"... Christie defended the notorious Koch Brothers while dismissing the validity of concerns about the influence of undisclosed donations and negative ads ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
In Christie’s world, secrecy rules
Editorial, Daily Record, October 9, 2014

Most New Jerseyans should be well aware by now that Gov. Christie opposes government transparency whenever reasonable public access could embarrass him.

So it should be no surprise, at least in this part of the country, that Christie is spreading his message of secrecy across the nation during his unofficial presidential campaign.

Last week, during a campaign stop in Arizona, ostensibly in his role as the Republican Governors Association chairman, Christie defended the notorious Koch Brothers while dismissing the validity of concerns about the influence of undisclosed donations and negative ads on Arizona’s gubernatorial race as “silliness” and “sophistry.”

Millions of dollars in so-called “dark money” — spending by ill-defined, not-for-profit shell organizations through which donors can remain anonymous — has played an enormous role in Arizona’s campaign for governor on both sides. The Koch Brothers are among those behind the dark money on behalf of the GOP challenger Doug Ducey, although Christie said he didn’t believe that.

The Koch Brothers provide a kind of flashpoint on the issue because of their immense wealth and their aggressive use of it to try to shape American society to the benefit of the one percent. But they are not alone in hiding behind disclosure shields to keep their connections to candidates a secret.

That doesn’t bother Christie, who could benefit greatly from the fruits of those anonymous contributions. As an Arizona Republic reporter began asking Ducey about the Koch Brothers last week, Christie jumped in to not only defend the Kochs, but also argued that Arizona residents don’t even care about the issue. He says they are more concerned about jobs, education, and “honesty and integrity” in government.

We’ll give Christie the benefit of the doubt on one thing: We’ll assume that the irony of promoting government integrity while also defending anonymous donations wasn’t lost on him. He just ignores it.

Those who argue that political spending is merely an exercise of free speech intentionally avoid a companion reality — that spending in large amounts corrupts the entire election process. It is protected and legal, but still damaging to the government integrity Christie pretends he thinks is so important.

So while court rulings continue to untie any restraints reformers try to place on campaign spending, assuring the public knows whom is giving what to whom becomes even more crucial in trying to hold politicians accountable. We need to see the money trails, to better understand where deals are being cut and promises made, to anticipate and recognize how those financial relationships could affect elected officials’ actions.

But Christie wants more secrecy, at least when it’s to his advantage. Keep that in mind when he starts trying to convince you he’s earned a chance at the White House.
...................................................................................................................................................................