One of the big questions that has surfaced is "Why won't Brown reveal her donors?".
While I agree it would be interesting to know, and nobody likes sifting through this kind of stuff more than me, I'm writing today to tell you, in this particular case, we really don't even need to know.
Allow me to explain.
Campbell was silly enough to pretend the reason she can't reveal her donors is because she has to protect them from people like the oh-so-scary protesters outside the studio. Twenty folks who look like you and me.
|Campbell Brown's arch nemeses|
Ooo, is that scary! I mean, look at these thugs, what with their magic-markered poster boards and their peaceful milling around on the sidewalk! No wonder Campbell won't say who is financing her operation -- clearly, these parents who are "trying to silence debate" are "going to go after people who are funding this"! And by "go after," I guess Brown means "hold up hand-made signs"!
Clearly, we must protect Brown's plutocratic backers from this danger at all costs -- including any normal standards of transparency.
"Singer is the big power broker in the Republican financial world," says one operative who knows him. "He's involved with almost everything." Fortune described him as "a passionate defender of the 1%." In practical terms, notes one conservative donor, "if you write checks as big as Singer's, you can be close to anyone." (emphasis mine)
Mr. Singer is perhaps best known for the fight he put up — and the money he made — in his battle over Peruvian debt. In 1996, he paid $11.4 million for $20 million worth of discounted, government-backed Peruvian bank debt. Then, rather than joining with 180 other Peruvian creditors who agreed to a plan using bonds to forgive some of the impoverished country’s debt, Mr. Singer held out for bigger payments.
He battled in the courts. At one point he hired an Albany lobbying firm and got New York State to change an obscure law to strengthen his position. When the dust had settled, Mr. Singer ended up getting $58 million for his Peruvian investment.
Groups advocating debt relief — and higher-profile people like Bono — criticize such transactions, maintaining that they force poor countries to divert money from social and economic programs in order to pay back investors. The International Monetary Fund, where a top official once labeled Mr. Singer’s firm a “vulture company,” issued a report recently saying that such funds present a “major challenge” to the success of debt-relief programs in poor countries. (emphasis mine)
You know, right now what’s happening in this particular case is now these vulture funds have been equipped with an instrument that’s going to force poor countries, like the Ivory Coast and Zambia, into submission. So it’s a very powerful precedent that will be impacting the one-out-of-five people that live in extreme poverty around the world.
Can you talk, Eric LeCompte, very quickly, in 30 seconds, about Paul Singer, who is the head of the parent company of ? :
: So, essentially, he’s the person that’s developed this predatory behavior, that goes after assets in poor countries that essentially belong to vulnerable communities. He’s the person that leads several firms that are these predatory hedge funds which engage in this exploitative, extreme behavior. And he’s popularized, essentially, this kind of investor action around the world. And right now the World Bank notes that there are about a hundred companies that follow, essentially, the leadership that Paul Singer has laid out in terms of this behavior.
: And his significance in national politics? Five seconds.
: Yeah, he’s the number one donor to the . (emphasis mine)
|Moskowitz with Brown|
|Christie gave the keynote|
|And who can resist a David Tepper sighting?|
Especially when we're talking about tenure!
That Brown would feign that she can't disclose her donors to protect them from moms like me or the ladies outside Colbert's studio is preposterous. I have a blog, they have signs and sharpies, and Brown has at her beck and call the main stream media, a well seasoned PR machine, high-powered lawyers, and guys worth $1.5 billion.
The smart money says she won't reveal her donors because some are likely "passionate defenders of the 1%" like Singer (and her husband) who are willing to plunder poor countries all over the world, which, ya know, happen to be full of children.
Sure would make it harder to pretend you're trying to gut the union and get rid of tenure "for the kids", wouldn't it?
Oh, I'm sorry Ms. Brown, is this the kind of targeting of your potential donors you were worried about?