The “Great Seal” of the Commonwealth of Virginia depicts the Roman goddess Virtus standing over the defeated Tyranny and has been in use since 1776. Virtus is holding a spear and a sheathed sword, and the garb she is wearing exposes her left breast. (An earlier rendition of the seal traced back to Thomas Jefferson shows the goddess wearing even less clothing.) However, far-right Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) is now tinkering with the historic seal:

The seal depicts the Roman goddess Virtus, or virtue, wearing a blue tunic draped over one shoulder, her left breast exposed. But on the new lapel pins Cuccinelli recently handed out to his staff, Virtus’ bosom is covered by an armored breastplate.

When the new design came up at a staff meeting, workers in attendance said Cuccinelli joked that it converts a risqué image into a PG one.

The joke might be on him, said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. “When you ask to be ridiculed, it usually happens. And it will happen here, nationally,” he said. “This is classical art, for goodness’ sake.”

Cuccinelli’s spokesman said that the pins were paid for by funds from the attorney general’s political action committee. In 2002, Bush attorney general John Ashcroft became the subject of national ridicule when he “spent $8,000 on blue drapes” to cover two nude statues at the Justice Department. An unscientific poll on the website of the Virginian-Pilot finds that 96 percent of the more than 4,000 people who have taken the survey think Cuccinelli’s decision was a “bad idea.”

On Thursday, Senate Democrats, along with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), unveiled sweeping campaign finance reform aimed at curbing campaign abuses in the wake of the conservative Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which struck down decades of campaign finance law. The main focus of the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) is to increase disclosure requirements on corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and nonprofit advocacy groups that spend money on ads to influence federal elections. The DISCLOSE Act forces the CEO of a corporation or head of an advocacy group to personally appear in the organization’s ads and take responsibility, and for the top funder of the ad to appear in the ad and take responsibility.

The status quo of electioneering allows corporate powers, billionaires, and even domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations to essentially manipulate American elections without ever revealing themselves. The DISCLOSE Act is a tremendous start at addressing this crisis of open democracy. But predictably, secretive right-wing power brokers are pushing back. As soon as Van Hollen’s bill was introduced, front groups funded by the most elusive conservative elite fired back, swiftly criticizing the new transparency requirements as a so-called threat to their First Amendment rights:

– U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The DISCLOSE Act “stifles free speech.” Chamber President Tom Donohue quickly issued a statement condemning the bill as an attempt to “silence constitutionally protected speech and abridge First Amendment rights.” Donohue may feel threatened because the DISCLOSE Act undermines the very purpose of the Chamber: to attack progressive reforms while concealing the corporate money behind those attacks. For instance, the Chamber is running millions of dollars of ads against Wall Street reform, but the ads only say they are paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In fact, some of the nation’s largest financial conglomerates, including banks bailed out by taxpayers like CitiGroup, are funding the Chamber and in doing so, are underwriting these ads. Last year, the Chamber ran nearly $100 million dollars in advertising against health reform, dwarfing any other group for or against the bills in Congress. However, the Chamber never revealed that health insurance companies were secretly paying for much of those ads.

– Howie Rich’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is “disclosure overkill.” The Center for Competitive Politics, one of real estate tycoon Howie Rich’s many anti-government front groups, quickly slammed the bill and absurdly argued that the “stand by your ad” mandate “provid[es] no informational benefit and reduc[es] the amount of available political speech” in an ad. This laughable claim that more disclosure gives less information is a cynical cover to help Rich stay behind closed doors as he operates a massive political machine from the perch of his SoHo apartment. Rich funds the right-wing attack group, Club for Growth, as well as the Sam Adams Alliance, the libertarian group that helped Eric Odom mastermind the very first tea party protests. A PBS expose on Rich found that he had funneled $7 million dollars into anti-government state initiatives throughout the country, while carefully hiding his identity and relationship to the “movement.”

– David and Charles Koch’s Front Group: The DISCLOSE Act is a “gambit to chill speech.” John Samples, a staffer at the Cato Institute — an anti-government think-tank founded by Charles Koch and funded still by David Koch — wrote an op-ed decrying the bill for curbing the speech of foreign-owned companies and for exposing the corporate backers of ads. David Koch funds Americans for Prosperity, which runs millions of dollars of attack ads against clean energy and health reform. But Americans for Prosperity bills itself as a grassroots citizens group, and never reveals that the Kochs founded the group and continues to finance it. The Koch brothers also fund a network of other secretive front groups and think tanks, but almost none of these right-wing groups openly bare the Koch name.

Notably, the Cato Institute, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Center for Competitive Politics filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court to help knock down campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case.

The legislation also bars foreign corporations with domestic subsidiaries, federal contractors, and TARP recipients who have not repaid their funds from spending their money on politics.

Since the offshore oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) have been coming under increasing scrutiny for whether they were negligent in overseeing the rigs owned by BP and others. At a press conference yesterday morning, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) compared it to the SEC’s failure to enforce regulations leading up to the financial crisis. Ironically, MMS was all set to hold its annual “2010 Annual Industry SAFE Awards Luncheon” on May 3. Perhaps recognizing that now is not the time to applaud the oil industry for safety on the job, MMS postponed the event. From the agency’s website:

The LA Times notes that last year, BP “was among the luncheon’s winners, cited for ‘outstanding dedication and leadership in promoting improved medical care and evacuation capabilities for offshore facilities.’” During the Bush administration, MMS was embroiled in scandal over its employees being in bed (sometimes literally) with the oil industry it was supposed to be regulating.