The U.S. Chamber Doesn't Speak For Me

We came across this blog on Daily Kos that reveals the latest dirty trick from the US Chamber of Commerce in their ongoing effort to exert corporate influence over local elections. This story comes from New York where the election for the 26th Congressional district has turned dirty. The Tonawanda News tells of the latest incident involving the Chamber in an editorial published yesterday:

The special election for New York’s 26th congressional seat has been downright dirty and after the most recent blatant effort to deceive voters — which comes at this newspaper’s expense — it is time to place the blame squarely where it belongs: On the shoulders of Republican candidate Jane Corwin and her increasingly desperate raft of supporters.

We have all, by now, seen the ludicrous “assault” video where a Corwin employee goads Jack Davis into a confrontation, then clearly embellishes what happened. It was a quintessential political dirty trick.

Now there is this:

Over the weekend, Corwin was endorsed by the reliably conservative national Chamber of Commerce. In endorsing her, the chamber also purchased airtime on local television stations. The advertisement they produced is a blatant attempt to legitimize her flagging campaign by implying that her policy positions are endorsed by this newspaper, when in reality they are not.

Two position statements made by Corwin in the chamber’s advertisement carry a large source tag on the screen referencing the April 19 edition of the Tonawanda News. Casual viewers are left with the clear impression that this newspaper has endorsed Corwin’s position or that we have somehow validated her argument.

We have not endorsed Corwin — or any of the candidates, for that matter — and the chamber’s commercial is a blatant attempt to trick voters into believing we have in order to bolster her credentials.

The Tonawanda News is pressuring the US Chamber to remove the ad from the air or at least correct the content (the Chamber also spelled “Tonawanda” wrong). When contacted by a local news station for a comment, a Chamber spokesperson replied, “The ad speaks for itself.”

Indeed. Yet again, the Chamber has made it clear that it will stop at nothing to subvert the democratic process to benefit its top contributors. We’ll be working this week to contact our supporters in upstate New York to sign up even more local businesses to say “The US Chamber Doesn’t Speak for Me.” Maybe the local Tonawanda chamber will be next on the list?

Mobi in San Antonio, Texas is the first official Recruitment Challenge winner. We’ll be sending her a signed copy of Bill McKibben’s new book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, for getting 10 businesses signed onto “The U.S. Chamber Doesn’t Speak for Me” campaign. Check out what Mobi had to say about her experience recruiting thus far:

“Life as an inner city fifth grade teacher can be a bit demanding, and at first when I received word of 350.org‘s campaign targeting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I thought, “Don’t think I’m going to have time for that one, no time to personally visit businesses, etc…,” but then I started thinking of friends and acquaintances I know who actually run small businesses.  I contacted a massage therapist friend, Skye Daniels, who has her own business, and after she and I made several phone calls and sent out several emails, we had 10 businesses signed up.  Okay — it wasn’t all positive. A local bakery and restaurant that had generously given us a donation of fresh baked muffins for San Antonio’s Global Work Party on 10-10-10 declined to sign onto the campaign (and I thought they’d be a shoo-in!) and a couple other businesses never responded.  Still, it was surprisingly easy to sign on the first 10.  All it took was a couple hours of phone calls and emails, and we felt great to help spread the word.”

If you haven’t yet been able to sign on 10 businesses during your recruitment efforts (or even if you haven’t started), don’t worry—the Recruitment Challenge isn’t going away anytime soon, and in the coming weeks we’ll be switching up the prizes and challenges to keep the campaign fun and exciting. Also, be on the lookout for an announcement from us soon—we’ve got some exciting campaign updates to share, as well as some new recruitment materials to help ensure your success when you go out into your community and ask business owners to declare “The U.S. Chamber Doesn’t Speak for Me.”

There are things to rejoice after yesterday’s vote, namely that a majority of Senators did vote to end corporate welfare for oil companies. The final vote stood at 52-48. Unfortunately, 52 votes weren’t enough to pass the filibuster.

No reasonable Senator could argue that Big Oil, with their record-breaking profits in the tens of billions, needs our taxpayer support to keep drilling for and burning fossil fuels. As Bill McKibbon said at a rally in DC moments before the Senate vote, “We’ve known how to burn it for 200 years. The only explanation is that Big Oil gives our elected leaders big presents, and we are stuck with the bill.”

How big were those presents? The 48 Senators voting on behalf of Big Oil received on average $370, 664 in campaign contributions while in Congress. Wow.

The 52 Senators who stood strong with the American people? They averaged just $72,145.

But BIG presents come with BIG strings, and the US Chamber was out and about warning lawmakers this week that they would be paying close attention to whether Senators stood strong for Big Oil. Their lobbyist, Bruce Josten, sent out a letter to your elected leaders that could easily be summarized as “we’re watching you.” When you make an investment like that, you make sure to cash in.

And cash in they did- as was clear from the final vote count.

But something else happened over the last week, something exciting:

Rally at the US Capitol to End Oil Subsidies, ©Kip Pierson Photography www.kippierson.com

Over 464,255 Americans took action and contacted Congress to demand an end to subsidies for Big Oil, and hundreds rallied on Capitol Hill just last night to deliver that message. That 464, 255 includes nearly 20,000 of you from the 350.org community.

That huge response was no doubt responsible for the 52 Senators who stood with us Wednesday night in condemning massive handouts to Big Oil.

At the end of the day, this is a fight for who our elected leaders actually represent, the people or polluting corporations. We at 350.org clearly aren’t giving up this fight lightly. If you didn’t join us in this last action, sign on and declare that the US Chamber Doesn’t Speak for Me in their actions for continuing oil subsidies.

When you’re done, check out our Moving Planet site, and start an event in your neighborhood using alternative transportation to take a stand against polluting corporations that are trying to buy our Democracy.

Cross-posted from The Wonk Room at ThinkProgress.org. Original article can be found here.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a mouthpiece for the interests of the oil industry, has lashed out against the Democratic effort to roll back taxpayer subsidies for the Big Five oil companies. In a letter to the U.S. Senate, the chamber’s chief lobbyist, R. Bruce Josten, blasted S. 940, the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act, as “punitive taxation” that would “jeopardize U.S. jobs” and “increase energy costs.” The $21 billion in unneeded subsidies would go to reduce the federal deficit. Josten argues the deficit should be tackled through spending cuts at the expense of working families and the elderly, instead of the richest corporations on earth:

While the Chamber believes that deficit reduction is a laudable goal, this goal should be achieved through spending cuts that address the root cause of the deficit, and not thru [sic] punitive taxation. Bad tax policy and bad energy policy are not antidotes for the poison of the federal deficit.

Even the American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist has admitted that cutting subsidies for Big Oil would not hurt jobs — in fact, it could create jobs. As The Hill’s Andrew Restuccia reports, the “nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the Joint Economic Committee both say the bill will not affect fuel prices.” Instead, cutting these subsidies would be a first step to rebuilding a nation that rewards work and responsibility instead of greed and political influence.

The chamber has a consistent stance that the richest nation on earth should increase economic inequality and suffering by cutting services for working families while cutting taxes for “businesses and upper income individuals.”

Over 6000 American businesses have joined 350.org’s “The Chamber Does Not Speak For Me” campaign to oppose the right-wing lobbying group’s toxic politics.

To read the U.S. Chamber’s original letter, click the read more link below.

(more…)

In a recent demonstration of strong leadership, a major investor of Siemens AG (a German engineering and green technology conglomerate) asked the President and CEO of the company to officially cut it’s ties with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “whose extreme opposition to climate change reform conflicts with [Siemens’] laudable environmental business model and leadership.”

Comptroller Liu of New York City wrote the letter to the head of Siemens AG, explaining his recommendation for ending affiliation with the U.S. Chamber at their next stakeholders meeting: “Given the importance of the green economy to Siemens’ long-term business plan and the company’s reputation as a global environmental leader, we believe it is time for the Supervisory Board to formally sever the company’s relationship with the U.S. Chamber. Unlike Germany, where membership in the chamber of commerce is compulsory, membership in the U.S. Chamber is strictly voluntary,” said Liu.

Check out this press release or download the full letter to read more:

Economics are getting confusing these days. It seems that often it is those who cause a problem are the same ones hired to fix it. Sometimes it seems like things are moving in circles. But these are closed circles, and cleverly contrived. Out of each of these circles money gets passed around, goes back and forth but always seems to slip out the back door before it circles back to the people who worked for it in the first place.

This cycle seems to be wearing itself thin. The six largest banks in the US (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) are now collectively making over $199 million per day in profits. Are these not some of the same banks that were on the brink of collapse just a short while ago? Well, they seem to be recovering from the “financial crisis” they caused just fine. What about the rest of us? (more…)

The LA Times published an excellent in-depth article this weekend on the US Chamber’s opposition to a potential move by the Obama Administration to require corporations to disclose their political spending. It’s another instance of the Chamber representing the interests of wealthy corporations instead of small businesses across America. The LA Times article clearly lays out why the Chamber is lobbying so vehemently to oppose the measure:

If Obama issued the draft executive order, he would effectively discourage previously undisclosed donations to groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which — with some exceptions — have been generally helping Republican candidates. It would also give the president a chance to quiet critics who want him to be more outspoken in demanding disclosure of large contributors.

The Chamber shows just how out of touch it is with the American public in a quote from a spokeswoman:

“The way the order is drafted, it hijacks the very powerful engine of the federal procurement system and it takes it and tries to achieve political and electoral ends,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the chamber’s general counsel, who charged that the measure would “chill the free-speech rights of corporations.”

I think all of us are  ok with putting a bit more of a chill on the so called “free-speech rights” (aka “free-spending rights”) of the giant corporations that work through the US Chamber. Unlimited political expenditures on the part of fossil fuel companies doesn’t help promote freedom of speech in this country, it squashes it.

Thankfully, it looks like the Obama Administration is standing up to the US Chamber for now:

The fate of the executive order, which remains under review at the Office of Management and Budget, is unclear. Daley, the chief of staff hired in part to smooth administration relations with business, called it “just a proposed rule” that the White House was considering.

“We’re going to do things they like, do things they don’t like,” Daley said of the chamber. “We’re not going to do things because they do or don’t like them. That’s just the way it is.”

Let’s make sure it stays that way. Click here to read the full story in the LA Times.

A guest post from Bill McKibben.

Or almost! I had the pleasure of speaking in Canton NY a few weeks ago, and the bigger pleasure of getting the news today that their Chamber of Commerce had voted (unanimously!) to announce that they were not affiliated with the US Chamber and did not “adhere to national chamber policies.” Many thanks to all involved, especially Peter VandeWater, who arranged my visit.