The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reports that the Chamber of Commerce has issued yet another response to our story – at least the fifth different statement it has offered since we first reported yesterday morning on their foreign sources of funding. The Chamber’s latest effort is to engage in personal name-calling, referring to ThinkProgress as “a George Soros-funded, anti-business blog” that is “deceitful.” This smoke-and-mirrors response serves to obfuscate the basic facts which ThinkProgress revealed:

1) The Chamber acknowledges that it receives foreign sources of funding.
2) The foreign funds go directly into the Chamber’s general 501(c)(6) entity.
3) At least $300,000 has been channeled from foreign companies in India and Bahrain to the account.
4) The foreign sources include foreign state-owned companies, including the State Bank of India and the Bahrain Petroleum Company.
5) The Chamber’s 501(c)(6) entity is used to launch an unprecedented $75 million partisan attack ad campaign against Democrats.

Nothing the Chamber has said in response to our story refutes those basic set of facts. The right-wing business group claims that it has a “system” in place to ensure that money is not being used for illegal purposes, namely to influence U.S. elections. But the Chamber refuses to explain how that “system” works, and is instead demanding that the public simply trust-but-not-verify.

In a statement provided to Sargent, the Chamber reveals that foreign-based “AmChams pay nominal dues to the Chamber — approximately $100,000 total across all 115 AmChams.” But “AmChams” are only a small piece of the puzzle.

Most of the Chamber’s foreign sources of funds come from large multi-national corporations who are headquartered abroad, like BP and Siemens. Direct contributions from foreign firms also are accepted under the auspices of the Chamber’s “Business Councils” located in various foreign countries. The Chamber states that only “a relative handful [of its 300,000 members] are non-U.S. based companies.” Relative handful? How many is that? And how much are they contributing?

As long as the Chamber is willing to continue issuing statements, here’s some questions we have that perhaps they can answer for us:

1) What is this “system” they claim to have in place to keep foreign money out of their election program?
2) Why do they refuse to even say whether or not the foreign money is going into the same general fund that is used to pay for their attack ads?
3) If the foreign money isn’t paying for “political activities,” then what is it paying for? Lobbying?

When President Obama warned in last January’s State of the Union address that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our election,” right-wing Justice Samuel Alito infamously mouthed the words, “Not True.” Watch it:

Yet we now know that Alito’s remark was, well, “not true.” As Lee Fang reported yesterday on ThinkProgress, the Chamber of Commerce raises hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign corporations every year, and then funnels that money into “the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account which is the vehicle for the attack ads.”

The Chamber has issued a series of weak denials of Fang’s reporting, alleging that they “have a system” to ensure that money donated by BP or other foreign corporations does not directly fund attack ads, but they provide no details on this elusive system.  Referencing ThinkProgress’ work, the New York Times points out in a well-written editorial today that the Chamber has lobbied hard to maintain the cloud of secrecy over it corporate electioneering:

Because the United States Chamber is organized as a 501(c)(6) business league under the federal tax code, it does not have to disclose its donors, so the full extent of foreign influence on its political agenda is unknown. But Tuesday’s report sheds light on how it raises money abroad. Its affiliate in Abu Dhabi, for example, the American Chamber of Commerce, says it has more than 450 corporate and individual members in the United Arab Emirates who pay as much as $8,500 a year to join.

Because of a series of court decisions that culminated in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling earlier this year, these and similar 501(c) nonprofits have become huge players in the year’s election, using unlimited money from donors who have no fear of disclosure. (Not surprisingly, the chamber has been a leading opponent of legislation to require disclosure.) One such group, American Crossroads, organized by Karl Rove, announced on Tuesday a $4.2 million ad buy to support Republican candidates, bringing the group’s total spending to about $18 million so far.

Money is fungible. So, when the Chamber or other wealthy corporate interest groups spend foreign corporate donations on general operating expenses, that frees up other money in their operating budget to be spent on attack ads or other expenditures. In other words, it now looks pretty clear that President Obama was right, and Justice Alito was wrong, about the impact of the Supreme Court’s most infamous recent decision.

Over the weekend, Bank of America was forced to follow its Wall Street brethren JP Morgan Chase and Ally Financial in implementing a foreclosure moratorium, after evidence emerged that thousands of foreclosure filings a month were okayed by “robo-signers”: employees who weren’t verifying very basic information on the foreclosure forms. In Florida alone, “a recent sample of foreclosure cases in the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida showed that 20 percent of those set for summary judgment involved deficient documents.”

But some banks where potential problems have emerged — including Wells Fargo, the second largest mortgage servicer in the country — have not suspended foreclosures. This has led a cadre of lawmakers — including a bipartisan group of state Attorneys General — to call for a foreclosure moratorium and investigations into the potentially fraudulent bank practices that are resulting in families losing their homes. Here’s a list of lawmakers who have already spoken out:

– House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 30 other Democratic members of California’s congressional delegation.

– Sens. Al Franken (D-MN), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

– Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

– Attorneys General Greg Abbott (R-TX), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Martha Coakley (D-MA), John Suthers (R-CO), Jerry Brown (D-CA), Beau Biden (D-DE), and Douglas Gansler (D-MD).

Conspicuously absent from this list are any congressional Republicans. This really isn’t surprising though, when you consider the way in which they have done Wall Street’s bidding since the housing crisis first gained steam.

Congressional Republicans, remember, regurgitated industry talking points when it came to mortgage cram-downs (which could have kept many troubled borrowers out of foreclosure), pressured bailed-out banks to not compromise with Democrats on anti-foreclosure measures, and then advocated that the Obama administration pull the plug on its own foreclosure prevention efforts, leaving homeowners to the mercy of the banks.

Sorting out the potentially thousands of homeowners who may have been improperly foreclosed upon is going to be a monumental task, as is reorganizing the process to ensure that no more homeowners are improperly thrown out of their homes. This is about more than simply those homeowners: it’s about upholding the rule of law and due process. A moratorium and investigations are more than warranted, and it’d be nice to hear something other than crickets from one of America’s two major political parties.