in battleground states such as
He also personally bought anti-Bush ads in newspapers around the country, and went on a 12-city speaking tour to criticize Bush's foreign policy....
``My conclusion is that America is an open society, the most successful, the most powerful in the world, that doesn't understand the first principle of an open society, namely that we may be wrong,'' he (Soros) said. ``And as long as we have that position,
- we are not really qualified to propagate democracy all over the world.''...
================================
11/11/2003, "Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President," Washington Post, By Laura Blumenfeld, Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page A03
"Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?
He said, "If someone guaranteed it.""
------------------------------------------------------
- 2002, "George Soros convicted of Insider Trading in France," Guardian UK
- 1997, "Soros Institute fined $3 million for currency exchange violations by Belarus," NY Times
- "In 1979, he signed a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange Commission in a civil proceeding relating to his trading in the stock of an American computer manufacturer that was about to issue fresh shares. Commission officials contended that
- Mr. Soros had sold shares to push down the price of the new shares.
Mr. Soros acknowledged no wrongdoing, but agreed not to engage in similar practices in the future. Unlike American law, French law does not provide for civil enforcement actions in insider trading cases"....NY Times
6/14/06,"Soros has often drawn criticism for speculating heavily on the collapse of fragile currencies." NY Times
----------------------------------------
3/24/2005, "Soros French Insider Trading Conviction Upheld (Update3)," Bloomberg,
"For more than two decades, Soros has used his wealth to influence governments."...
===========================
Soros political funding group Democracy Alliance demands secrecy:
7/16/06, Washington Post: "A New Alliance of Democrats Spreads Funding," by Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
"An alliance of nearly a hundred of the nation's wealthiest donors is roiling Democratic political circles, directing
- more than $50 million in the past nine months to liberal think tanks and advocacy groups in what organizers say is the first installment of a long-term campaign
- to compete more aggressively against conservatives.
- to submit to its extensive screening process and its
- demands for secrecy.
These include the Center for American Progress, a think tank with an unabashed partisan edge, as well as Media Matters for America, which tracks what it sees as conservative bias in the news media. Several alliance donors are negotiating a major investment in Air America, a liberal talk-radio network.
But the large checks and demanding style wielded by Democracy Alliance organizers in recent months have caused unease among Washington's community of Democratic-linked organizations. The alliance has required organizations that receive its endorsement
- to sign agreements shielding the identity of donors.
Public interest groups said the alliance represents
- a large source of undisclosed and unaccountable political influence....
George Soros and Colorado software entrepreneur Tim Gill....
- The group requires nondisclosure agreements because many
- donors prefer anonymity,
Wade added. Some donors expressed concern about being attacked on the Web or elsewhere for their political stance; others did not want to be targeted by fundraisers.
- "Like a lot of elite groups, we fly beneath the radar,"
said Guy Saperstein, an Oakland lawyer and alliance donor. But "we are not so stupid though," he said, to think "we can deny our existence."
- This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen Democrats who are members of the alliance, recipients of their money or familiar with the group's operations.
- None would speak on the record about financial details, but all such details were confirmed by multiple sources.
Democracy Alliance works essentially as a cooperative for donors, allowing them to coordinate their giving
- so that it has more influence....
- Soros, Gill and insurance magnate Peter Lewis are among the biggest contributors, but 45 percent of the 95 partners gave $300,000 or better in the initial round of grants last October, according to a source familiar with the organization.
Democracy Alliance organizers say they are trying to bring principles of accountability
and capital investment that are common in business to the world of political advocacy, where they believe such principles have often been missing.
- Wade declined to discuss the donors or the groups they fund.
But, in an interview, she described how the groups were chosen. Alliance officials initially reviewed about 600 liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. Then, about 40 of those groups were invited to apply for an endorsement -- with a requirement that they submit detailed business plans and internal financial information. Those groups were then screened by a panel of alliance staff members, donors and outside experts, including some with expertise in philanthropy rather than politics. So far, according to people familiar with the alliance, 25 groups have received its blessing.
- The goal was to invest in groups that could be influential in building what activists call "political infrastructure" -- institutions that can support Democratic causes not simply in the next election but for years to come.
- Likewise, a Democracy Alliance blessing effectively jump-started Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). It bills itself as a nonpartisan watchdog group committed to targeting "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests." Alliance officials see CREW as a possible counterweight to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, which filed numerous lawsuits against Clinton administration officials in the 1990s. A CREW spokesman declined to comment....
- most of the think tanks and
- not-for-profit groups funded by the alliance
- are exempt from public disclosure laws.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment