Menu

dark money

wisconsin-2

The Chamber of Commerce & Big Business: Transforming Democracy into Corporatocracy One State at a Time

, , , , 1

Earlier this month, The Guardian published an investigation into the network of politicians, donors, and groups that raised tens of millions of dollars to defend Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and several Wisconsin state senators who faced recall elections in 2011 and 2012. They also looked at conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, Jr., who was up for re-election in 2011.

It is estimated that an astounding $137 million was spent on the recall races, with millions more spent on the Supreme Court race. The Guardian exposé, based on over 1500 pages of leaked emails and other documents, gives us a bird’s eye view into the dirty business of raising boatloads of cash from corporate special interests and the very rich.

This trove of leaked documents is particularly important because Wisconsin law does not require the disclosure of monies spent on “issue advocacy” ads that praise or criticize a candidate without explicitly calling on voters to vote for or against the candidate. Many groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ran “issue advocacy” ads in these races, and therefore their names do not appear in publicly available databases of elections spending in Wisconsin. The leaked documents offer the public a chance to peak behind the legal curtain that shields deep-pocketed special interest groups from having to disclose their electioneering activities.

ChamberWatch wanted to learn more about the role played by the Chamber in financing the deluge of ads that dominated the airwaves in the months leading up to these elections. So we reviewed the 1500 pages of leaked documents that The Guardian made available online.

We found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the Wisconsin state chamber, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, played major roles as outside spenders in these races, particularly in the Supreme Court race.

Tellingly, when Walker’s chief fundraising consultant laid out an initial blueprint for funding his recall election, she listed the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform as a major potential donor along with the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, major corporations, and CEOs of major corporations, among others.

The primary evidence that the Chamber spent money on behalf of Walker comes from an email sent by Chamber head of communications Tom Collamore to one of Walker’s campaign consultants. The email includes a Wall Street Journal article about a $2 million ad buy by the Wisconsin state chamber promoting Walker. (The total spent by the state chamber on the recall elections was at least $4.7 million). The consultant then forwards the email, writing “Tom is a good friend…we have had many conversations about Scott…they know the significance of this race and that is why they are so supportive…and will continue to be so.”

Unfortunately, none of the leaked documents indicate exactly how much money the Chamber spent on the governor’s race. However, we know that a PAC associated with the Republican Governors Association was one of the largest outside spenders in the governor’s race. We also know that the Chamber gave $1.25 million in 2012 to the RGA, making it the sixth largest donor to the group. Of course, we don’t know how much if any of this money was spent in Wisconsin.

The evidence of Chamber elections spending is even more clear cut with respect to the Supreme Court election. One of Walker’s top advisors writes that he assumes the Chamber is in for a minimum of $1.1 million for the Supreme Court race. A subsequent email from the same advisor mentions a Chamber ad buy of $1.5 million for the Supreme Court race. Judging by estimates of total spending it is a safe bet that the Chamber was one of the largest if not the largest spender on the Supreme Court race.

The leaked documents also reveal that at the same time the U.S. Chamber and Wisconsin state chamber were showering Walker and Prosser with money, the state chamber was also providing corporations including Altria, Walmart, Kimberly-Clark, Xcel Energy and AT&T access to Walker as well as lobbying him on unemployment insurance and workers compensation.

And therein lies the reason why the Chamber and the large corporations it represents were “so supportive” of Walker and Prosser and why they spent so much money bolstering their reelection campaigns. Walker and his conservative allies in the state legislature were receptive to lobbying by Big Business pushing an anti-worker agenda. They had just passed a major bill eviscerating worker rights and protections. And Prosser could be counted on to protect this legislation from any legal challenges. Without Walker, without a conservative majority in the state legislature, or without Prosser, not only would it have been possible to undo the damage done by this legislation, but Big Business would no longer have the opportunity to get additional items on its anti-worker wish list enacted into law and upheld by the courts.

The leaked Wisconsin documents paint a picture of a political system almost entirely reliant on—and beholden to—big money corporate donors. And the U.S. Chamber and its affiliates stand at the nexus of this unholy alliance between Big Business and the political class. Perhaps it’s time to admit the obvious: our democracy is now a corporatocracy.

Chamber_MakeItRain_MEME

Chamber of Commerce Weather Forecast for Capitol Hill: The Deluge Continues

, , , 0

In our first update on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s elections spending in late March, we issued a Chamber of Commerce weather forecast for Capitol Hill: make it rain. Well three weeks later, its flood of campaign spending has continued unabated.

In a mere three weeks, the Chamber dropped an additional $1.7 million on elections spending, bringing its total so far for the 2016 election cycle to more than $5.4 million. This total has pushed it up one place on the list of largest outside spenders to the number eleven spot. It remains the largest outside spender on congressional races and remains the largest outside spender that does not disclose any information about its donors. That’s right, voters have no way of knowing who is behind the deluge of Chamber-funded ads supporting or opposing House and Senate candidates in the nine states in which it has so far been active.

So where has the Chamber been making it rain since we last checked in? The Chamber has flooded the Indiana airwaves with $1 million on behalf of Republican Senate candidate Todd Young. And the Chamber has continued to drown the Ohio airwaves with another $700,000 in spending against Democratic Senate candidate Ted Strickland, bringing the total amount the Chamber has spent against Strickland to just shy of $1.3 million.

The Chamber’s latest shower of money follows its already established pattern of hyper-partisanship. It has still not spent a single cent opposing a Republican candidate or supporting a Democratic candidate. Now some might be tempted to interject that it’s only logical that the Chamber would support Republican candidates since the Republican Party supposedly represents the best interests of business and the Democratic Party doesn’t. This of course would be wrong.

A recent summary of opinion polling reveals that business leaders actually support many Democratic policy proposals, including raising the minimum wage, paid sick leave, and predictive scheduling for employees. And contrary to what the Chamber would have you believe, replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was not as high on business leaders’ list of priorities as was simply keeping healthcare costs low for families. So if business leaders themselves hold nuanced views about policy and indeed support many progressive policy proposals, why then does the Chamber only spend money to help Republican candidates get elected?

The Chamber’s one-sided, overly partisan election spending suggest that instead of representing all American businesses as it claims, the Chamber actually represents the narrow interests of a few industries. Its unwavering opposition to the ACA does not reflect a business consensus to this effect but rather reflects the priorities of the health insurance industry, which reportedly has given the Chamber more than $86 million to oppose the ACA. Similarly, its opposition to an increase in the minimum wage may reflect the opposition of the fast food and retail industries, both of which employ millions of low wage workers. And of course the Chamber’s opposition to legislative and regulatory efforts to fight climate change may be explained by the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

Lost in the Chamber’s flood of partisan political spending are the more nuanced views of the majority of business executives. Likewise, the Chamber’s hyper-partisan outlook also ignores the priorities of small business, green energy, sustainable business, and a whole host of other sectors.

One often hears that April showers bring May flowers, but unfortunately in this case, the Chamber’s torrent of election spending, should it succeed in getting its preferred candidates elected, will only bring about policies that not only hurt everyday Americans, but also run counter the policy priorities of a majority of business leaders. Unfortunately, the weather forecast for Capitol Hill is unlikely to change before the election; the Chamber will continue to make it rain, in the hope that it will be able to drown out the voices of average Americans, and even many of the business leaders it claims to represent.

Earlier and more often: the U.S. Chamber ramps up its campaign spending to new levels

, , , 0

For more than a decade, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been known for its sizable lobbying expenditures, but now it’s embarking on what CNN is calling “the most aggressive political cycle in its 102-year history.”

The world’s largest business association reported spending $35 million on behalf of candidates in 2012, likely spending $50 million total, including unreported expenditures. So far, during the 2014 election cycle, the Chamber has spent about $17 million on U.S. Senate and U.S. House races, getting involved early, in primaries, to an extent it hasn’t done previously. It’s promising to spend at least $50 million once again in this cycle. Given that the Chamber’s membership is secret, these tens of millions come from corporate sources that are mostly unknown – though we do know that most of the Chamber’s donors are large.

Unlike its more moderate incarnations in decades past, the Chamber now strongly favors conservatives. As CNN notes, the Chamber this cycle has endorsed 258 Republican candidates and just two Democratic candidates, though it says more of the latter are on the way. Six years ago, it endorsed 38 Democrats.

The Chamber is manipulating elections with its dark money spending-on-steroids. Spending so much money of unknown origins to manipulate voters corrodes the democratic process. Recent Chamber ads like one calling a U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia a “crying baby” are a reminder that more dark money means more negative advertising.

Meanwhile, the trade association that, as Lee Fang writes, opposes “virtually any piece of legislation not designed to feather the nest of a plutocrat,” continues to lobby at record rates. Newly released disclosure forms show the Chamber spent more than $40 million on lobbying in the first six months of 2014. That includes $21.6 million in the second quarter, which represents nearly a 55 percent increase over the same period in 2013.

The Chamber, already the 800-pound gorilla of corporatizing our government, is becoming even more aggressive and refined than ever before.