Chamber Has Chevron’s Back – Again
Earlier this week, an Ecuadorian judge handed down a historic settlement for an eighteen year lawsuit pegging Big Oil against the indigenous people of Ecuador. Issuing an $8.6 billion ruling, the court found that Chevron was liable for the environmental devastation and health risks brought on by its subsidiary Texaco during the 1970s and 1980s. Rebecca Tarbotton at AlterNet summed up the significance of the ruling:
The case is historic; not only because of the dollar amount but also it is the first time Indigenous peoples from the rainforest have sued an American oil company in the country where the crime was committed…and won. It is an incredible story of a small rainforest community’s 18-year fight against a major multinational oil corporation.
Despite the socioeconomic ruin wrought by Chevron, the U.S. Chamber is shamelessly defending another multinational corporation against working people. As a member of the U.S. Chamber, Chevron has donated at least a half million dollars to the business lobby in the past two years ($250,000 in both 2008 and 2009). And in 2010, the U.S. Chamber reciprocated, filing an amicus brief in defending Chevron against the lawsuit. The U.S. Chamber appears to have doubled-down and issued a tersely worded condemnation of the court’s ruling, saying that it “represents a broader and very troubling trend – global extortion of multi-national companies, often orchestrated by American plaintiffs’ lawyers, who leverage corrupt foreign courts to render large judgments and then attempt to enforce those around the globe.” Remarkably, the U.S. Chamber is insinuating that a multinational corporation is being held hostage by the indigenous people of Ecuador. Wow.
Economic Advisors Shun Chamber Derivatives “Study” and Firm that Did Study
While we wait for the U.S. Chamber to answer questions regarding its involvement in the Chamber Gate scandal, the Chamber has also been getting disapproval from Nobel-winning economists for a derivatives study it funded with the Business Roundtable and other corporate interest groups. (Sound familiar? Flash back to a 2009 “study” the Chamber was commissioning– and fronting big money to get the “right” results– to find an economist who would show health care reform was a “job-killer.”)
Basically, the Chamber, under the umbrella group, the Coalition for Derivatives End Users, commissioned a study by Key Bridge Research on the new derivatives regulations included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.
The Chamber was a leading opponent to derivatives regulations, the very sector that left unregulated was, “a major cause of the financial crisis” that had “gone largely unregulated for decades.” The Chamber and friends’ “study” concludes that the new regulations would cost “upwards of 130,000 jobs.”
As reported by the New York Times, with the release of the report, economic advisors who had been listed on Key Bridge’s website immediately distanced themselves from the firm and shunned the report. Advisors on the firm’s website “mysteriously disappeared,” shrinking “to four from seven.”
Here’s what some advisors had to say:
- “This is the first I have heard about it…It’s not a very good report…The argument they make is particularly foolish” –Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science; Also said “he was surprised to be listed on the group’s [Key Bridge’s] Web site.”
- This is not any kind of research. This is people who want to overleverage and risk the system — because, once again, they will get the upside and taxpayers/all citizens get the downside,” Simon Johnson, a professor at the Sloan School of Management of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics
And what did the President of Key Bridge have to say when the New York Times filled him in on the shower of disapproval?
- “‘The client had asked us’ to put the report together. ‘It was a hypothetical study.’”
The study may be a “hypothetical” but the Chamber and its corporate friends’ ability to churn out “foolish” reports that turn away Nobel laureate economic advisors, is very, very real.
Also see ThinkProgress’ coverage.
What We Have to Say on Chamber Gate 2011
“Since last Thursday when the news first broke that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was involved in a $2 million, potentially illegal scheme to spy on and destroy its political opponents, the Chamber has issued heated and astonished denials, but denials that artfully avoid the central question of the Chamber’s knowledge of what their lawyer and consultants were planning.
“The facts are in, and they indicate that the U.S. Chamber was aware of, and was being regularly briefed on, the plan to infiltrate and destroy U.S. Chamber Watch and other Chamber opponents with fake documents, false personas, and damaging computer software. The Chamber may not have been privy to every detail of each proposal, but email evidence shows that:
- The consultants had direct contact with the Chamber;
- Hunton and Williams was scheduled to present the proposal to the Chamber in November, and again—with Team Themis—in February;
- The proposal dollar figure was adjusted in January, based on “a newly acquired understanding” of the amount of money the Chamber was willing to spend on this project;
- The Chamber “was sold” on this project based on Team Themis’ previous work.
“The time for cute, carefully worded denials is over. The Chamber must come clean on just how deeply they were into this scheme—and why no one at the organization that calls themselves the ‘voice for American business’ had ethical problems with such a campaign before the plan was outed in the press.”
–Statement of U.S. Chamber Watch spokeswoman Christy Setzer
Read the emails that prove the Chamber knew of the scheme.
U.S. Chamber: Thanks, Prez, But We Prefer Outsourcing
Today, President Obama delivered a clear message to the U.S. Chamber, putting the 50,000-100,000-member group on notice that the time for shipping American jobs overseas, while complaining about critical health and safety regulations, is over.
“Now is the time to invest in America,” the President stated, adding, “If we as a nation are going to invest in innovation, that innovation should lead to new jobs and manufacturing on our shores. The end result of tax breaks and investments cannot simply be that new breakthroughs and technologies are discovered in America, but manufactured overseas.”
Unfortunately, the Chamber’s record on investing in America– or taking responsibility for it– is far from impressive. They’ve repeatedly endorsed a policy of outsourcing American jobs, while taking no responsibility for the state of the economy. Today, U.S. Chamber Watch released this statement:
“Colin Powell used to refer to the ‘Pottery Barn law’ about Iraq: ‘You break it, you own it.’ Well, the U.S. Chamber and their buddies on Wall Street worked overtime to break the American economy, but they’ve managed to avoid any responsibility for owning it. While President Obama calls on businesses to invest in America, the only thing the U.S. Chamber’s investing in is their own bottom line — lining the pockets of corporate CEOs while shipping the jobs of hard-working Americans overseas.” -Christy Setzer, spokeswoman, U.S. Chamber Watch
As you may remember…
The U.S. Chamber Has Repeatedly Defended Tax Breaks for Outsourcers Over Other Policy Priorities:
- U.S. Chamber Opposed Against 9/11 First Responder Health Care Bill to Protect Outsourcers. In September 2010, the U.S. Chamber opposed the “James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010” which would provide compensation to first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses from working at Ground Zero. The U.S. Chamber opposed the bill because of provisions that would have closed a tax loophole, thereby raising taxes on foreign companies doing business in the U.S., to pay for the bill’s implementation. [Letter from U.S. Chamber to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 9/28/10; ThinkProgress, 12/21/10]
- The U.S. Chamber Opposed A Bill That Funded Teachers and Health Care Workers By Ending A Tax Break On Companies That Outsource. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed H.R. 1586, a bill that allocated $26 million to states to fund teachers and health care workers, because the funding was paid for by ending tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs, which the Chamber said was “draconian.” The Obama administration said the tax cuts were “similar to those included in the President’s Budget, including proposals to close international tax loopholes that currently allow multinational corporations to inappropriately lower their U.S. taxes.” [U.S. Chamber Letter to Congress, 8/5/10 Statement of Administration Policy on Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, 8/3/10]
- The U.S. Chamber Opposed A Bill That Would Give Tax Holiday To Companies That Shift Overseas Jobs to the United States. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed S. 3816, a bill to grant a two-year payroll tax holiday for companies that take on employees in the U.S. The bill also would have restricted deferrals, which allow companies to delay paying taxes on foreign income. The U.S. Chamber said the bill would “do little to encourage economic growth.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce Letter to Senate, 9/23/10]
Chamber President Tom Donohue Has Repeatedly Defended Outsourcing, Even When it Causes Job Loss:
- U.S. Chamber President: “There Are Legitimate Values in Outsourcing.” In 2004, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said, “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work — to gain technical experience and benefit we don’t have here, to lower the price of products, which means more and more of them are brought into the United States, used, for example, I.T., much broader use than it was 10 years ago, create more and more jobs. But the bottom line is that we outsource very few jobs in relation to the size of our economy. We employ — American companies employ 140 million Americans. They provide health care for 160 million Americans. They provide training in terms of 40 billion a year. The outsourcing deal over three or four or five years and the two or three sets of numbers are only going to be, you know, maybe two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four.” [CNNFN, 2/10/04]
- “Stop Whining” Donohue Tells Those Unemployed Because Of Outsourcing. “Donohue acknowledged the pain for people who have lost jobs to offshoring – an estimated 250,000 a year, according to government estimates. But pockets of unemployment shouldn’t lead to “anecdotal politics and policies,” he said, and people affected by offshoring should “stop whining.” [Associated Press, 7/5/04]
- Donohue Vows to Fight Any Attempts to Reduce Outsourcing. “The chamber’s message is clear: The US must be able to source around the world to stay competitive in the global economy and the business community will fight any attempts by our government to restrict outsourcing,” Thomas Donohue, the chamber’s president, told a news conference.” [Agence France Presse, 4/14/04]
A Weblink Says 1,000 Words
Need further evidence that the U.S. Chamber doesn’t actually speak for small business? The U.S. Chamber’s 2009 IRS forms have been sliced and diced but some tiny print may be most revealing: in 2009, the U.S. Chamber shut down its “small business web portal” called “ChamberBiz” (U.S. Chamber 2009 Form990, Schedule R, Part 1).
An Entrepreneur article from 2000 described ChamberBiz as “filled with cool tools” and providing “rich resource [files] on laws that matter to small businesses.” The Chamber’s only other supposed small business site, “Small Business Nation” (also strangely considered the Chamber’s “political” site) doesn’t seem like much of a resource for small businesses either. Check out the Chamber’s Small Business Nation blog…
…And what do you get? Nothing. Too bad that when small business owners log into the site, all they see is a blank white screen. Looks like the Chamber is too busy shilling for its major corporate donors to maintain a blog for small business interests.
How to Buy the Repeal of Health Care Reform in Three Easy Steps: Lessons from the U.S. Chamber
As the Senate gears up for a vote to repeal the landmark Affordable Care Act tonight, the U.S. Chamber (that yesterday issued a statement supporting repeal) will no doubt be cheering from the sidelines. After all, repealing health care reform (with approximately $86 million worth of help from health insurance companies) is arguably the Chamber’s top priority this year, and now they have the Congress in place (bought and paid for by corporate contributors) to do so.
Lucky for the Chamber, buying the repeal of health care reform for its top corporate contributors was as easy as one, two, three.
Step One:
The U.S. Chamber Went All Out to Kill Health Care Reform, Funded By a Staggering $86 Million Contribution from Health Insurance Companies. In November, Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Chamber had received $86 million from health insurance companies through America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), to be used to kill health reform efforts. The single donation represented nearly half of the Chamber’s lobbying bill for the entire year. The New York Times reported that in November 2009 alone, the Chamber spent $24 million on its campaign against the legislation. [Bloomberg, 11/17/10; New York Times, 11/22/09]
Step Two:
The U.S. Chamber Spent Over $12 Million to Elect Republican Senators Who Today Will Vote To Repeal Health Care Reform. Today, all 47 Republican Senators will vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. During 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent at least $12 million electing 10 of those voting to repeal the health care law. [ABC News, The Note, 2/2/11, U.S. Chamber Watch Report, November 2010; US Chamber of Commerce Electioneering Communications Reports, Accessed 2/2/11]
Step Three:
The U.S. Chamber Supported Repeal of Healthcare Reform at the Expense of Small Businesses and Middle Class Americans. During the 112th Congress, the U.S. Chamber has supported both efforts in the House and Senate to repeal the Affordable Care Act healthcare reform legislation. The Chamber continues to falsely claim that healthcare reform would hurt small businesses, while non partisan studies show that repeal would burden small businesses. [U.S. Chamber Watch blog, 1/14/11; U.S. Chamber Watch blog, 1/19/11]
FACING THE REALITY OF THE U.S. CHAMBER’S ENERGY AGENDA: DRILL BABY DRILL
Today, the U.S. Chamber launched its energy agenda, casting a critical eye on the Obama Administration’s policies and showcasing its allegiance to the Big Oil companies that fund its lobbying budget. Remember, it was the Chamber’s 19th century approach to energy that led so many large corporations and local Chambers—including Apple, Nike and Microsoft—to break away from the U.S. Chamber in 2009.
“With their so-called ‘Energy Reality Tour,’ the U.S. Chamber shows that it has all the understanding of energy policy and nuance as ‘drill, baby, drill.’ From prioritizing tax breaks for its company friends over renewable energy, to opening protected lands, to oil and gas companies, the “reality” is, we can’t afford the Chamber’s misguided energy policies of the past any more than we can afford another BP spill in the Gulf.” -U.S. Chamber Watch spokeswoman Christy Setzer
The “Reality” of the U.S. Chamber’s Energy Agenda
U.S. Chamber Prioritizes Tax Breaks For Oil Companies Even When That Support Conflicts With Other Policy Priorities. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed an amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting provisions in the Affordable Care Act because it was paid for by raising taxes on the five biggest oil companies. The U.S. Chamber called the 1099 provision “an unprecedented burden on small business reporting and paper work requirements at a time when they can least afford it,” but they opposed the amendment to repeal it proposed by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) which paid for the bill by repealing the portion of the tax code that applied to the five largest oil companies with more than $1 billion of before-tax income.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Letter to Congress, 9/9/10; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Press Release, 11/29/10; American Public Health Association]
- The Five Biggest Oil Companies That Would Have Experienced These Tax Hikes Are All Connected To The U.S. Chamber:
- Exxon Mobil: Exxon Mobil was represented on the board of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), according to the ILR’s 2009 IRS Form990.
- Royal Dutch Shell: Among other connections, in 2010, the U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief defending Shell in a multi-million dollar punitive damages case.
- BP: BP is a member of the Chamber and the Chamber lobbied on its behalf after the company’s devastating April 2010 oil spill.
- Chevron: Chevron is a member and a donor to the U.S. Chamber. Chevron gave the Chamber an amount of $250,000 in both 2008 and 2009.
- ConocoPhillips: Conoco Phillips is represented on the Chamber’s board.
U.S. Chamber Prioritizes Fossil Fuels Over What It Calls “High-Cost” Renewable Energy. In an interview with the Hill, Karen Harbert, the president of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy questioned the funding of “high-cost” renewable energy projects. She said, “Can we, in the economic times in which we find ourselves, continue to fund the type of research and development and the types of monies that were spent in the stimulus package on very high-cost energy sources?” Instead, Harbert recommended a focus on off-shore oil drilling, saying “It would be a huge mistake if the administration or the Congress or a combination of the two were to regulate or overtax the ability of industry to participate in offshore exploration.” [The Hill, 1/10/11]
U.S. Chamber Goes So Far as to Support Resource Development in Protected Lands. The U.S. Chamber made a pitch to have the government tap more natural resources on federal lands in order to create jobs and increase federal revenue. The organization made its case in ‘An Open Letter to the President of the United States, the United States Congress and the American People’ and a speech by its president and CEO, Tom Donohue. The U.S. Chamber argued “that opening national forest land that is currently closed to timber harvesting and developing inactive oil, gas and shale leases could generate trillions of dollars in royalties.” [Politico, 7/21/10]
Just some of the many reasons why….
Many Corporations and Local Chambers Protested the U.S. Chamber’s Extreme Climate Policy By Denouncing, Quitting the Chamber. In 2009 and 2010, several large corporations including Apple, Excelon, PNM Resources, Pacific Gas and Electric (P,G,&E), and Mohawk Paper ended their memberships with the U.S. Chamber over the Chamber’s extreme anti-climate views. Additionally, Nike quit the Chamber’s board. Other companies like Duke Energy, Johnson and Johnson, General Electric, Alcoa, Microsoft, Pepco, Best Buy, and Cisco Systems publicly denounced the Chamber. As did local chambers like San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and many more. [U.S. Chamber Watch Website, Accessed 2/1/11]
U.S. Chamber is Ducking, Covering on Financial Crisis Report
Here’s our response to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report– and the role the U.S. Chamber played in it all:
“Today’s report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, finding that the 2008 financial crisis was ‘avoidable,’ has the U.S. Chamber ducking, covering, and tossing blame. That’s not surprising: As Defender-in-Chief of the policies—and actors– that led to the biggest collapse since the Great Depression, the Chamber has much to apologize for—and to change. Unfortunately, the only thing that’s changed is their game plan: Today, the Chamber is still fighting the regulations borne out of Dodd-Frank—and nowhere to be seen when it comes to fighting for the small businesses that suffered the most in the recession.” – U.S. Chamber Watch
U.S. Chamber Supported Policies That Led To The Financial Crisis. According to the New York Times, derivatives “were a major cause of the financial crisis and have gone largely unregulated for decades.” Efforts by the big banks to block proposed regulations proposed by the Obama administration and Congress appeared doomed until the US Chamber weighed in. As Reuters reported, “the banking industry will get an assist from the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which plans to lobby Congress hard to ensure companies are able to use customized derivatives.” The Chamber and other trade groups subsequently formed the Coalition of End Users to soften proposed derivatives regulation, “much to the relief of several big Wall Street banks that had been waging a lonely and uphill lobbying effort.” [National Journal, 9/26/09; Reuters, 7/14/09; New York Times, 5/14/09]
U.S. Chamber Continues to Fight Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Legislation On Behalf of Big Banks With Lobbyists and Interactive Websites. Despite losing its expensive battle to kill financial reform legislation, the U.S. Chamber is still fighting the regulations borne out of the Dodd-Frank bill. The Chamber continues to solicit funding from “New York financial powers” for an “anti-regulatory drive,” and launched an interactive website illustrating the rules and regulations required by financial reform legislation. And in the fourth quarter of 2010, after the Passage of Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Chamber was still found to be “no. 1 top spender on lobbying…ending the year with a lobbying surge.”
U.S. Chamber’s Modern Artwork Isn’t Helping Create Jobs, Protect Consumers
Posted by Lauren Levenstein on January 26, 2011
Today, the U.S. Chamber is touting a new “visual” to illustrate what it has termed the “regulatory tsunami” created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.
Although the Chamber has unveiled this pointless pointillist masterpiece, (probably being secretly funded by the big banks that, left unregulated, led to the recession in the first place), it still has yet to release a substantive plan for jobs or avoiding future financial meltdowns.
In fact, the Chamber’s interactive website allows users to “turn on” and “turn off” regulatory agencies that would have certain authorities over financial institutions. If you “clear all” the regulations you end up with a blank canvas:
By even providing the option, is the Chamber suggesting that Congress should just hit “clear all” on financial regulations that will protect small businesses and consumers? That would take Donohue and company right back to where they started and remain – schilling for their big bank contributors by fighting the regulations that could have prevented the financial collapse in the first place, and fighting the regulations that will prevent the next one.
U.S. Chamber Helped Defeat Past Efforts to Regulate the Derivatives that Would Later be a Major Cause of the Financial Crisis. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber successfully opposed a proposal by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to regulate over-the-counter derivatives, including in testimony to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services [testimony, 7/17/98]. That same year the Chamber also attacked a proposal by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to require companies to report derivatives at fair market value on their income statements [American Banker, 3/2/98]. In 2003, the Chamber opposed a modest attempt by Congress to tighten regulation of the derivatives markets in the wake of the bankruptcy of Enron, which used derivatives to hide debt. Although the proposed reforms only impacted a small part of the derivatives market, opponents were apparently concerned that it would “open up the floodgates” to more regulation. [New York Times, 3/12/02]
U.S. Chamber Opposed Regulating the Hedge Funds Whose Reckless Risk-Taking Subsequently Contributed to the Financial Crisis. In a September 2004 letter to the SEC, the Chamber called proposed hedge fund regulations “an unnecessary and overly broad answer to a problem that has yet to be adequately defined. …There are significant dangers to regulating an entire industry simply because of its size or the potential for a problem.” After the SEC adopted the regulations, the Chamber threatened to sue to overturn them and ultimately supported a separate lawsuit that was successful in reversing the regulations. The lack of regulation of hedge funds and the other unregulated pools of capital is now considered a leading cause of the financial crisis. In apparent recognition of this fact, the Chamber has abandoned its opposition to hedge fund registration in the wake of the crisis. [Press Release, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, September 2004]
Local Chambers Not Happy with U.S. Chamber on Health Care Repeal
Local chambers across the United States – even those with Republican leadership – are distancing themselves from the U.S. Chamber on repealing health care reform. Today, Mother Jones further exposed the rift between the stridently partisan politics of the U.S. Chamber and the moderate local Chambers it purports to represent. Local Chambers are rebuffing the National Chamber…
…In Draper, Utah:
“Hopefully they don’t throw the whole thing out—and this is coming from a Republican…I don’t believe we’re in a place in this country where we’re just going to throw people in the street and let them die. We have to have some sort of safety net.'” –William Rappleye, President, Draper Chamber of Commerce (Utah)
…In Brooklyn, New York:
“A lot of the small business community supports the idea that everybody should have health insurance. This is a basic need for everybody.” –Carl Hum, President, Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce
…In Salt Lake City, Utah:
“…The Chamber’s support for repeal ‘doesn’t mean we’re always in lockstep with them on everything—their position doesn’t control our vote.’” –Marty Carpenter, Spokesman, Salt Lake Chamber
This new report just adds to the growing chorus of local chambers and business community members telling the U.S. Chamber “you don’t speak for us.”
As you may remember:
The U.S. Chamber Went All Out to Kill Health Care Reform, Funded By a Staggering $86 Million Contribution from Health Insurance Companies. In November, Bloomberg reported that the US Chamber had received $86 million from health insurance companies through America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), to be used to kill health reform efforts. The single donation represented nearly half of the Chamber’s lobbying bill for the entire year. The New York Times reported that in November 2009 alone, the Chamber spent $24 million on its campaign against the legislation.
See:
Bloomberg, 11/17/10
New York Times, 11/22/09
Local Chambers Of Commerce Have Distanced and Broken Away En Masse Over the Last Year, Revolting Against the U.S. Chamber’s Stridently Partisan Campaigns. In December, Politico reported that the Chamber was “under fire from some local chambers over its hard-hitting $75 million ad campaign to elect a Republican House, with dozens of groups distancing themselves from the effort and a handful even quitting the national group in protest.” More than 40 local Chambers had issued statements during the campaign distancing themselves from the national group. And just last week, the bleeding continued, with two Massachusetts Chambers quitting in protest.
See:
Berkshire Eagle, 1/20/11
Politico, 12/7/10
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Plan for Jobs? Umm…..
In his widely-covered State of American Business speech last week, U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue said that the U.S. Chamber’s top priority in 2011 was to turn “an economic recovery into a jobs recovery.” Since the U.S. Chamber purports to be the “voice of business,” one might think that the U.S. Chamber had some plan to get businesses to start creating more jobs, especially given the record corporate profits of the last year.
Yet when asked by the Washington Post what corporate America should do to help bring about the “jobs recovery,” Donohue was utterly stumped. “I got to think about this for a minute,” he told the reporter, before recovering with, “I think the most important thing to tell a company is to return a reasonable return to their investors.”
This should give us some insight into how Donohue thinks. His answer, of course, would do nothing for small businesses, that typically don’t worry about “returns” for their “investors.” Or even for the millions of Americans just hoping for an honest paycheck in a tough economy. As always, Donohue was thinking about how to reward the big, wealthy corporations who fund the Chamber’s lobbying activities.
Some jobs plan, huh?
The U.S. Chamber: Waffling on Healthcare Reform Repeal – At the Expense of Small Business, Again
Last week, the U.S. Chamber flip-flopped its stance on health care reform, going from we won’t support repeal to supporting it. (Wait, didn’t the Chamber just spend $2 Million attacking Charlie Crist for flip flopping on health care reform? Sorry Charlie…) Of course this change in policy came after the Chamber spent $86 Million from AHIP to fight health care reform in the first place. The Chamber took the side of the health insurance companies then and it appears they are doing the same thing again, despite the negative effects repeal would have on small businesses (see U.S. PIRG’s “The Cost of Repeal” a study examining the impacts of repealing the new health care legislation).
Small Business Majority recently sent a letter to Lawmakers emphasizing:
“The country’s 28 million small businesses stand to benefit greatly from many provisions of the new healthcare law, particularly the tax credits and health insurance exchanges. These two provisions will help drive down costs and offer small business owners more choices when purchasing insurance. These critical provisions and many others would be abolished if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.”
So, just where does the U.S. Chamber stand on health care or any other issue for that matter? Not with the country’s 28 million small businesses as it would have you believe.
See below for full text of the letter from the Small Business Majority.
January 14, 2010
Dear Lawmaker:
The House of Representative’s introduction of a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an affront to our nation’s small business community.
The country’s 28 million small businesses stand to benefit greatly from many provisions of the new healthcare law, particularly the tax credits and health insurance exchanges. These two provisions will help drive down costs and offer small business owners more choices when purchasing insurance. These critical provisions and many others would be abolished if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
This would be a huge setback to entrepreneurs who need solutions to the broken healthcare system, not a continuation of it. America’s 22 million self-employed would also suffer; a repeal of the ACA would deny them the opportunity to pool together and purchase insurance at an affordable price through state exchanges. And those who are “locked” in their jobs because they can’t find a new one with comparable benefits would gain nothing from this misguided proposal.
Passage of this legislation would only lead to further economic instability, job loss and political gridlock—consequences too severe for already struggling small business owners.
Congress needs to work on fixing parts of the Affordable Care Act that need improvement and working to smoothly implement the rest, not scrapping the law altogether. In this tough economy, small businesses need to receive the benefits of reform—lower healthcare premiums and more choice and competition—so they can spend less on insurance premiums and more on growing their businesses and creating jobs. A vote for this bill would be a step in the wrong direction for small businesses everywhere.
As a concerned member of the small business community, I urge you to help defeat this bill as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
John Arensmeyer
Founder & CEO
Small Business Majority
4000 Bridgeway, Sausalito, CA 94965 – (866) 597-7431
U.S. Chamber Watch: “American Business Would Be A Lot Stronger Without the ‘Help’ of the U.S. Chamber”
Yesterday morning, U.S. Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue gave his annual “State of American Business” speech, in which he denounced a so-called “regulatory state” on business. The Washington Post and FireDogLake covered our response:
“The U.S. Chamber’s campaign against so-called ‘excessive’ regulations, in the last few years alone, has brought us: 29 deaths in the worst mining collapse in decades, the worst oil spill in environmental history, and the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. As the nation reflects on the state of American business, one thing’s for sure: American business would be a lot stronger without the ‘help’ of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.”
CHAMBER FOUGHT STRONGER REGULATION OF MINE SAFETY
The U.S. Chamber has consistently fought stronger regulation of mine safety, perhaps doing a favor for former U.S. Chamber board member Don Blankenship, who just resigned as CEO of Massey Energy Corporation, following the company’s April 2010 mine disaster that killed 29 miners.
U.S. Chamber Part of Astroturf Group Opposing Mine Safety and Health Act After Massey Explosion. In July 2010, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) held a hearing on H.R. 5663, the Mine Safety and Health Act, which would provide for increased civil and criminal penalties for repeated, willful violations of workplace safety regulations, stronger protections for whistleblowers who call attention to unsafe working conditions, and a seat at the table for victims and survivors by allowing them to participate in the hearing process. Opposing the measure was Jonathan Snare, representing the Coalition for Workplace Safety. The “Coalition” was actually an “Astroturf” front group, a “well-funded attempt by the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and more than 20 other industry groups to oppose fundamental improvements to the 40 year old OSHA law.” [U.S. Chamber Watch website, 7/20/10]
CQ Legislative Summary: U.S. Chamber Led Hundreds of Business Groups Opposing Mine Safety Regulations. Congressional Quarterly’ legislative summary of HR 5663, the Mine Safety and Health Act, “Efforts to tighten mine- and workplace-safety regulations in response to several industrial accidents, including the April 5 explosion that killed 29 workers at a West Virginia mine” points out that “Hundreds of business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, opposed that language, saying it was too broad and would hinder job creation in tough economic times.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/23/10]
CHAMBER FOUGHT REGULATION OF BP IN WAKE OF OIL SPILL DISASTER
Immediately following the British Petroleum oil rig explosion, the Chamber continued to fight against new corporate liability regulations that could help prevent future disasters.
Donohue Said Corporate Liability Cap Should Not Be Increased, Taxpayers Should Help Pay for BP Cleanup. “In a roundtable discussion held in May by the Christian Science Monitor, Donohue said that Congress should not lift a $75 million cap on BP’s liability for the spill. “It’s generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game,” he said. He also complained that oil execs were being “unfairly beat up like unruly children for the TV cameras.” And he argued that some of the gusher’s cleanup cost would need to be shouldered by taxpayers: “Everybody is going to have to contribute to this cleanup,” he said. “We’re all going to have to do it. . . .We’re going to have to get the money from the government and the companies. And we’ll figure out a way to do that.” [Mother Jones, 6/30/10]
US Chamber Opposed SPILL Act To Allow Higher Compensation for BP Well Explosion Deaths. According to the Hill, “Widows of men killed in the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion have hired lobbyists to change how victims’ relatives are compensated for accidents at sea. The widows want to change existing law so that the relatives of people who died in the Macondo well explosion and other disasters at sea could seek jury trials that would allow much larger awards than those allowed under the Death on the High Seas Act. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have lined up against the effort… The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined the cruise line industry in opposing a change to the law.” [The Hill, 7/19/10]
CHAMBER FOUGHT REGULATIONS THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE
U.S. Chamber Helped Defeat Past Efforts to Regulate the Derivatives that Would Later be a Major Cause of the Financial Crisis. In 1998, the U.S. Chamber successfully opposed a proposal by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to regulate over-the-counter derivatives, including in testimony to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services (7/17/98 testimony). That same year the Chamber also attacked a proposal by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to require companies to report derivatives at fair market value on their income statements (American Banker, 3/2/98). In 2003, the Chamber opposed a modest attempt by Congress to tighten regulation of the derivatives markets in the wake of the bankruptcy of Enron, which used derivatives to hide debt. Although the proposed reforms only impacted a small part of the derivatives market, opponents were apparently concerned that it would “open up the floodgates” to more regulation. [New York Times, 3/12/02]
U.S. Chamber Opposed Regulating the Hedge Funds Whose Reckless Risk-Taking Subsequently Contributed to the Financial Crisis. In a September 2004 letter to the SEC, the Chamber called proposed hedge fund regulations “an unnecessary and overly broad answer to a problem that has yet to be adequately defined. …There are significant dangers to regulating an entire industry simply because of its size or the potential for a problem.” After the SEC adopted the regulations, the Chamber threatened to sue to overturn them and ultimately supported a separate lawsuit that was successful in reversing the regulations. The lack of regulation of hedge funds and the other unregulated pools of capital is now considered a leading cause of the financial crisis. In apparent recognition of this fact, the Chamber has abandoned its opposition to hedge fund registration in the wake of the crisis. [Press Release, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, September 2004]
Local MA Chamber Said “Buh-Bye” To U.S. Chamber, “Rankled” By Its Partisanship, Polarization
Today, the Telegram and Gazette reported that the “Central Mass South Chamber of Commerce has pulled out of the U.S. Chamber.” According to the article, the local chamber’s 19-member board unanimously voted to withdraw from the U.S. Chamber, and in a letter to the national organization, said that “they felt the campaign ads were ‘immoral, unfair and disrespectful,’ casting a ‘very bad light’ on chambers of commerce and businesses…”
It has been exactly two months since Election Day 2010, but the passage of time clearly hasn’t stopped local chambers from forgetting about the U.S. Chamber’s partisan spending (94% in favor of Republicans) on misleading political ads this election cycle, funded by anonymous corporate donations.
In her letter to the U.S. Chamber, Central Mass South Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Director, Alexandra E. McNitt, wrote a scathing critique:
Part of what rankles my Board most is that your campaign fueled greater polarization nationwide rather than seizing a true leadership position and applying those resources to a much needed dialogue for collaboration, compromise and focused economic growth and job creation. That would have been far more representative of our interests, have cast Chambers and businesses in a far better light and may well have served as a catalyst for the positive change our nation needs.
Also notable, and perhaps an example of how just how (not) seriously the U.S. Chamber considers the views of its local affiliates, the Massachusetts chamber made “several attempts to have a dialogue with the U.S. Chamber” but “to no avail” made the decision to cancel its membership and ask for a “full refund” of its dues.
The 2010 election cycle may be months behind us but local chambers and business organizations have just begun to turn their vocal opposition to the U.S. Chamber’s corporate-sponsored political partisanship into action. Local chambers are seeing right through the U.S. Chamber’s façade.