I don't usually join the media-bashing, but this Chamber stuff qualifies

Yet another report from Think Progress on how the US Chamber of Commerce is accepting foreign funds and putting them in the same accounts it uses for political lobbying.

I read this particularly shameful New York Times article that simply accepts the Chamber's claim that it keeps the money separate without providing an accounting, accepts the Chamber's claim that it's a small amount, and worst of all, refused to interview Think Progress to give them a chance to respond (see the first link above - "Most reporters (from the New York Times, McClatchy, the Associated Press, etc.) never contacted ThinkProgress, instead opting to only interview Chamber officials.")

I know some of our local Chambers here in Santa Clara County, and some of them do good work. But the US Chamber is doing some terrible work, and the media is making it even worse.

Some praise for some McCain bloggers

I was pleasantly surprised at the election-night reaction of some conservative bloggers at the group blogs Tigerhawk and The Corner. They stated that Obama was now their president too, they were genuinely happy for the tears of joy coming from the black community; and some even stated the nation should unite around the new leader and work together. Of course some right wingers were the exact opposite, but bile and anger was the reaction I had expected.

So that all is great, but it's harder to figure out how to work with well-meaning people when you have strong policy disagreements. I think the most important thing we can ask of them is not to drop their policy disagreements, but when policies get enacted that they disagree with, to do their best to keep an open mind in judging whether the policies succeed or fail. I guess we should do the same.

Some other possibilities for cooperation include emphasizing governmental transparency and anti-corruption efforts. Democrats' best and worst intentions will be split over this, while out-of-power Republicans have nothing to lose by supporting them. Earmarks aren't the most important problems in the world, but they are bad policy and recipes for corruption. Finally, sunset provisions and measurement metrics as part of new policies and legislation could be agreeable for both sides - to the Democrats who think the policies will succeed, and Republicans who think they'll fail. For example, I'd prefer stronger climate legislation that sunsets in 2020 over weaker legislation that's permanent.

Maybe there's other ways to work together, I don't know. I think the Republicans might have to lose again in 2012 and 2016, and then they might consider changing some of their views on social and environmental policies so that it becomes easier to work together.

Campaign debts and a nifty money-laundering trick

Bloomberg has a good article on the state of play for Clinton's campaign debts that also helps define the problem of candidates loaning money to their own campaigns. Her campaign owes $20 million, $11 million to herself and $5 million to the unliked Mark Penn.

Reforms initiated by John McCain (credit where due) address some of the problems of candidates loaning money. Other campaigns can help fundraise but can't simply pay off the debts. Debts can be repaid in full before the election, but "only" $250,000 can be repaid to candidates after the election.

The candidate loan problem remains, however, in the period between when the election is actually decided, like it is now for the Democratic nomination to be held in late August, and when the election actually occurs. Winning candidates will get deluged with money from contributors trying to curry favor by putting money in the candidates' pocket through paying off the loans candidates made to their campaigns. Losing candidates who are still powerful, like the Senator from New York, will be even more grateful to people who pay them off.

And while other candidates can no longer bribe a competitor to drop out by paying the loan the candidate made to herself, the fundraising help is significant. Finally, there remains the $250,000 contribution that can happen anytime. Candidate loans to themselves should be abolished.

I also wanted point out a neat trick in money-shifting from Bloomberg:

Unlike the rules for her personal loan, Clinton can tap her Senate campaign account to pay off the vendor debts. While the account had $277,480 as of March 31, she could ask the donors who gave her $23 million for the general election if they would be willing to re-designate that money for her 2012 Senate re-election campaign. That would give her more than enough cash to repay everyone but herself.

People gave to the general election fund because they maxed out the $2,300 allowed for the nomination. Redesignating the money for her Senate campaign and then using that money to pay vendor debts means contributors can exceed the $2,300 cap for the nomination. I didn't know about this, and I wonder how many other loopholes are out there.

UPDATE: NY Times sez it's unclear whether the money-shifting trick is legal.