The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

National Memo Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason joined host Mika Brzezinski, reporter Nicholas Confessore, and MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today to discuss how corporations are donating millions of dollars secretly to tax-exempt groups — as highlighted by Confessore  in a front-page New York Times report on Sunday. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

According to Confessore and his co-author Mike McIntire, major corporations such as American Electric Power, Aetna, Prudential Financial, and Dow Chemical are choosing to donate to tax-exempt “social welfare” groups that face no disclosure requirements, in order to hide their donations. They release political ads supposedly for the purpose of “educating the public,”  but critics see their real intention as seeking to influence elections.

In the video clip, Conason refers to Republican Karl Rove’s definition of “social welfare” as “attacking President Obama over taxes on TV” —  alluding to Rove’s Crossroads GPS group, a tax-exempt nonprofit that launched a $25 million ad campaign to attack President Obama over taxes and deficits

Conason notes that the Citizens United case, in which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ‘s decision dismissed the notion that corruption will arise from unlimited corporation political campaign contributions because all such money will be disclosed. “Citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests …and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” the majority opinion reads. “This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

But the “transparency” promised in the court’s majority opinion has been thwarted by Republicans in the Senate and House, who have refused to pass legislation mandating disclosure.

“Now, ” Conason points out, “they [corporate donors] don’t want full disclosure, and maybe we should worry about corruption when you see the kind of corporate money that is flowing into these campaigns.” 

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Wandrea "Shaye" Moss

YouTube Screenshot

Just who deserves protection in America?

If you observe the folks this country chooses to protect and chooses to ignore, you may get an answer that doesn’t exactly line up with America’s ideals.

Keep reading... Show less
YouTube Screenshot

The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.

This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}