Some of you may be aware of the Citizens United Decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States, "holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment."

This meant that corporations could now donate freely to political campaigns without having to disclose their donation.  Which is why the President and Democrats have been hammering the GOP and the various groups funding attack ads against vulnerable Democratic seats for not disclosing their donors.  The President came out last week accusing GOP 501c6 groups (or advocacy group newly allowed under Citizens United, also there are various versions of these groups) and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce using foreign money to influence American elections.  Shortly thereafter, Karl Rove struck back on ABC News saying that the President is wrong about his advocacy group using foreign money to spend on GOP candidates, arguing that there was no proof.  Ironic considering the Citizens United decision allows people who run such groups to hide donors. 

So, there is certainly a dispute as to how useful the Democratic line of attack against the sudden influx of millions of dollars of extra corporate and union spending is having on the debate, or will have.  That's not to say that undocumented donations aren't a threat to democracy, but rather that the foreign influence angle isn't necessarily the best way to tackle the situation.  However, time will tell if the American people really want less transparency in government, because as you will soon see, the Chamber of Commerce's reasoning as to why it supports anonymity for corporate donations doesn't make a lot of sense.

This morning on the Daily Run Down, R. Bruce Josten, the number two representative from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spoke to Chuck Todd about the accusations of foreign influence and the efficacy of Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United.  He flatly denied any foreign money being spent through their advocacy group and tried to press upon Chuck Todd that the reason corporations should be allowed to withhold their donors was because they wanted to avoid any possible backlash by consumers.  That it.  The free market champions want to be able to influence public policy without having to explain their decisions to potential customers.

Suffice it to say, the interviewer wasn't buying what the Chamber was selling when it came to the reasoning behind their support for less government transparency, and quite frankly neither do I.  People have to ask themselves if it's better to have more information at their disposal when deciding how they want to vote, or less.  If you support Citizens United and the Chamber of Commerce, you want people in the dark.

Watch the segment below which starts at about 14:30: