Serving the Social Welfare

(Photo/Courtesy of Mother Jones)

Is our social welfare served through funding dirty ads,

Spending money on elections?  (Not a little...  Scads!)

Or is that political in nature?  I'd say yes;

Putting me at odds with Rove at Crossroads GPS.

Donors to a social welfare group don't have to say

Who they are nor give a reason why they'll, gladly, pay

Limitless amounts of cash to get their guys elected.

Watch-dog groups did "sniff tests."  A foul odor was detected.

Issue driven campaign ads, though they're protected speech,

Urge you towards a candidate...  They're not designed to teach.

That sure sounds political - where speech is also free -

Guaranteed to them...  Without the anonymity.

If these secret Super PACs have got a point to make

I think we should know who funds positions that they take.

Social welfare isn't served by people talking trash,

Not unless we also know who's putting up the cash.

Race for the White House - Super PACs and Karl Rove (Again)

excerpted from
Article first published as Crossroads GPS? Meet Citizens for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, SHH on Technorati.

Photo credit: Qurmudjin

Citizens United and the Super PACs it's spawned

Make donations secret so that citizens get conned

Into thinking all the ads they're seeing on T.V.

Represent the mainstream views of folks like you and me.

They would be mistaken, though. That isn't how it works.

Behind non-disclosure's where the puppet master lurks.

Karl Rove's been on FOX News lately, arguing that he

Thinks that secret funding's good; but I do not agree.

Ads have an agenda; that is what an ad is for.

If we don't know whose agenda, how do we keep score?

Facts can be distorted when told from another's view.

I would like to know who's paying for it.  Wouldn't you?

IRS has started asking questions.  Rove's outraged.

Don't know why - for, even if this oversight's engaged -

Super PACs won't have to make disclosures; not until

After the elections will we know who paid the bill.