Greg Sargent writes about the Very Serious People, and Republicans, who assert--with no evidence--that the source of the tens of millions being used to bash Dems this cycle doesn't matter to voters.
Mark Halperin, for instance, wondered allowed [sic] today: "I'm not sure how this appeals to voters." Halperin then stated this as outright fact: "It's just not relevant to voters."
Republicans are now entering the fray -- and they, too, agree it's a political flop, claiming that it will make Dems look anti-business. "All that Democrats have done is remind people of their anti-business fervor while drawing attention to the fact that their anti-growth policies have failed to put Americans back to work," reads a statement from Eric Cantor's office.
It's not surprising that Republicans would make this case. It dovetails with their larger message that Obama and Democrats are driven by an unshakable hostility towards the private sector and want to remake our economy into something no longer recognizably American. But if commentators are going to claim this attack is a failure, they might try to figure out if there's any evidence to back that up.
Greg points out that there are at least two polls out there, one from WaPo and another from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner that clearly show overwhelming concern with and opposition to corporate spending in elections. This strong opposition to the corporate takeover of our elections, I think, is at the core of why Rove and the Chamber are fighting so hard against this story (with the help of Village idiots like Halperin)--keeping the shroud of secrecy over their efforts and providing no direct target for popular rage.
Which brings us to the theme Sargent, and plenty of Democrats, have been arguing for since the Citizens United decision--transparency. Rich Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, took up the call today, a "partial" reversal of position for the organziation, which had opposed the DISCLOSE Act.
"That'd be good for the system, I think," Trumka said at a breakfast meeting with reporters, in response to a question from TPM. "Because the system is awash -- there's more money in the system than there was oil in the Gulf, quite frankly. It's from people that you don't know. You eventually find out I guess, but it's this mysterious money coming in and targeting at three, four, five times what either of the candidates are doing."
Trumka claimed that the AFL has never in principle opposed disclosure as an objective: "What we did was say if you're going to do it, make sure it applies to everybody -- that we were being totally disadvantaged while other people weren't being disadvantaged."
It's an important reversal, one that in conjunction with the revelations about the Chamber and Rove's group and the secret fortunes they are spending could breathe new life into the DISCLOSE Act, potentially even in the lame duck session if leadership and the administration are willing to push it.