What makes these claims so ironic is that Barack Obama was the champion
of foreign cash contributions being used to get him elected.
And the facts, as laid out by FactCheck.org,
are simple; the Democrats have no evidence whatsoever that their scurrilous charges are based on anything except dubious speculation:
It's certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.Glenn Reynolds:
I'D LIKE TO MILDLY DISAGREE WITH THIS WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL: The bogus - and deeply hypocritical - foreign-money claims coming from the White House and the Democratic apparat aren't about campaigning. They're about constructing a narrative of defeat for their base, so that when they get clobbered in November they can blame it on scheming billionaires and evil foreigners instead of admitting that they elected an empty suit, and proceeded to push a wildly unpopular program over the clearly stated objections of a large majority of American voters. If their base faced up to their ineptitude, it would go off and start a new party, and then they'd need to get a real job. Better by far to retreat into conspiracy theory than to go back to Pocatello.
They certainly aren't getting any traction from the charges so Glenn's analysis rings true. How long they can continue this smokescreen will depend on the patience of the press. And considering that many major media outlets have cried "Foul" on the Dems on this one, I expect the attack to peter out shortly.