Chamber of Commerce Admits They Accept Bailout Money To Fund Anti-Worker Ads

by: AdamGreen

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:46


Yesterday, I posed the question: "Is the Chamber of Commerce Using Bailout Money to Attack Workers?"

The Chamber took to their blog and ambiguously wrote, "No. No we are not."

It's well documented by Sam Stein at The Huffington Post that bailout recipients have been asked to funnel money to groups that are running anti-worker ads like the ones announced yesterday by the Chamber.

So I wrote, "Let me pose a more specific question: Is the Chamber actively rejecting money from bailout recipients?"

The Chamber responded:

Another one quickly answered, the U.S. Chamber continues to accept as members companies which receive both public and private funds. In addition we do not believe that the receipt of taxpayer money abrogates an individual or groups’ rights under the First Amendment.

My original answer to the original question still stands, beyond question.

Actually, it's not beyond question -- and Jonathan Martin at Politico agrees:

Adam Green over at OpenLeft pushes the Chamber of Commerce to say that they're still accepting dues from bailed-out companies. 

The goal is to make the case that the Chamber is using taxpayer dollars to help fund their anti-EFCA campaign (of which they have launched new ads targeting moderate Democratic senators). 

The Chamber's Brad Peck says they're not using bail-out money for the campaign. 

I've asked how exactly they know that to be the case.

A bunch of folks have joined the Facebook group asking the same question, and have used the contact info posted in that group to email Chamber execs directly.

And last night, Anna Burger added SEIU's voice to this issue:

The Chamber of Commerce’s solution for fixing our economic crisis is to use funds from taxpayer bailed-out companies to fight smart economic policies that will restore balance to our economy and help rebuild the American Middle Class.

...American taxpayers have had enough. The Chamber of Commerce must stop accepting taxpayer funds to lobby against taxpayer interests.

It's a pretty cut-and-dry case.

Taxpayer money went to companies so they could rebuild their fundamentals. By the Chamber's now-admission, bailout recipients are giving some of that money to the Chamber (aka, not using it to rebuild their fundamentals). Then, the Chamber uses that taxpayer money to fund ads against workers in political swing states.

We'll now see if the Chamber is as oblivious to the PR disaster that is about to hit them as the Wall Street execs who used bailout money to redecorate their offices and pay bonuses were.

Maybe smarter heads at the Chamber will prevail, and they'll take this issue off the table by publicly rejecting money from bailout recipients. We'll see...

(Join the Facebook group to take action on this issue.)

AdamGreen :: Chamber of Commerce Admits They Accept Bailout Money To Fund Anti-Worker Ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why would the C of C care? .... (4.00 / 1)
they are as clueless as the hacks at CNBC ... they exist solely to serve the captains of industry ... they don't give a damn about the little guy

Exactly (4.00 / 3)
The C of C used to be a nonpartisan service group for business. But when Tom Donohue (full disclosure: I used to work for the man) took over the leadership, that changed. Donahue is known throughout DC as a skilled lobbyist whose principal ambition is to engender and enforce loyalty amongst the powerful and wealthy inner circle of leaders in the military-industrial complex. Wanting "what's good" for "the tax-payer", much less what's good for American business, is about the furthest thing from his goals. This is all about serving the goals of a very small, but immensely powerful, elite.

[ Parent ]
No it was a right wing organization (4.00 / 1)
long before Donahue took over.  I don't expect cooler heads to prevail.

[ Parent ]
Right wing, yes. (0.00 / 0)
But under Donahue, it has become an extension, basically, of the Republican fund-raising and propaganda machine. As Chuck Shumer pointed out in the recent Senatorial elections:
"the Chamber donated $16.28 million to Republican candidates this election cycle, and only $329,000 to Democrats."
(link)
I'm pretty sure that before Donahue took over, the C of C did not endorse specific candidates. Donahue is very adept at leveraging personal loyalties to achieve the goals of a relatively small group of powerful elites. And the Chamber really did not operate like that before him.

[ Parent ]
It always was an extension the gop machine (4.00 / 1)
I remember their leaders in the 80s.  They used to run a political affairs program like McLaughlin group.  They were Reagan all the way, and during the 90s they promoted impeachment against Bill Clinton.  They have never been moderate.  There is no moderate wing to appeal to.

[ Parent ]
Here's a story on the opposition the Clinton Health plan (0.00 / 0)
from 1994.  http://www.encyclopedia.com/do...

This is not a historically moderate organization.  Donahue reflects the views of nearly all of them.


[ Parent ]
I agree with everything you're saying (4.00 / 1)
But we're talking about two different things. I never said the C of C was moderate. Far from it. Calvin's comment, which I was responding to, pointed out there's little accountability the Chamber will feel about how it uses taxpayer money because it doesn't care what taxpayers think. I'm merely amplifying that by saying that not only does the Chamber not care about what taxpayers think, which is probably always been true, but it no longer particularly cares about what business people think either because of its leadership's narrow focus on a powerful inner circle of DC and corporate elites and the different way it plays the money game in politics. Maybe this is too subtle of a point for this blog but I think it speaks to how, under the leadership of people like Tom Donahue, the way DC operates has changed over the past decade or so -- even for rightwing organizations like the Chamber.

[ Parent ]
Opposing EFCA (1.00 / 4)
is not an anti-worker...its anti-union.  It amazes me how the union can continue to skew this issue. EFCA has nothing to do with workers.  Workers are still forming unions today.  54% of of workplaces that wanted a union got one in 2008.  If people really want to be in a union, they join one.  Yes, some people get harrassed and fired by companies and the labor department should come down much harder on companies that do this.  However, unions also harrass and intimidate people as well.  EFCA will only increase and further inflame this issue.  The unions want this for one reason only....more people...more dues.  This is crap legislation and everyone knows it.  When you tell people about this legislation, they can't believe the unions are trying to push this.  

The Chamber using tax dollars to try to defeat this garbage is no different than the unions using members dues money to try and pass it.  talk about hypocracy!!!


This makes no sense: (4.00 / 4)
"The Chamber using tax dollars to try to defeat this garbage is no different than the unions using members dues money to try and pass it."

Huh? I'm not a member of a union, but I am a taxpayer (it's a matter of legality, ya' know?) and I resent seeing my funds used to support an agenda that is serving only the very powerful in our society.

[ Parent ]
you are missing some key points (4.00 / 1)
Yes, some people get harrassed and fired by companies and the labor department should come down much harder on companies that do this.

Um...they should, sure. But they don't. Guess what. Harassment and firing of people who want to form a union: kind of a big deal.

However, unions also harrass and intimidate people as well.

Assuming this is true, it's not pertinent to the Employee Free Choice Act. Why? Because cards exist now. Whatever intimidation you fear is constant with or without this bill -- and any solutions to such intimidation could be offered with or without this bill.

The only variable is: If a ton of workers sign cards (usually without intimidation) saying they want a union, does the boss get to override that, call for an election instead, and use a captive-audience environment for weeks to intimidate and harass workers? Employee Free Choice Act says no. Opponents say yes -- bring the intimidation of workers on.

The system right now is absolutely rigged against workers for this reason. The Employee Free Choice Act helps un-rig it. An attack on it is most definitely an attack on workers.


[ Parent ]
This isn't snark: (4.00 / 3)
I've read that a few times, and am wondering how unions manage to effectively harass and intimidate people in workplaces that are not unionized.

(Also be interested in seeing a link to the prevalence of this union harassment, if you have one.)


[ Parent ]
Just as you suspected . . . (4.00 / 1)
his only link is to the voices in his head.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Oh, also: link to that (4.00 / 2)
54% stat? That's interesting. What are the most common reasons that the 46% of workplaces that want a union do not get one?

[ Parent ]
If you have a boss, you need a union... (0.00 / 0)
If you ARE the boss, the workers need tar & feathers...

[ Parent ]
the workers don't need unions, (0.00 / 1)
the unions and the corporations need the workers.  How else are they going to maintain their lavish lifestyle of casinos and 4 star hotels.

[ Parent ]
I was wrong: If YOU'RE the 'boss,' (0.00 / 0)
they need a rope...

[ Parent ]
I may not agree with the comment (0.00 / 0)
but this does not deserve a troll rating.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Adam, Do You Have Any Names (4.00 / 1)
of the offending corporations?

I would be useful information, for a variety of reasons (better left to the imaginations of the reader).







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search